Taxi Driver Online

Derby residents quizzed over taxi CCTV plan

People in Derby are being asked to give their views on whether CCTV cameras should be installed in taxis in the city.

The city council is considering the move to improve driver and passenger safety.

Residents are being asked if they would have any privacy concerns if the cameras were installed inside hackney carriages and private-hire cabs.

The consultation is due to run until 20 April.

The Local Democracy Reporting Service said a city council report stated any CCTV system would be "required to be of a high specification so that images were clear enough for use in any litigious (legal or court) purpose".

The report said there would be a cost to vehicle owners of about £500.

As part of the consultation, people are being asked if CCTV should be mandatory, voluntary or not installed at all.

Maddy Ahmed from Derby taxi firm PJ Cars said he supported the idea of CCTV installation but felt it should be optional not mandatory.

He said: "I think it is a brilliant idea for the driver's safety and the passenger's safety.

"There's so many situations where there is a problem with the customer and the driver and it goes further with the police. CCTV can save one another - you can see whose fault it is, it's all there.

"The cost is concerning. I think it should be a choice for the driver."

_________________
IDFIMH

Well this is quite interesting, if only because council officials seem set against compulsory CCTV, which I'd guess is a pretty unusual stance, particularly in a big city like Derby.

And it kind of reads like they're just looking for excuses not to implement it. I smell a bit of a rat

And I suspect someone on here won't be best pleased at the attitude of officials here

But, whatever the pros and cons, this surely underlines why the CCTV issue should be decided nationally, since presumably drivers in safer areas are being forced to fit CCTV while in the likes of Derby the official view is against it.

Of course, ultimately it's up to councillors, so we'll see...


Sexual requests and abusive passengers highlighted ahead of 'CCTV in cabs' debate

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/d ... ed-7584268

But council bosses believe CCTV cameras are not needed in Derby taxis


Image: Derby Telegraph

Almost 200 serious incidents involving taxis have been revealed by Derbyshire police. But despite this council bosses believe CCTV cameras are not needed in Derby cabs.

One incident alleges a taxi driver "asked for sexual favours" and another alleges that a taxi driver drink-drove and swerved on a road. Several incidents suggest taxi drivers were being abused and threatened by passengers.

However, despite the 176 reports made between February 1 and August 22 this year, council bosses believe there is not enough evidence to warrant CCTV cameras being installed in Derby taxis for the benefit of drivers and passengers. Derby City Council is only able to mandate the use of CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles "if it can demonstrate that it is a proportionate response to local issues which can be justified". Some councils, including North East Derbyshire District Council, have a mandatory condition for the fitting of CCTV in taxis.

Derby City Council’s licensing committee will decide at a meeting on Thursday (September 15) whether the city’s Hackney vehicles and other private hire vehicles should have CCTV cameras installed in them or not. The decision follows a public consultation carried out on the subject in which the majority of people who took part said it was “highly likely” that placing CCTV in taxis would have a positive effect in terms of safety.

As part of the research carried out ahead of the decision, Derbyshire police released details of incidents involving cabs across the county in the last six months. But the information only gives minute details of the call made at the time, it does not detail where the incidents happened and what happened following the call.

Incidents reported to police include:

“Whilst on a journey, customer throws up inside taxi, driver tells them to get out, customer becomes violent, threatens driver and smacked car.

“Yellow cab taxi driver threatening another driver (road rage)”

“Aggressive customer, taxi driver refuses to take him to destination.”

“Taxi driver asks for sexual favours instead of money to pay for journey.”

“There is a drunk male in my taxi being abusive saying he’s going to punch me and refusing to pay.”

“Report of a taxi driver drink driving, swerving over lanes and driving fast and then really slow.”

“Robbery - customer tries to take driver's mobile phone and popped two tyres with what driver believes is a knife.”

“Taxi driver locking customer inside cab refusing to let them go inside and get cash from their house.”

But despite the concerning and serious nature of the reports, Derby City Council officers feel there is not yet enough evidence to warrant taxis having CCTV cameras installed and are recommending the licencing committee come to the same conclusion. The council says some of the police incidents “may relate to out-of-town vehicles over which we have no power at the moment”. Officers also say the data is limited, showing a log of calls “and not specific events and that anyone could have made those calls”.

A council report says: “Officers have evaluated the data and are of the opinion that the data collected does not show that there are local circumstances within Derby which indicate that the installation of CCTV would benefit users and/or drivers taking into account any potential privacy issues at this time. The subject, however, is fluid and can be revisited should the situation change or trends identified.”

Should the committee decide there is a need for CCTV cameras in taxis then it is likely to come at a big cost to taxi drivers themselves with an earlier report on the matter stating it would cost in the region of £500 per vehicle. Maddy Ahmed, owner of Derby taxi firm PJ Cars, feels CCTV cameras in taxis are needed. He said: "Having CCTV provides security for everyone in the taxi - the driver and the passengers. If someone wants to commit a crime in a taxi then a camera may stop them from doing so.

"The police have got 176 reports but there are many incidents that go unreported - that's one of the biggest issues we face. Cost is also problem because taxi drivers are struggling as it is these days with everything going up."

The idea of CCTV cameras in taxis and private hire vehicles was first introduced as a part of the Statutory Taxi & Private Hire Standards released by the Government in 2020. The regulations suggested all licensing authorities should consult to ascertain whether or not there are circumstances which indicate that CCTV in taxis would benefit users and/or drivers - taking into account any potential privacy issues.

If the council doesn't want it, then on their heads be it.

Every time a driver is assaulted, or a customer attacked, the blame should be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the council.

The same council that no doubt has dozens of cameras in their public offices and dozens dotted around the streets.

It also beg the question as to how many driver deaths, or customer rapes, are required to meet the 'justifiable' criteria.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well this reaction was unexpected. Not


'Must we wait until a driver is murdered before we have CCTV in Derby cabs?'

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/d ... ed-7594812

Strong concerns have been expressed over not making CCTV in city taxis mandatory

Councillors have expressed dismay over a call not to make CCTV cameras in Derby taxis mandatory, with one asking “do we have to wait until there is a death?” A Derby City Council licensing meeting saw councillors raise deep concerns after Derbyshire police released details of almost 200 serious incidents involving taxis across the county.

But despite this, the majority of the councillors on the licensing committee - mainly Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors - voted in favour of a council recommendation not to yet pursue action in making CCTV cameras in taxis compulsory due to a lack of evidence. However it was also voted that the council will continue to monitor police incidents and review the situation again in six months' time.

Ahead of Thursday night’s meeting (September 15) police released minor details of 176 incidents in Derbyshire involving taxis within a six-month period. The police details released only give a description of the alleged incidents between February and August this year but not what happened following the allegations.

One of the incidents dated April 6 said: “Taxi driver threatened with knife, knife put to his throat.” Other incidents gave details of drivers asking for “sexual favours” and drivers being threatened by passengers. But council officers in a report said that the evidence by police was not enough to warrant a mandatory requirement for CCTV installation.

The report said: “Officers have evaluated the data and are of the opinion that the data collected does not show that there are local circumstances within Derby which indicate that the installation of CCTV would benefit users and/or drivers taking into account any potential privacy issues at this time. The subject, however, is fluid and can be revisited should the situation change or trends identified.”

Mike Kay, head of Services at Derby City Council, said at the meeting the number of incidents reported to police was considered “low” given the number of drivers licensed in Derby and the number of journeys undertaken by licensed vehicles. But this reflection caused concern among Conservative and Reform Derby councillors on the licensing committee.

Conservative councillor Ged Potter, who serves Allestree, said: “Appendix 2 (the police incidents) is of some considerable concern. I believe this information from police needs expanding and we need to ask further questions. There are 176 reported incidents - some are extremely serious in just under seven months - roughly 25 per month. It’s not just against taxi drivers.” Councillor Potter then proposed deferring a decision based on getting further information from the police authorities.

Reform Derby councillor John Evans said the police details showed urgent action was needed. He said: “I just noticed some of the items listed as potential offences. There’s one saying someone had a knife to the throat of a taxi driver, a knife to the throat.

“I mean what are we going to do? Wait until we get a death? I wouldn't want to be sitting here in a few months and saying we have had an incident and a taxi driver has been murdered.”

But Cllr Potter’s proposal for deferral was lost. He then made a second proposal to say the evidence given was justifiable in making CCTVs in taxis mandatory - this was again lost. A third motion by Cllr Potter calling on the matter to be discussed in January when all data had been fully investigated was also lost.

A motion was then put forward by Liberal Democrat councillor Ajit Atwal to accept the recommendation not to mandate CCTV in Derby taxis but to continue to monitor police incidents and bring back a report in six months' time. Labour councillor Nadine Peatfield said: “It’s an interesting list that’s been gathered over the last six months. And obviously as pointed out it's a small proportion of the amount of journeys that have been taken.

"But I think this is something that should be monitored. When you look at the list quite a few of the incidents occur outside of the taxi so cameras inside wouldn’t actually make a difference.”

Councillor Atwal’s proposal got the majority of votes. Another decision will be made next year.

As if anything substantive will change in six months. Unless officials and councillors change their minds, like

Also interesting is that the councillors seem surprised at what goes on. Most of the incidents outlined seem predictable and unremarkable enough in the grand scheme of things, at least for anyone who knows the trade.

Of course, even for those who oppose mandatory CCTV, any driver who feels the need is presumably free to fit a system if they want. The councillors moaning above have perhaps missed that point

_________________
IDFIMH