Madison Oxygen Bottle Warning

[Jay]

A simpler sign stating "Removing diving equipment not belonging to you from the water is considered theft and will be punished to the full extent of the law"

[Nitrogenius]

Kicking those goons out of the park is a good start, but heck, they just stole several hundred dollars worth of gear and could have killed somebody!

Well I somewhat disagree on the killing concept.
The could have killed should only be valid in case something else went wrong on the dive.
Other than that your gas planning should always account for being able to have the gas and do the time without the O2!
This is standard protocol for single deco gas decompression diving in OW and is exactly same valid and important for deco diving in an OHE..
Obviously using a second deco gas changes this as then the accepted protocol os that one would plan for the loss/innaccessibilty of either one of those gases..


Essentially it remains the same redundancy planning logic as everything else in cave diving. At minimum you need to have redundancy/contingency for the loss of one life supporting element along your dive.
This might be your deco gas!
So if this is missing after a dive this should only give you trouble in case you had another gas issue along the dive already, otherwise your gas planning is flawed!

[FW]

A simpler sign stating "Removing diving equipment not belonging to you from the water is considered theft and will be punished to the full extent of the law"

How about "Theft is already against the law"

[Benderr]

You will have the lawyers lining up to take you to court. They will make this sound like you left a tank of gas, matches and fireworks in the middle of the sandbox during recess!

Good luck proving the cause of an AGE.
Good luck proving oxtox as a cause of death.
Good luck proving that my tank had anything to do with either of the first two.



Ginnie could always require a freediving cert. No mask/snorkel without a cert. Wouldn't stop the folks that entered from the river, and wouldn't change anything at other locations.

[SlowDiver]

I do believe that placing tanks farther in is the answer.


JCG

That is one answer but for me I think we need to get back to having respect for one another's property. If the item is not yours then don't take it. My wife and her family were all educators in the public school system and the way the society is going I don't see it getting any better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[WEPIV]

I dove yesterday with a buddy at LR and it was so crowded with swimmers that we decided to take our O2 bottles all the way down to the gold line just in case.

[DeputyTom]

Surely you're not suggesting that if I put my deco tank inside the cave and someone swims in, breathes from it, and hurts themselves for some reason (over expansion injury, high pO2, etc) that *I* bear some responsibility for their injury...are you?

Brian

A good (scumbag) lawyer will surely spin it that way.

[MarkR]

Well I somewhat disagree on the killing concept.
The could have killed should only be valid in case something else went wrong on the dive.
Other than that your gas planning should always account for being able to have the gas and do the time without the O2!
This is standard protocol for single deco gas decompression diving in OW and is exactly same valid and important for deco diving in an OHE..
Obviously using a second deco gas changes this as then the accepted protocol os that one would plan for the loss/innaccessibilty of either one of those gases..


Essentially it remains the same redundancy planning logic as everything else in cave diving. At minimum you need to have redundancy/contingency for the loss of one life supporting element along your dive.
This might be your deco gas!
So if this is missing after a dive this should only give you trouble in case you had another gas issue along the dive already, otherwise your gas planning is flawed!

Holy cow.. I did say "could have". Removing somebodys gas supply, that is factored into a layer of redunancy certainly could lead to a fatality. i am not sure how you could disagree with this.

Good luck proving the cause of an AGE.
Good luck proving oxtox as a cause of death.
Good luck proving that my tank had anything to do with either of the first two.

I am certainly no lawyer, but I don't think this would be that hard. Even if o2 tox is not the cause, A kid could grab your tank, and go swimming around and get lost / stuck etc. And.. If I am correct, the burden of proof is quite a bit lower in civil suits. So you might not up for crimial prosecution, but you could still get your shorts sued off.

Ginnie could always require a freediving cert. No mask/snorkel without a cert...

uh,,, I don't see this happening. At all.

[DeputyTom]

I've seen these types of cases and have been personally involved in one that I will not get into here. It's amazing how lawyers can sway a jury in criminal and civil cases.

[Nitrogenius]

Holy cow.. I did say "could have". Removing somebodys gas supply, that is factored into a layer of redunancy certainly could lead to a fatality. i am not sure how you could disagree with this

I don't disagree. But this pops up frequently and makes me wonder how much folks might depend on the O2 to be there when they shouldn't..
If you meant it as a missing layer of redundancy once it is missing it is all good