Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has launched a Government website called yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk. It invites proposals for regulations that should be scrapped and strikes me as an excellent initiative. Rather than just some corporatist initiative where only special interests and civil servants take part it has been opened up to the public. Anyone can post a proposal or comment on the proposals of others. Certainly among thousands of ideas put up so far plenty are spoofs or unrealistic.
But there is already a vast amount of material which I hope the Government will take seriously.
Take this one from a publican:
Landlords should not have to spend hundreds of pounds to get a door license to allow them to uphold the licensing objectives imposed on them. In order to hold an alcohol license, you need a CRB check and to take exams to ensure that you understand your responsibilities. If I wanted to stand on my own door and stop drunkards entering, I now need to have a door badge, however I can still be prosecuted if I fail to stop them coming in.
This is another tax on responsible members of the trade in order to simply do their job. Obtaining the door license is just another box ticking exercise which has to be accompanied by yet another three figure cheque to a government organisation, it is more red tape on an industry which is already suffering massively due to the actions of the previous government.
Or this one from a motorcyclist:
By law Motorcycle Helmet's Visors, like glass in the windows of cars, are not allowed to be tinted more than a certain amount. To a certain extent, this is understandable, but on particularly sunny days the glare can be really bad, and so the only alternative is to wear sunglasses under the visor. However, if the rider then goes into a tunnel, or say into the shade of trees, unlike a visor, (which can be flicked up more or less instantly and so allows continued safe riding in the conditions) the sunglasses can't be taken off without stopping, perhaps de-gloving, taking the glasses off, finding somewhere to put them etc etc. This is all incredibly silly when compared to just allowing a tinted visor in the first place. That way, when there is a safety issue concerning glare whilst riding, the rider retains the option of flicking it out of vision straight away.
Further to this, there is no restriction on the amount of tint that Sunglasses can have, but there is a restriction on the amount of tint that a visor can have.
So, something that can be removed is not allowed to be tinted beyond a certain amount for safety reasons, but something that can't be removed can be so dark it's unusable in normal conditions.
This is completely daft, and deserves taking out of any regulations or statute that presumably has originally been written by some well meaning but in-experienced non-motocycle rider.
I think this is an important safety consideration and whilst the original idea was to harmonise the Car and Motorcycle levels of tint, as they are deployed in different ways not repealing this regulation
is creating conditions that are specifically hazardous to motocyclists when they don't need to be, and also when motorcyclists are already dealing with so many other deadly hazards on the road.
There is a sensible proposal for scaling back CRB requirements. I wonder how much local councils spend on CRB checks or the countless other regulatory burdens. Should we rely on the Local Government Association to send a list after great deliberation and efforts to achieve consensus? It would be good if they did. But I also think we should get on with making our individual proposals on the Your Freedom website.