Allow Pets to Travel Internationally

Where did this crazy myth start up, that the Continent is riddled with rabies?

Fill in the missing letters: T*b*oids.

There might have been some rabies issue in the 80s, but within a few years of spraying animal habitats with antidote food-pellets, the number of infected aniimals had dimininshed to practically zero. This was achieved within a few years by the 1990s.

Yet it was NEVER reported on.

Well, it’s now 20 years on from 1990, and we’re still the nanny state we were then. (Even worse if you count everything else.)

A number of other rabies-free countries (like Finland and Cyprus) have already signed up for the Schengen freedom-of-movement agreement. And I’d hate to count the number of times I’ve been scratched and bitten by playful cats on the Continent.

Time we reviewed and reformed this uniquely British crazy law.

Why is this idea important?

Where did this crazy myth start up, that the Continent is riddled with rabies?

Fill in the missing letters: T*b*oids.

There might have been some rabies issue in the 80s, but within a few years of spraying animal habitats with antidote food-pellets, the number of infected aniimals had dimininshed to practically zero. This was achieved within a few years by the 1990s.

Yet it was NEVER reported on.

Well, it’s now 20 years on from 1990, and we’re still the nanny state we were then. (Even worse if you count everything else.)

A number of other rabies-free countries (like Finland and Cyprus) have already signed up for the Schengen freedom-of-movement agreement. And I’d hate to count the number of times I’ve been scratched and bitten by playful cats on the Continent.

Time we reviewed and reformed this uniquely British crazy law.

DIY – Relax Constraints

If I want to put in or alter gas instalations at home or on my boat I am preveted from doing so either by direct prohibition or by prohibition on retailers supplying the equipment. If I want to instal or alter a mains electrical circuit in my kitchen or bathroom I must get my local authority or a professional electrician to check it at my expence.

These are both safety issues and I do not want to underplay the importance of safety. However in drawing up the recent regulations there was consultation with trade and safety organisations but no balancing representation of DIY interests because they do not exist. To a great extent, therefore, these regulations represent a restrictive practice.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

If I want to put in or alter gas instalations at home or on my boat I am preveted from doing so either by direct prohibition or by prohibition on retailers supplying the equipment. If I want to instal or alter a mains electrical circuit in my kitchen or bathroom I must get my local authority or a professional electrician to check it at my expence.

These are both safety issues and I do not want to underplay the importance of safety. However in drawing up the recent regulations there was consultation with trade and safety organisations but no balancing representation of DIY interests because they do not exist. To a great extent, therefore, these regulations represent a restrictive practice.

 

 

Revise the smoking ban

I am a smoker and do appreciate the improvements in general that have been acheived in the UK by this law.

I am also aware of the absurdity that exists where in some cases pubs now have a external smoking zone on public footpaths creating a congested area of drinking, smoking rowdies and a 'fog' of smoke which other members of the public have to pass through or avoid by crossing to the other side of the street.

It also creates late night noise and disturbance outside pubs and clubs where neither the 'landlord' nor the authorities are able/willing to address unless it escalates to another level and finally creates litter in the form of cigarette butts, empty beer glassess, broken glass and other litter spread around the vicinity.

I have noted that in some cases, airports for example, smoking areas have sensibly been re- introduced inside the terminal building, albeit that they are not actually 'in the building' and are distinctly basic, to avoid smokers taking to the toilets for a final fix before their flights.

The law is virtually unenforceable with regard to lorry drivers who smoke in their 'company' cabs.

The law must also have deterred a proportion of the public from 'dining out' although this probably has encouraged non smokers to enjoy themselves more.

I also have visited restuarants, bars and other places abroad where smokers are allowed but segregated from non smokers; where there are 'smoking allowed' and 'non smoking' establishments and thsi approach seems sensible.

The 'one size fits all' is fine for the nanny state where it is practical and can be made to work without creating other problems, but why can't the Smoking Ban be revised to allow some degree of choice with proper controls (e.g. extraction/filtering of air) and where smoking is licensed inside buildings.

I do not advocate a repeal as I think the principle is good but I would like to see some revisions to address the balance and provide flexibility and practicality.

Why is this idea important?

I am a smoker and do appreciate the improvements in general that have been acheived in the UK by this law.

I am also aware of the absurdity that exists where in some cases pubs now have a external smoking zone on public footpaths creating a congested area of drinking, smoking rowdies and a 'fog' of smoke which other members of the public have to pass through or avoid by crossing to the other side of the street.

It also creates late night noise and disturbance outside pubs and clubs where neither the 'landlord' nor the authorities are able/willing to address unless it escalates to another level and finally creates litter in the form of cigarette butts, empty beer glassess, broken glass and other litter spread around the vicinity.

I have noted that in some cases, airports for example, smoking areas have sensibly been re- introduced inside the terminal building, albeit that they are not actually 'in the building' and are distinctly basic, to avoid smokers taking to the toilets for a final fix before their flights.

The law is virtually unenforceable with regard to lorry drivers who smoke in their 'company' cabs.

The law must also have deterred a proportion of the public from 'dining out' although this probably has encouraged non smokers to enjoy themselves more.

I also have visited restuarants, bars and other places abroad where smokers are allowed but segregated from non smokers; where there are 'smoking allowed' and 'non smoking' establishments and thsi approach seems sensible.

The 'one size fits all' is fine for the nanny state where it is practical and can be made to work without creating other problems, but why can't the Smoking Ban be revised to allow some degree of choice with proper controls (e.g. extraction/filtering of air) and where smoking is licensed inside buildings.

I do not advocate a repeal as I think the principle is good but I would like to see some revisions to address the balance and provide flexibility and practicality.

repeal non life threatening health and safety laws

If the State tries too hard to protect us from minor incidents we will be unprepared for major incidents when they occur.This applies particularly to children;

Quite simply the health and safety authorities should be forbidden to interfere with any activity unless a there is reasonable expectation that there is a risk of death or serious injury likely to occur.

Children will then be free to play "conkers" and take part in"egg and spoon races" and adult functions will be able to take place without restrictions from hordes of officials.

Why is this idea important?

If the State tries too hard to protect us from minor incidents we will be unprepared for major incidents when they occur.This applies particularly to children;

Quite simply the health and safety authorities should be forbidden to interfere with any activity unless a there is reasonable expectation that there is a risk of death or serious injury likely to occur.

Children will then be free to play "conkers" and take part in"egg and spoon races" and adult functions will be able to take place without restrictions from hordes of officials.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON MOTORWAYS

Allow traffic to flow freely on all lanes of the moterway, overtaking should be allowed on any lane, this works perfectly well in the US.  Allowing all lanes to be fully used would increase space and stop the frustration caused by slow vehicles in the middle and outside lanes.

Why is this idea important?

Allow traffic to flow freely on all lanes of the moterway, overtaking should be allowed on any lane, this works perfectly well in the US.  Allowing all lanes to be fully used would increase space and stop the frustration caused by slow vehicles in the middle and outside lanes.

Road Safety Partnerships

Based on my own experiences with the Lancashire Partnership For Road Safety there is no question that these pathetic organisations should be the first for the chop. I have contacted them to ask why they do not prosecute drivers who us mobile phones, speeding motor cyclists or why they don't setup a speed camera at an accident black spot near my home only to be told that none of these aspects of road safety are in their remit!

It is also clear that these organisations will go to the far ends of the earth to secure a minor motoring offence to enable them to get paid overtime teaching the 'Speed Awareness' courses at weekend.

Why is this idea important?

Based on my own experiences with the Lancashire Partnership For Road Safety there is no question that these pathetic organisations should be the first for the chop. I have contacted them to ask why they do not prosecute drivers who us mobile phones, speeding motor cyclists or why they don't setup a speed camera at an accident black spot near my home only to be told that none of these aspects of road safety are in their remit!

It is also clear that these organisations will go to the far ends of the earth to secure a minor motoring offence to enable them to get paid overtime teaching the 'Speed Awareness' courses at weekend.

Lift Restrictions on Unisex Toilets

There are several regulations under HASAWA and elsewhere that restrict or prohibit unisex toilets in workplaces and public buildings, including entertainment venues. Properly managed unisex toilets make possible more flexible use of facilities.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

There are several regulations under HASAWA and elsewhere that restrict or prohibit unisex toilets in workplaces and public buildings, including entertainment venues. Properly managed unisex toilets make possible more flexible use of facilities.

 

 

Simplify ADR regulations for small goods vehicles

Currently, drivers of all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes (ie Transit size and up) which are used to transport dangerous goods by road are required to take an ADR course and pass a test on the topic every 5 years.  Costs for this course are at least £300 per person, plus 2 to 5 days off work since the training course has to be attended in person.  The examination costs another £60 to £250, and is marked centrally by the Scottish Qualifications Agency.

Of course safety is important, but the ADR training course is over-the-top for drivers of small vehicles, and much too expensive for small companies.  It should be possible to take at least the refresher training online, or for small companies only operating small veicles (ie 3.5-5 tonnes) to have delegated authority to run the training courses and exams for their own staff once a manager has attended the training course and passed an exam.  Of course, the small company taking this responsibility would have to take on liability if they fail to run it properly.

The current system is bureaucratic, and adds nothing to the saftey of road users or drivers.  A huge industry has sprung up testing drivers, often cheating so that the instruction company can attain high pass marks.  It is box-checking and not value-added.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, drivers of all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes (ie Transit size and up) which are used to transport dangerous goods by road are required to take an ADR course and pass a test on the topic every 5 years.  Costs for this course are at least £300 per person, plus 2 to 5 days off work since the training course has to be attended in person.  The examination costs another £60 to £250, and is marked centrally by the Scottish Qualifications Agency.

Of course safety is important, but the ADR training course is over-the-top for drivers of small vehicles, and much too expensive for small companies.  It should be possible to take at least the refresher training online, or for small companies only operating small veicles (ie 3.5-5 tonnes) to have delegated authority to run the training courses and exams for their own staff once a manager has attended the training course and passed an exam.  Of course, the small company taking this responsibility would have to take on liability if they fail to run it properly.

The current system is bureaucratic, and adds nothing to the saftey of road users or drivers.  A huge industry has sprung up testing drivers, often cheating so that the instruction company can attain high pass marks.  It is box-checking and not value-added.

Fire safety in residential accomodation

The law on fire safety for residential accommodation is extremely complex. All properties are covered by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). If the property is a house in multiple occupation (HMO) then depending on whether it is licensed or not (five occupants or more and three storeys or more) then license conditions will deal with fire safety. Other HMOs are covered by the HMO Management Regulations. If the property is bedsits or flats then in addition the Fire Safety Order (Regulatory Reform Order) (FSO) applies. This results from gold plating of European legislation. Where the FSO applies strictly speaking it only applies to the common parts not the individual units e.g. flats. This in itself is nonsense because you need to look at the building as a whole!

The Residential Landlords Association believes that residential accommodation should be taken outside the FSO altogether so that it is simply dealt with under HHRS and where applicable the relevant HMO legislation. Special provision would need to be made for mixed residential/business accommodation e.g. flats over shops. Where there are workers at the property (e.g. a caretaker) the employer would still be responsible for fire safety of any non resident worker at the premises. In the usual way the employer would have to carry out the appropriate risk assessment (but not on the tenants/residents). Where the employee was resident when not working e.g. live in care taker, then he/she would be treated like any other tenant/resident. Caretaker etc residential accommodation would be treated like other resident/tenant accommodation. Deciding which legislation applies is a nightmare. Bringing the non domestic parts of buildings such as flats and bedsits into the FSO net was wholly unnecessary. It resulted because two pieces of legislation were being taken through Parliament at the time and no one tried to mesh the two together.  

Why is this idea important?

The law on fire safety for residential accommodation is extremely complex. All properties are covered by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). If the property is a house in multiple occupation (HMO) then depending on whether it is licensed or not (five occupants or more and three storeys or more) then license conditions will deal with fire safety. Other HMOs are covered by the HMO Management Regulations. If the property is bedsits or flats then in addition the Fire Safety Order (Regulatory Reform Order) (FSO) applies. This results from gold plating of European legislation. Where the FSO applies strictly speaking it only applies to the common parts not the individual units e.g. flats. This in itself is nonsense because you need to look at the building as a whole!

The Residential Landlords Association believes that residential accommodation should be taken outside the FSO altogether so that it is simply dealt with under HHRS and where applicable the relevant HMO legislation. Special provision would need to be made for mixed residential/business accommodation e.g. flats over shops. Where there are workers at the property (e.g. a caretaker) the employer would still be responsible for fire safety of any non resident worker at the premises. In the usual way the employer would have to carry out the appropriate risk assessment (but not on the tenants/residents). Where the employee was resident when not working e.g. live in care taker, then he/she would be treated like any other tenant/resident. Caretaker etc residential accommodation would be treated like other resident/tenant accommodation. Deciding which legislation applies is a nightmare. Bringing the non domestic parts of buildings such as flats and bedsits into the FSO net was wholly unnecessary. It resulted because two pieces of legislation were being taken through Parliament at the time and no one tried to mesh the two together.  

Remove councils and transport for london control of local road

Since councils and the mayor of london have had powers over local roads there has been a big increase in fixed penalties because councils and the transport for london make the restriction what are enforced by fixed penalty notice's. 

This gives councils and transport for london a licence to print money, the roads should in control of a independant department who's main job is to keep traffic flowing, having the power to remove traffic lights, set times of bus lane operation and restricting the use of bus lanes to mornings only, being able to remove bus lanes what cause congestion, councils and transport for london have abused the powers for their own agenda often an anti car agenda, controlled parking zones used to contol car users movement and take aways peoples freedom of movement if they use a car.

The independant department should be able to remove speed humps on back roads and change speed limits.  Speed humps cause pain for disabled people and were never tested to see how they affect disabled people, causing a number of disbaled people to trapped in their homes. 

Why is this idea important?

Since councils and the mayor of london have had powers over local roads there has been a big increase in fixed penalties because councils and the transport for london make the restriction what are enforced by fixed penalty notice's. 

This gives councils and transport for london a licence to print money, the roads should in control of a independant department who's main job is to keep traffic flowing, having the power to remove traffic lights, set times of bus lane operation and restricting the use of bus lanes to mornings only, being able to remove bus lanes what cause congestion, councils and transport for london have abused the powers for their own agenda often an anti car agenda, controlled parking zones used to contol car users movement and take aways peoples freedom of movement if they use a car.

The independant department should be able to remove speed humps on back roads and change speed limits.  Speed humps cause pain for disabled people and were never tested to see how they affect disabled people, causing a number of disbaled people to trapped in their homes. 

Abolish Theatre Licences

Why are Theatre licences necessary?

This is not Eastern Europe under Stalin, or England under Elizabeth the First. "Apply for a licence so we can control what you say and monitor it".

If content is not state-regulated and state-monitored that only leaves impact on neighbours and health and safety as legitimate reasons for control, both areas that also need simplification.

Why is this idea important?

Why are Theatre licences necessary?

This is not Eastern Europe under Stalin, or England under Elizabeth the First. "Apply for a licence so we can control what you say and monitor it".

If content is not state-regulated and state-monitored that only leaves impact on neighbours and health and safety as legitimate reasons for control, both areas that also need simplification.

no horse power!

i think horses should be banned from the road because they provide a hazzard for other drivers  because everyones expected to overtake realy wide and slowly a road has cars on it if a horse doesnt like cars and fast moving vehicles it shouldnt be on it! and none of the manure is ever picked up from the road afterwars potencialy causing a hazzard for motor cycles

Why is this idea important?

i think horses should be banned from the road because they provide a hazzard for other drivers  because everyones expected to overtake realy wide and slowly a road has cars on it if a horse doesnt like cars and fast moving vehicles it shouldnt be on it! and none of the manure is ever picked up from the road afterwars potencialy causing a hazzard for motor cycles

Scrap REACH regulations

The REACH regulations which are currently being implemented are placing a huge administrative and financial burden on numerous companies.

There will be little positive impact of these regulations once they are in full force and will overridingly be detrimental to the competitiveness of EU based companies in the EU and global markets. 

Why is this idea important?

The REACH regulations which are currently being implemented are placing a huge administrative and financial burden on numerous companies.

There will be little positive impact of these regulations once they are in full force and will overridingly be detrimental to the competitiveness of EU based companies in the EU and global markets. 

Home Protection

Greatly water down the right of criminals to sue householders if they are injured whilst entering or moving round householders premises or vehicles. Examples – if a householder puts up barbed wire, or sharps, on a fence or out building, the criminal should not be able to sue for any injury sustained during the act. OR if a domestic pet attacks the criminal in similar circumstances.

Why is this idea important?

Greatly water down the right of criminals to sue householders if they are injured whilst entering or moving round householders premises or vehicles. Examples – if a householder puts up barbed wire, or sharps, on a fence or out building, the criminal should not be able to sue for any injury sustained during the act. OR if a domestic pet attacks the criminal in similar circumstances.

Medicines Act 1968

the section which deals with prescribed medicines is too onnerous – its an offence to give prescribed medicines to a child even if they are literally dying in front of you

 

the problem for me is asthma, running a cubs group requires all children to have an asthma plan and bring their own inhaler not allowed to share one, have to self administer even if in mid attack, have to phone their parents and ask permissioin to give ventolin even if they are mid attack this may delay treatment by a few minutes and lead to death

 

in reality i could keep a single subutemol inhaler / ventolin is harmless and universal anyone could take it you dont need a personal inhaler for half the class who have astham

 

asthma is on the rise and this is a real problem at all schools, sports clubs etc, lets have a single inhaler in a central place for all kids to use it will save lives

Why is this idea important?

the section which deals with prescribed medicines is too onnerous – its an offence to give prescribed medicines to a child even if they are literally dying in front of you

 

the problem for me is asthma, running a cubs group requires all children to have an asthma plan and bring their own inhaler not allowed to share one, have to self administer even if in mid attack, have to phone their parents and ask permissioin to give ventolin even if they are mid attack this may delay treatment by a few minutes and lead to death

 

in reality i could keep a single subutemol inhaler / ventolin is harmless and universal anyone could take it you dont need a personal inhaler for half the class who have astham

 

asthma is on the rise and this is a real problem at all schools, sports clubs etc, lets have a single inhaler in a central place for all kids to use it will save lives

Dangerous Dogs Act

The Dangerous Dogs Act was passed in a panic after a few dogs mauled family members one summer.

Since then we have seen the rise of hybrid dogs, bred and used for antisocial behaviour by druggies and thugs.

Why not beef up the old cruelty to animals legislation and do away with this ineffectual Act. The police are paying fortunes of our money for secret kenneling of suspected 'dangerous breeds' while appeals drag on?. That would deal with neglect and cruelty.

Regarding yobs with dogs, why not add an additional penalty to any offence committed whilst in possession of a dog, such as robbery or drug possession/dealing and then ban such people for life from possessing a dog. Any dog found in the criminal's possession should be immediately destroyed

 

Why is this idea important?

The Dangerous Dogs Act was passed in a panic after a few dogs mauled family members one summer.

Since then we have seen the rise of hybrid dogs, bred and used for antisocial behaviour by druggies and thugs.

Why not beef up the old cruelty to animals legislation and do away with this ineffectual Act. The police are paying fortunes of our money for secret kenneling of suspected 'dangerous breeds' while appeals drag on?. That would deal with neglect and cruelty.

Regarding yobs with dogs, why not add an additional penalty to any offence committed whilst in possession of a dog, such as robbery or drug possession/dealing and then ban such people for life from possessing a dog. Any dog found in the criminal's possession should be immediately destroyed

 

speeding

speeding laws need to be reviewed to ensure Safety to those 'on' or 'in the proximity of the roads.' Common sence, however,  needs also to be used when policing these laws.

For example doing 80 on an empty M6 motorway at 0600 on a Sunday morning is not unsafe and therefore to enforce that law affectively becomes pointless. you guest it that's how i was court!

unfortunately cameras are often deployed, in such positions just to catch people out.  in this form the law is not being used for protection but for taxation.

if the police, were encouraged to police in this way it would bring them much greater respect from the general public.

Why is this idea important?

speeding laws need to be reviewed to ensure Safety to those 'on' or 'in the proximity of the roads.' Common sence, however,  needs also to be used when policing these laws.

For example doing 80 on an empty M6 motorway at 0600 on a Sunday morning is not unsafe and therefore to enforce that law affectively becomes pointless. you guest it that's how i was court!

unfortunately cameras are often deployed, in such positions just to catch people out.  in this form the law is not being used for protection but for taxation.

if the police, were encouraged to police in this way it would bring them much greater respect from the general public.

Health and safety

There are far too many health and safety regulations.  There is a very good enabling act, viz. Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.  Many of the regulations which have been made under that act are prescriptive and unnecessary.  These lead to unnecessary management suystems and paertrails over incredibly trivial issues.  It is my suggestion that most of the Regulations made under this act should be repealed because the enabling act itself provides a sufficient framework for a safe system of work to be set up where neceesary.  It is only under specific headings where there is a really serious risk, for example asbestos, where specific regulations are necessary in my view.

Why is this idea important?

There are far too many health and safety regulations.  There is a very good enabling act, viz. Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.  Many of the regulations which have been made under that act are prescriptive and unnecessary.  These lead to unnecessary management suystems and paertrails over incredibly trivial issues.  It is my suggestion that most of the Regulations made under this act should be repealed because the enabling act itself provides a sufficient framework for a safe system of work to be set up where neceesary.  It is only under specific headings where there is a really serious risk, for example asbestos, where specific regulations are necessary in my view.

health and safety

I know the following implies the extension rather than the curtailment of legislation – but the extensions are to limit the impact and scope of existing legal frameworks which now seriously undermine civil society and the organisation of a variety of social and leisure activities.

Proposal:

Introduce laws that (a) allow individuals to affirm full responsiblity for their own and their children's safety, and effectively to opt-out of the health and safety umbrella which now makes so many activities prohibitively complicated or expensive to organise;  (b) radically curtail the possibility for litigation – laws which give public recognition to the reality that in life '**it happens'

Why is this idea important?

I know the following implies the extension rather than the curtailment of legislation – but the extensions are to limit the impact and scope of existing legal frameworks which now seriously undermine civil society and the organisation of a variety of social and leisure activities.

Proposal:

Introduce laws that (a) allow individuals to affirm full responsiblity for their own and their children's safety, and effectively to opt-out of the health and safety umbrella which now makes so many activities prohibitively complicated or expensive to organise;  (b) radically curtail the possibility for litigation – laws which give public recognition to the reality that in life '**it happens'

Cycling on the footpath

I propose that is should no longer be an offence for the followng people to ride on the footpath

-children under 16 years 

-any adult accompanying that child, not exceeding one adult per child unless in a family group

This would encourage children and families to ride bicycles for short journeys.

If schools were required to provide enclosed and secure cycle lockers for children who used their bicycle for more than 75% of days (dip-sampled and withdrawn if not occupied by a bicycle for the required proportion), there would be a huge increase in children cycling to and from school.

It should also no longer be an offence for

-any person to cycle on the footpath where the vehicle speed limit exceeds 30 mph ie outside built up areas. These roads are too fast for bicycles and motor vehicles to co-exist and are rarely used by pedestrians these days.

The offences of careless and dangerous cycling already exist and should remain.

Why is this idea important?

I propose that is should no longer be an offence for the followng people to ride on the footpath

-children under 16 years 

-any adult accompanying that child, not exceeding one adult per child unless in a family group

This would encourage children and families to ride bicycles for short journeys.

If schools were required to provide enclosed and secure cycle lockers for children who used their bicycle for more than 75% of days (dip-sampled and withdrawn if not occupied by a bicycle for the required proportion), there would be a huge increase in children cycling to and from school.

It should also no longer be an offence for

-any person to cycle on the footpath where the vehicle speed limit exceeds 30 mph ie outside built up areas. These roads are too fast for bicycles and motor vehicles to co-exist and are rarely used by pedestrians these days.

The offences of careless and dangerous cycling already exist and should remain.

Health and Safety Hazardous Substances

Small busineses have to maintain a register of so called hazardous substances on their premises. The only hazardous substances on most small business registers are cleaning materials, purchased from supermarkets found in every home in the country. Requiring a register for these is plain daft. My register has on it

Cillit Bang

Toilet cleaner

and suchlike. It's time to get rid of this stupidity and treat adults like adults. 

Why is this idea important?

Small busineses have to maintain a register of so called hazardous substances on their premises. The only hazardous substances on most small business registers are cleaning materials, purchased from supermarkets found in every home in the country. Requiring a register for these is plain daft. My register has on it

Cillit Bang

Toilet cleaner

and suchlike. It's time to get rid of this stupidity and treat adults like adults. 

Health and Safety Hazardous Substances

Small busineses have to maintain a register of so called hazardous substances on their premises. The only hazardous substances on most small business registers are cleaning materials, purchased from supermarkets found in every home in the country. Requiring a register for these is plain daft. My register has on it

Cillit Bang

Toilet cleaner

and suchlike. It's time to get rid of this stupidity and treat adults like adults. 

Why is this idea important?

Small busineses have to maintain a register of so called hazardous substances on their premises. The only hazardous substances on most small business registers are cleaning materials, purchased from supermarkets found in every home in the country. Requiring a register for these is plain daft. My register has on it

Cillit Bang

Toilet cleaner

and suchlike. It's time to get rid of this stupidity and treat adults like adults. 

Remove the ban on tinted visors

To remove the ban on the use of tinted visors on motorcycle safety helmets.  With a statutory clear (up to 40% attneuation) visor, on bright days the option is to wear sunglasses inside said visor.  The drawback being that when one rides from a brightly lit stretch of road into a tunnel of trees for example, where the light level is much reduced then vision is also much reduced.  With a tinted visor, the solution is to simply raise the visor to be able to see again.  With sunglasses beneath a visor – your are stuck.

Why is this idea important?

To remove the ban on the use of tinted visors on motorcycle safety helmets.  With a statutory clear (up to 40% attneuation) visor, on bright days the option is to wear sunglasses inside said visor.  The drawback being that when one rides from a brightly lit stretch of road into a tunnel of trees for example, where the light level is much reduced then vision is also much reduced.  With a tinted visor, the solution is to simply raise the visor to be able to see again.  With sunglasses beneath a visor – your are stuck.