Rebreathers Don't Kill, People do

[Sarah]

I think the thread entitled How Rebreathers Kill People is curious. I figured if a rebreather can pick itself up and attack a person and kill them or explode when someone walks by like it is some improvised explosive device, then so can a car.

So today as I drove to the supermarket I decided to count the ways my car can kill me.

1. Fail to press on the brake pedal when I need to brake.

2. Press on the gas pedal all the way down and never let up.

3. After going 80km in speed down the road, when I need to slow down to make the turn into the supermarket parking lot, I won't adjust my speed.

4. If a car comes in my direction path, I shall not use the steering wheel to effect a directional change, I'll just plow straight forward.

5. I will ask someone to smoke a cigarette right near the gas station pump nozzle as I fill my gas tank.

6. I will never add air to my tires and I will still drive 100kms per hour on the highways.

7. I will never have any of the steering or driveline joints lubricated, I will just drive till it breaks or the driveshaft snaps and comes crashing through the floor.

8. From now on I will only use the gas pedal and not the steering wheel.

9. When I get home, I will drive into the garage and when I approach the concrete wall, I won't slow down nor ever apply the brake pedal.

10. If I am not killed by the car after # 9, then I will leave the engine running, put the vehicle transmission in neutral, close the garage door behind me and rev the engine for as many minutes as it takes.

If I am injured or killed, no matter what it will be the cars fault, because it wasn't made or designed so that if I do not operate it properly, it won't injure or kill.

Along those lines:

1. If I fail to maintain a CCR, it will be the rebreather's fault.

2. If I fail to do a positive and negative pressure check and have a massive loop flood with insufficient bailout, it will be the rebreather's fault.

3. If I fail to calibrate the sensors and go hyperoxic or hypoxic, it will be the rebreather's fault.

4. If I calibrate on 50% 02 in the 02 cylinder and 40% 02 in the dil tank by telling the computer the 02 cylinder is 99% 02 and the dil is 21% o2, it will be the rebreather's fault.

5. If I fail to turn on the electronics, do a bubble check at 5 meters, listen for the solenoid to fire or look at the wrist set or HUD and check p02, and descend anyway, it will be the rebreather's fault.

6. If I fail to turn on the 02 and the dil cylinder, it will be the rebreather's fault.

7. If I fail to change the sorb and have a monster c02 hit at 100m, it will be the rebreather's fault.

8. If I fail to read and follow the user manual, it will be the rebreather's fault.

9. If I use the wrong sensors, it will be the rebreather's fault.

10. If I had an Inspiration Classic and after calibrating kept hearing the p02 alarm go off so I banged the primary controller hard against the boat railing repeatedly till the alarm stopped then did the dive and killed myself, it would be the rebreather's fault.

ALL the above 10 behaviors listed above for CCR usage have occurred and killed CCR users.

You be the judge.

[gobfish1]

think some one is ripping your work off ,

http://www.deeparmchair.com/forums/showthread.php?t=477:eek:

[Sarah]

Yes, I have seen it. Their admin is aware it, and is affirmatively allowing it claiming free speech. Right!

[ccr_ada]

well you may want to read this

Apd Inspiration Death Usa 2002 - Legal Papers

http://www.deeparmchair.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54

[Richard Lundgren]

ALL the above 10 behaviors listed above for CCR usage have occurred and killed CCR users.

You be the judge.

Sarah, if only life would be that simple.

take care
Richard Lundgren

[MSD]

What Sarah is saying is that human factors are an important aspect of accidents. That's true to a certain extent, but as stated, such arguments don't lead anywhere.

Since Sarah takes up road transport as a comparison, let's continue the parallel. Since the road user (the driver) is given full responsibility for their actions and eventual outcomes under the stated doctrine, there is clearly no point in vehicle manufacturers trying to design safer cars, traffic planners designing safer roads or politicians legislating for better driver education and behaviour, for example outlawing drinking alcohol and driving, speeding etc. In fact nobody has any incentive to to do anythng.

Most of the improvments in traffic safety achieved over the last decades have come from tackling these issues in a collective fashion. Leaving things to individuals doesn't work very well. The issue is not "any stupid person could make a mistake, that's their problem, not mine" but "how do I ensure that even if somebody stupid does make a mistake (and yes that person could be me), they don't pay for that mistake with their life?"

Mark

[Sarah]

[quote]there is clearly no point in vehicle manufacturers trying to design safer cars[quote]

This above is a debate tactic called the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy executed with a straw argument.

Rebreather manufactuers can and do engage in a reasonable efforts to make their equipment safe, but car manufacturers cannot reasonably make their cars such that if I fail to use the brakes or the steering wheel after accelerating to 70 mph, I cannot be unjured.

Rebreather manufacturers cannot reasonably make their equipment so that it cannot be used without turning it all on and doing all your checks. Lawyers don't care, they sue anyway, and all they really accomplish is redistribution of wealth from proper users to the laywers and some going to improper users of just about everything.

Automobile manufacturers add thousands of dollars to every car in the way of more equipment to reduce injuries when people don't take responsibility for their own actions. Of those thousands a sizable portion goes to insurance companies and lawyers.

As to roadways, municipalities have more or less unlimited financial resources to attempt to make them less accident prone as they just use money they got from shaking down citizens.

[krautrob]

It's not the point that many accidents could in principle be prevented by propper care. The question is how many different things you have to get right (what's the chance of missing one), how difficult is getting these things right and what are the consequences if you happen to get one or two wrong. I think along this line is the argument of many people against rebreathers.

However, by naming this thread in this way you make clear that you give some credit to the original argument involving guns. And there, at least to me, it's clear this line of blaming the user is obviously misguided.

[LookSukasese]

Wow thats really interesting. Thnx for sharing!
. (http://markantoffice.com/phorum/page216.html). (http://markantoffice.com/boards/page158.html). (http://markantoffice.com/boards/page16.html). (http://markantoffice.com/portal/page68.html). (http://markantoffice.com/portal/page25.html). (http://markantoffice.com/libr/page291.html). (http://markantoffice.com/wiki/page233.html). (http://markantoffice.com/portal/page202.html). (http://markantoffice.com/libr/page74.html). (http://markantoffice.com/libr/page116.html). (http://markantoffice.com/portal/page37.html). (http://markantoffice.com/libr/page87.html). (http://markantoffice.com/wiki/page180.html). (http://markantoffice.com/libr/page223.html). (http://markantoffice.com/libr/page298.html). (http://markantoffice.com/libr/page11.html). (http://markantoffice.com/libr/page198.html). (http://markantoffice.com/libr/page130.html). (http://markantoffice.com/libr/page203.html). (http://markantoffice.com/libr/page251.html)