Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

It Still Feels a Little Unsafe. Maybe We Could Require the Swimmers to Wear Seat Belts?

Jesse Walker | 5.24.2006 10:54 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Texas cracks down on high dives.

[Via Virginia Postrel.]

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: New Orleans: Doomed

Jesse Walker is books editor at Reason and the author of Rebels on the Air and The United States of Paranoia.

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (13)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Paul W   19 years ago

    Per my reading of the article, it seemed to be referencing high dives at municipal swimming pools, which the government is free to include or exclude as it would like. It isn't (again per my reading) saying what kind of diving board you can have at your own, private pool.

  2. Timothy   19 years ago

    From the code:

    99) Pool--Any man-made permanently installed or non-portable structure, basin, chamber, or tank containing an artificial body of water that is used for swimming, diving, aquatic sports, or other aquatic activity other than a residential pool and that is operated by an owner, lessee, operator, licensee or concessionaire, regardless of whether a fee is charged for use. The pool may be either publicly or privately owned. The term does not include a spa or a decorative fountain that is not used as a pool. References within the standard to various types of pools are defined by the following categories.

    [Link]

  3. Timothy   19 years ago

    I take that to mean I can have a high-dive in my back yard, but, say, a local townhome association would have to meet the new standards.

  4. scape   19 years ago

    Moore says "there are studies all over the place" proving that diving boards put swimmers in peril.

    If you google "diving boards" and injuries I think you'll find that about 75% of diving injuries occur in lakes and rivers, not in swimming pools. And of those that do occur in pools, most come from diving off the deck into shallow water, not off boards in deep water.

  5. Number 6   19 years ago

    Paul- Your point is duely noted, but has little bearing on whether or not the law is silly. The linked article was not a meditation on who has the right to mandate diving board height, but an attack on the stupidity of a law passed by risk-phobic bureaucrats.

  6. Randolph Carter   19 years ago

    I haven't seen a high dive at any public-access pool in more than 10 years. There were the ubiquitous "some kid fell off it and died, so the club got sued" stories, and they fell off the landscape. Even the local YMCA, which has a high dive, only lets their diving team use it.

  7. Warren   19 years ago

    Oh holy dust of saint sandals. Can the Nanny State ever go too far? This is truly depressing. I think I can hold out till noon, but I'm pouring the rotgut at the stroke of twelve.

  8. Paul W   19 years ago

    The linked article was not a meditation on who has the right to mandate diving board height, but an attack on the stupidity of a law passed by risk-phobic bureaucrats.

    If the risk-phobic bureaucrats are, for example, paying liability insurance premiums, they might have a good reason for not wanting to have high-dive boards at the pools that they run. This is just supposition on my part, since the article doesn't really go into it. Frankly, the article is pretty poor, and doesn't clearly dileneate -- is a church or club prohibited from having a high dive, or just government-run pools? What exactly are talking about here?

  9. mediageek   19 years ago

    Warren, pour me one while you're at it.

  10. Pro Libertate   19 years ago

    How ever did I survive my largely unregulated youth?

  11. David   19 years ago

    Tell me about, PL. My brother and I used to jump off the roof of our house into the pool(maybe 5 ft at its deepest). Once you learned to angle your body the right way, it wasn't that dangerous.

    Frankly, the article is pretty poor, and doesn't clearly dileneate -- is a church or club prohibited from having a high dive, or just government-run pools? What exactly are talking about here?

    From Timothy's link, it seems like everything except residential pools.

  12. Larry A   19 years ago

    Damn, damn, damn!

    Frankly, the article is pretty poor, and doesn't clearly dileneate -- is a church or club prohibited from having a high dive, or just government-run pools?

    From the article I see that Cottonwood is city-owned (government.) I would presume that Gleneagles Country Club is private. And Texas Pool on the Creek is non-profit. I doubt there are any for-profit pools. Pretty well covers the territory.

  13. Timothy   19 years ago

    More from the code: Pool types are defined as follows:

    (A) Class A pool--Any pool used, with or without a fee, for accredited competitive aquatic events such as Federation Internationale De Natation Amateur (FINA), United States Swimming, United States Diving, National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), National Federation of State High School Associations (NFSHSA), events. A Class A pool may also be used for recreation.

    (B) Class B pool--Any pool used for public recreation and open to the general public with or without a fee.

    (C) Class C pool--Any pool operated for and in conjunction with:

    (i) lodging such as hotels, motels, apartments, condominiums, or mobile home parks;

    (ii) property owner associations, private organizations, or clubs; or

    (iii) a school, college or university while being operated for academic or continuing education classes. The use of such a pool would be open to occupants, members or students, etc., and their guests but not open to the general public.

    (D) Class D pool--A wading pool with a maximum water depth of 24 inches at any point.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Senate Votes 99–1 To Remove AI Moratorium from 'Big, Beautiful Bill' 

Jack Nicastro | 7.1.2025 12:27 PM

Why the 'Current Policy' Baseline Is a Massive Gimmick That Effectively Kills the Filibuster

Eric Boehm | 7.1.2025 12:00 PM

New Jersey Towns Face Setback in Lawsuit Against State's Affordable Housing Mandate

Tosin Akintola | 7.1.2025 11:45 AM

Why the NFLPA Kept Damning Collusion Evidence From Its Own Players

Jason Russell | 7.1.2025 11:25 AM

Legislation Will Not Protect Kids Online

Devin McCormick and Tom Pandolfi | 7.1.2025 11:05 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!