Oxford taxi conversations to be recorded, council rules

Dusty Bin · **Joined:** Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:20 pm **Posts:** 3272

captain cab wrote:

So you can see why a council might choose to limit cab numbers.......sometimes they need to take a lead.....even though some drivers may not be happy bunnies?

You've seen the light my son. :wink:

Funny that. When you and toots were making the point about driver choice earlier the obvious riposte would of course have been your stance on restricted numbers, but after ten years of making the point in response to that kind of stuff I thought it too banal to make it again.

But perhaps it takes a lot more than ten years for it to permeate through :wink:

Sussex · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:31 am

As yet the CCTV lies have been repeated on this thread, by one of the chief liars, I will repeat what a spokeswomen for the ICO was quoted as saying in the Daily Mail.

A spokeswoman for the Information Commissioner's Office said it is not normally justified to use CCTV to record conversations between members of the public as 'it is highly intrusive'.

But she added that council applications to install cameras in cabs are likely to be acceptable because of the number of crimes being committed in taxis.

An ICO spokeswoman said: ‘Licensing authorities must take account of people's right to privacy when deciding whether to impose CCTV as a licence condition for taxi drivers.

‘As well as assessing the impact on privacy, we have accepted they [councils] can take into account factors such as the likelihood of crimes being committed against drivers and passengers; the vulnerable one-to-one situation; the fact that taxis are travelling all over the area at different times of day; and CCTV can protect both the driver and passengers.’

Sussex · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:33 am

captain cab wrote:

So you can see why a council might choose to limit cab numbers.......sometimes they need to take a lead.....even though some drivers may not be happy bunnies?

I've always been aware of why councils choose to limit cabs, just never agreed with any of them.

However I fully agree the law allows them to do so, in the same way the law allows councils to make CCTV compulsory.

captain cab · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:36 am

Sussex wrote:

captain cab wrote:

So you can see why a council might choose to limit cab numbers.......sometimes they need to take a lead.....even though some drivers may not be happy bunnies?

I've always been aware of why councils choose to limit cabs, just never agreed with any of them.

However I fully agree the law allows them to do so, in the same way the law allows councils to make CCTV compulsory.

http://leamingtonobserver.co.uk/2011/11 ... 22770.html

With a camera....we might had had a better description than;

white, 5'10 with brown hair and a moustache, wearing a white tracksuit

CC

toots · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:06 am

Sussex wrote:

toots wrote:

If we are it has to be our choice to be so

If drivers could buy a car £1000 cheaper without an airbag, many would.

If they could buy a car £500 cheaper without ABS, many would.

My point is that allowing drivers the choice is a very good sound bite, and many many times is the right thing, but not always, sometimes councils need to take a lead and do what's best for drivers, even though those drivers aren't happy bunnies about it.

I must have read a million comments/words about compulsory CCTV over the last few years, but have never seen a comment from someone regretting installing it. Other than the scum drivers caught out doing what they shouldn't be.

I have no objection myself to CCTV and I know lots of drivers would fit it if finances allowed it, but, I don't think anybody should have to have voice as a standard on the CCTV. As a customer I wouldn't get in a vehicle that has voice recording as standard. I understand and fully agree that there perhaps should be a button for the driver to press if need be to record the conversation but other than that I don't think so.

It's all well and good in areas that do not appear to have been overly affected by the recession to keep asking drivers to spend money, but, in areas where the recession has made it's mark drivers cannot keep spending money. Given a choice of safe tyres or CCTV I think the tyres are more important. Perhaps when market forces have found a level by which drivers can earn a decent wage then that is the time to add the extras. It has only taken 8 years for market forces to work out we have sufficient taxis now, but due to the recession, I'm not sure how long it will take before drivers can start saving some of the money they earn.

I say hats off to marketing teams of these CCTV companies because they've done their job well, it's a shame we don't have people like this in the taxi trade :wink:

charles007 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:09 am

Sussex wrote:

As yet the CCTV lies have been repeated on this thread, by one of the chief liars, I will repeat what a spokeswomen for the ICO was quoted as saying in the Daily Mail.

A spokeswoman for the Information Commissioner's Office said it is not normally justified to use CCTV to record conversations between members of the public as 'it is highly intrusive'.

But she added that council applications to install cameras in cabs are likely to be acceptable because of the number of crimes being committed in taxis.

An ICO spokeswoman said: ‘Licensing authorities must take account of people's right to privacy when deciding whether to impose CCTV as a licence condition for taxi drivers.

‘As well as assessing the impact on privacy, we have accepted they [councils] can take into account factors such as the likelihood of crimes being committed against drivers and passengers; the vulnerable one-to-one situation; the fact that taxis are travelling all over the area at different times of day; and CCTV can protect both the driver and passengers.’

Yes you are right about the ICO, and with the controles that would be put in place there we would not see any bit on youtub, most of the cctv i have seen have been around £300 and yes you can pay more if you want more. The point is can only be got to down load by having the codes to do so, i have always said i would only be happy with the police doing this.

We al know that nothing is ever 100%, but something is better then nothing and provided it was advertised that recordings were being made, then its the passinger that would make the call to get in or not. and as with a few drivers those who have nothing to fear will get in those who have the intenstion to comment crime may just thing twice.

charles007 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:13 am

toots wrote:

Sussex wrote:

toots wrote:

If we are it has to be our choice to be so

If drivers could buy a car £1000 cheaper without an airbag, many would.

If they could buy a car £500 cheaper without ABS, many would.

My point is that allowing drivers the choice is a very good sound bite, and many many times is the right thing, but not always, sometimes councils need to take a lead and do what's best for drivers, even though those drivers aren't happy bunnies about it.

I must have read a million comments/words about compulsory CCTV over the last few years, but have never seen a comment from someone regretting installing it. Other than the scum drivers caught out doing what they shouldn't be.

I have no objection myself to CCTV and I know lots of drivers would fit it if finances allowed it, but, I don't think anybody should have to have voice as a standard on the CCTV. As a customer I wouldn't get in a vehicle that has voice recording as standard. I understand and fully agree that there perhaps should be a button for the driver to press if need be to record the conversation but other than that I don't think so.

It's all well and good in areas that do not appear to have been overly affected by the recession to keep asking drivers to spend money, but, in areas where the recession has made it's mark drivers cannot keep spending money. Given a choice of safe tyres or CCTV I think the tyres are more important. Perhaps when market forces have found a level by which drivers can earn a decent wage then that is the time to add the extras. It has only taken 8 years for market forces to work out we have sufficient taxis now, but due to the recession, I'm not sure how long it will take before drivers can start saving some of the money they earn.

I say hats off to marketing teams of these CCTV companies because they've done their job well, it's a shame we don't have people like this in the taxi trade :wink:

I take you point but if you talk with the police they say voice recording is very inportment and they support cctv in cabs they have just put three in cabs in Bolton

toots · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:16 am

Charles007 wrote:

I take you point but if you talk with the police they say voice recording is very inportment and they support cctv in cabs they have just put three in cabs in Bolton

They should be able to switch this off. A lot drivers use their vehicles as their family car

captain cab · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:23 am

toots wrote:

Charles007 wrote:

I take you point but if you talk with the police they say voice recording is very inportment and they support cctv in cabs they have just put three in cabs in Bolton

They should be able to switch this off. A lot drivers use their vehicles as their family car

Yes perhaps, it could be wired to the taximeter.

I wonder if this this isn't a no brainer......if the systems were cheap enough.....and perhaps linked in with outward facing cameras giving a discount on insurance costs.....it might be a more acceptable idea.

Although I don't much fancy having a knife shoved in my face to prove the point either.

CC

edders23 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:35 am

captain cab wrote:

charles007 wrote:

let me say this to Big Brother Watch who said it was "a total disregard for civil liberties". what about the drivers Liberties, to work free of fear and attakt. as far as i am consirened it would apper that taxi drivers are Guilty until proved innocence i thought it was the other way round.

I think you are right Charles.

CC

Not quite if a cabbie/ph is allegded to have done something to a customer they are guilty till proven innocent if a taxi driver/PH does something illegal to another taxi driver/PH they are innocent because it is deemed unsafe to accept a statement or evidence from a taxi driver/PH against another taxi driver/ph which might be used as evidence against them in a council hearing or court of law. Well it certainly is in Lincolnshire

captain cab · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:38 pm

15/11/2011

More:programme information
Listen now (180 minutes)

Available since today with 7 days left.

Phil Gayle and Louisa Hannan bring you Oxfordshire's brightest breakfast show.

1 hour 50 minutes.....damn.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p008gjhj

:lol:

CC

captain cab · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:50 pm

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17769&hilit=rossendale

Quote:

For example the use of camera equipment in cabs has been used to great success elsewhere in the country.”

Sussex · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:01 pm

toots wrote:

but, I don't think anybody should have to have voice as a standard on the CCTV.

Without audio I think CCTV is weakened, possibly to the point of being useless.

When things kick off in cabs they usually have a build up, and that build up is often verbal only.

Also how does anyone prove they said a certain destination without audio?

And how do a significant number of drivers prove that they have been racially (verbally) attacked without audio?

We all know that when a significant number of us white chaps get pi**ed, we think it highly amusing to racially abuse non-white drivers. And if audio can reduce that, then I would be a very happy bunny.

Sussex · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:03 pm

charles007 wrote:

Yes you are right about the ICO, and with the controles that would be put in place there we would not see any bit on youtub, most of the cctv i have seen have been around £300 and yes you can pay more if you want more. The point is can only be got to down load by having the codes to do so, i have always said i would only be happy with the police doing this.

We al know that nothing is ever 100%, but something is better then nothing and provided it was advertised that recordings were being made, then its the passinger that would make the call to get in or not. and as with a few drivers those who have nothing to fear will get in those who have the intenstion to comment crime may just thing twice.

I agree with everything you are saying Charlie, and to my surprise so did 90%+ of the people contributing to the CCTV discussions on Radio 2 and Radio 5 today.

Sussex · **Posted:** Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:05 pm

toots wrote:

They should be able to switch this off. A lot drivers use their vehicles as their family car

Do you think your LO is going to get off on one trawling CCTV data from your car?

I'm 100% sure mine wont.

Taxi Driver Online

Oxford taxi conversations to be recorded, council rules

Who is online