Mark,
In my uninformed opinion, I think the new trapeze rule 40.2, "A trapeze or hiking harness shall have a device capable of quickly releasing the competitor from the boat at all times while in use," allows the trapeze harnesses we already are using. It sounds like the purpose is to eliminate "continuous" trapeze systems that attach you to the boat, or maybe people actually tying themselves to the boat for purposes of hiking or trapezing.
Nobody has asked whether this is going to extend to disallowing tethers, as well, since they attach you to the boat. In some cases you WANT to be attached to the boat, and in some cases you don't. How can you legislate this stuff?
The mere fact that there is so much confusion and discussion about the meaning of the rule makes it obvious that lawyers would have a field day with it.
As far as a race committee waiving the rule, that depends upon the interpretation of the rule, which we still do not have. If it includes tethering, and if tethers are attached to trapeze harnesses, I would assume the rule would have to be waived for long-distance catamaran races.
EVERYTHING in life and in the world is potentially dangerous. Even life jackets have resulted in drownings because of people being trapped beneath boats and not being able to swim out.
Race committees can mandate whatever they want. If you don't like it, you can pack up and go home. ISAF and US Sailing have not made a rule requiring all racing sailors to wear life jackets at all times. And neither has the Coast Guard. I would be totally opposed to a rule like that, and apparently I am not alone.
ISAF and US Sailing should educate rather than legislate. Sailors are not stupid. Give us the facts and statistics and anecdotal evidence and let us make up our own minds about what equipment we think is safe or unsafe.
As far as cars, I really don't think anybody is interested in my opinions, considering that I think electrically-controlled windows in cars are responsible for a lot of drownings. Give me a crank any day. Should the government require car manufacturers to go back to manual-crank windows just because people keep driving into canals in Florida?
Seat belts? No problem, because I can't be forced to wear them.
Air bags? Problem, because I don't have a choice. The government can force the manufacturers to put air bags into their vehicles, but I, as the consumer, should not be forced to have an air bag if I don't want it. Air bags save lives, but they also cause deaths. In fact, a member of Rick's family is partially paralyzed for life because of an air bag (seems he was too tall, and the air bag deployed in a minor, 15-mph incident in a parking lot. Hit him under the chin and broke a vertebra.) The manufacturers should give you the option of air bags at no extra cost. If you want a car without them, it should be available. Just like you should be able to get a car with crank windows.
