SCUBA-SE Archives

September 2000

SCUBA-SE@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Lee Bell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SouthEast US Scuba Diving Travel list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:16:54 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
David Strike wrote:

> To be fair to Queensland ALL of their diving regulations are - by my
> understanding - far more liberal and considerably less restrictive than
the
> OSHA standards.  Aren't they?  :-)

Possibly.  As I understand it, however, OSHA standards apply only to those
on the job, covering them while they are.  It appears the Queensland code
includes responsibilities to recreational divers that, as far as I know, are
not included in OSHA regulations.

In all of the information you've passed on to me over the years, I've found
very little to object to in the concepts included in Queensland codes.
Pretty much everything makes sense.  My only real objections are:
1. They seem to be created at the slightest provocation, often as a result
of a single instance of a problem amidst thousands of successful dives.  In
short, they seem to be a bit over zealous in their effort to legislate
safety for everyone.  Since they have no chance of succeeding I find this
tendency disagreeable.
2. The seem to place an awful lot of responsibility on the diving operators,
including things that the diving operator simply can't control effectively.
As a strong proponent of self responsibility, I also find this disagreeable.
While there are some things that the operator can do, such as keep a
lookout, be reasonably prepared and able to provide assistance, etc., most
of what keeps a diver safe is beyond the control of the operator.
3. While they are referred to as a Code of Practice, they seem to have the
force of law, at least if/when an accident occurs.

In terms of coverage, the codes seem to be fairly good.  The goals seem
solid, the procedures logical and potentially beneficial and, so far, not so
extensive as to stiffle the industry.  Of course, being the skeptic that I
am, particularly working for my national government as I do, I expect taht
to change.  One of the few things I consider more certain that death or
taxes, is that given a chance, politicians will increase regulation, always
for the best of reasons, until nobody can do anything, ever.

Of course, there could be plenty of argument about whether the Queensland
codes are any worse than the U.S. way of doing things . . . let the industry
police itself and set up a legal system that allows anyone to sue anyone
else for anything, real or imagined, sometimes collecting substantial
amounts of damages for things that were mostly their own fault, sometimes
collecting nothing for serious injuries which were not their fault.  All
things told, I prefer our way, but would not want to have to defend it
against yours in any kind of international debate.

Hey!!!  How did I get on such a serious discussion of something that started
out as a joke.  Sorry if it wasn't funny.

BTW, how'd you like the Olympic Advice?

Lee

ATOM RSS1 RSS2