Why ‘everyone is responsible for their own risk-based decisions’ isn’t the right approach to take

[sigxbill]

Caveat Emptor - words to live by.

I always get nervous when the topic of transferring responsibility to someone else comes up. So now there are watchers watching over you - and often limiting your diving locations. But who is watching the watchers, and why should they be over me - limiting my choices just because someone else made a poor decision?

The only way for consumers to make informed choices, is for there to be competition.

It is true - that divers often don't have all the information to make sound decisions - you don't know what you don't know - but that is just like life. The only difference is that scuba is one of those niches in life that hides part of their information. But even with the hidden information, even the worst instruction I have observed has made the limits of their training clear. So for me, there is no excuse for accidents beyond training level. I have always shared with my students that the reason I dive within my trained limits is the same reason they should - because when you don't know the dangers outside of training and how to mitigate them, one can't logically accept the risk. The other reason I don't is because of the times I have broken 'the rules', many have included a scare! - LOL!

Some examples of purposefully hidden diving data are: # of accidents per capita by agency - this would give real numbers for consumers to compare, and would probably be the single most influential quality influencing pressure that could ever be reported! Another data hider is the existence of the RSTC - which causes consumers and instructors to either think that all agencies are the same, or should be the same. This is probably the actual most influential pressure that reduces competition - which is great for the biggest players - and bad for the smaller players that want to compete on quality.

Anything that limits information from the consumer, limits competition. The two easiest ways to improve consumer's ability to make informed decisions about operators is to encourage agencies to compete by publishing per capita accident data by agency, and eliminate the rstc (or at least eliminate the thing that reduces competition - rstc minimum standards).

cheers

 

[KenGordon]

Over the years equipment and training have changed taking account of observed accidents. There is no need for a modern, trained diver to have an accident. They might have medical events or the might get bent if their number comes up, but failures due to skills or judgement are largely unnecessary IF they follow their training and dive within their limits.

Reading incident reports it is clear that many accidents start happening before the divers get in the water. They start with a plan which leaves you thinking “why did they think that was ok?”.

My view is that the sugar coating of diving as a safe activity and the lack of enough practical planning doesn’t help. And then culture. On here it is common that 40m is put forward as the limit for OW divers, even though a new OW diver really ought not to be allowed out on their own. It is also extremely common to hear that DMs and instructors are taking divers beyond reasonable depths, so encouraging those divers to ignore limits for the rest of their diving career.

 

[KenGordon]

Caveat Emptor - words to live by.

I always get nervous when the topic of transferring responsibility to someone else comes up. So now there are watchers watching over you - and often limiting your diving locations. But who is watching the watchers, and why should they be over me?

The only way for consumers to make informed choices, is for there to be competition.

It is true - that divers often don't have all the information to make sound decisions - you don't know what you don't know - but that is just like life. The only difference is that scuba is one of those niches in life that hides part of their information. But even with the hidden information, even the worst instruction I have observed has made the limits of their training clear. So for me, there is no excuse for accidents beyond training level. I have always shared with my students that the reason I dive within my trained limits is the same reason they should - because when you don't know the dangers outside of training and how to mitigate them, one can't logically accept the risk. The other reason I don't is because of the times I have broken 'the rules', many have included a scare! - LOL!

Some examples of purposefully hidden diving data are: # of accidents per capita by agency - this would give real numbers for consumers to compare, and would probably be the single most influential quality influencing pressure that could ever be reported! Another data hider is the existence of the RSTC - which causes consumers and instructors to either think that all agencies are the same, or should be the same. This is probably the actual most influential pressure that reduces competition - which is great for the biggest players - and bad for the smaller players that want to compete on quality.

Anything that limits information from the consumer, limits competition. The two easiest ways to improve consumer's ability to make informed decisions about operators is to encourage agencies to compete by publishing per capita accident data by agency, and eliminate the rstc (or at least eliminate the thing that reduces competition - rstc minimum standards).

cheers

You haven’t noticed that there is only really one scuba training agency?

Free markets are never really free, just try hard enough to give the illusion of freedom.

BTW, for BSAC I can tell you there is about 1 incident (reported) per 100 divers per year, and RSTC doesn’t apply there.

 

[chrisch]

....
With free unregulated industries I guess the consumer is in charge by deciding where to spend their money, who to support,...

This introduces the factor of cost. It is clear to me that many people see scuba training (at least at OW-AOW level) as a generic and so shop on price. There seems to be an inherent belief that safety is a given - that (despite being unregulated) the regulations will ensure safety.

Much has been made of the fact that you don't know what you don't know. This rather obvious fact is clear in consumer choice - if consumers do not know that the industry is unregulated they make a choice believing a false premise - that they are being kept safe by regulation.

Here in the UK there is safety regulation in the workplace designed to keep safe employees from unscrupulous employers that cut corners to increase profit. Professional scuba instructors are "at work" and are covered by this legislation. The people they are teaching are not "at work". Nevertheless there are agreed standards for in water cover and surface support etc.

I think - FWIW - the adulation of personal responsibility is very much a cultural thing. Taking responsibility for one's actions is very much a good thing, we need to face up to the damage we have done to the environment for example. But it is also true that humans are not homogenous - we come in all shapes and sizes and all sorts of mental and cultural variants. Personal gain can and often does override responsibility. Some regulation or at least supervision is also a good thing, an agreed minimum standard for example. If everyone adheres to the minimum standard then personal choice (and with it responsibility) can play a bigger role.

Anything taken to extreme tends to be bad. Personal responsibility included. We are social animals, creatures of the herd if you like. Not everyone has the internal strength to resist what evolution has programmed us to do. We can aspire to taking full responsibility for our actions but - as humans - we must accept that sometimes not everyone is capable of achieving that aspiration. Life is not polarised between two choices and humans are not machines. That's really what makes life interesting and worth living.

 

[The Chairman]

Okay, and many people will, once familiarity breeds contempt, quit using it. Are you okay with that, or are you going to try to 'do something about it?'

And so starts the progression to being an OSHAesque environment. Scuba has always been based on personal responsibility and that needs to be strengthened, not weakened.

Pete, please, please, please please go back and read the links I gave on the either/or; false dilemma, black/white fallacy.

First, perhaps you should read them yourself. Just because I disagree with your assessment doesn't mean I don't understand those logical fallacies nor does it mean I have committed them. You're doing to me, precisely what you're accusing me of. Start with the man in the mirror.

Can you evert conceive of the possibility that somewhere, sometime, some diver did not have enough knowledge to recognize the danger and took the word of a seasoned professional, a recognized expert, that there was nothing to fear in the dive?

John, I've done those dives, much to my shame. Trust me dives are anathema to safe Scuba. Are you condoning them? Are you accepting them as being OK or even normal? I don't think so. Your "ever" indicates that these are exceptions, rather than the rule. I'm not addressing the "evers"... I'm addressing the majority of dives by the majority of divers. What you are referring to is nothing but peer pressure. Adding in some self proclaimed expert doesn't change that one whit. Might as well say "Hold my beer" as you splash.

I guess this would place the responsibility onto the consumer to keep the system in line.

I want to keep it that way.

A third could be bad press thanks to the internet, but ultimately that could develop into lost market share.

ScubaBoard at your service. A cursory search on dive gear, safety and whatnot usually brings you right here. I can't tell you how much I love Google. I don't have much sympathy for those who don't GTS and get a crappy class. The answer is out there. The answer is right here.

 

[johndiver999]

Dive training is not perfect, probably flawed in many instances, but the ultimate responsibility for the safety of
a certified diver must continue to fall upon the diver.

The alternative is a very slippery slope of relying on government to fix things and set standards. It would massively drive up costs, reduce participation and facilitate black market diving.

Reducing accidents by Improving training seems like it
might help, especially when you consider the relatively high accident rate of divers being trained or recently certified, but attempting to transfer responsibility to some governmental agency isn’t the best way to accomplish this.

 

[The Chairman]

especially when you consider the relatively high accident rate of divers being trained or recently certified,

I don't think this has been established. Accidents don't seem to be all that high for the number of dives going on.

 

[Kharon]

Didn't read the whole thread - way too long at this point. But I certainly choose personal responsibility over the nanny state. There is entirely too much protecting me from myself in the USA today. It's effing suffocating.

For example, there is a big legeslative push to force everyone that buys a table saw to have a SawStop installed. The SawStop will clamp the blade stopped in miliseconds if flesh (or a hotdog) touches it. Will it protect the numbnuts that disregard safe operating procedures - yes. Does everyone need one - most certainly not.

Oh, and once the SawStop activates, it's dead. You have to buy another at a very high price and get it installed before you can use your saw again. Give me a break. I'll protect myself, thank you very much.

Just thought of something - in court "Ignorance of the law is no defense". And I'd bet we are all at least 95% ignorant of the huge mass of written law. LOL

 

[chrisch]

Dive training is not perfect, probably flawed in many instances, but the ultimate responsibility for the safety of
a certified diver must continue to fall upon the diver.
..

But prior to certification who is responsible for safety?

There is a real confusion between a number of issues being discussed here (by everyone not this post in particular)

Prior to instruction a diver has not been given the knowledge and tools to evaluate the risk of any given action. It is the responsibility of the training organisation and it's staff/contractors to impart that and to ensure that it is understood. Post training the diver is responsible for his or her actions and to honour the promise they made to stay within the current level of training they have received.

It is not reasonable to expect a person to calculate a risk they do not comprehend. We do not let children drive cars.

I think everyone is in agreement that if a person deliberately ignores that which they know then they should bear the responsibility of any harm that results.

Currently the agreed standards are imposed by the training agencies. Provided this works (which it appears to do) then this voluntary system is adequate. Additional regulation (as here in the UK) is to protect the employee or contractor in their workplace. It is not there to absolve the diver of their responsibility or to be some sort of nanny state to oversee diving.

The student is protected as a result of the laws in respect of negligence. The school and instructors owe a duty of care to those who are under instruction. Again this is reasonable and does not absolve the student of his or her responsibility to follow the instructions given.

Perhaps in recent years the development of no win no fee legal systems has created an opportunity for unscrupulous people to claim money for accidents of their own making. This fraudulent "industry" is wrong at every level and requires the government to intervene but it (government) is unwilling to as it makes a lot of money for a lot of people and is popular with those who profit from it. It is IMHO easy to confuse this with a change in wider society which it is not. The rather outrageous financial settlements are then given a lot of media attention to pretend that something is very wrong, even though such settlements are rare. As a result the insurance industry likes to keep itself safe behind procedures and rules that might seem over zealous to many people.

If I am honest I think a lot of people are getting over animated about something that really isn't much of an issue. It's easy enough to see what is clearly right and clearly wrong, the only debate is the grey area in between. Thankfully there isn't much of that.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

I would say the bigger reasons for divers fatality rate dropping was the introduction of the BC, SPG, and cave training.
Bob

At the same time we have current threads about people diving with sticking SPGs and others promoting the use of pony bottles in case you run out of air. Even with better equipment, there will always be divers who choose to dive in an unsafe manner.