Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri May 08, 2026 7:08 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:27 pm
Posts: 7
Recently there has been numerous articles arguing the case for recording in taxis. Some believe it is an invasion on passenger privacy (and drivers) but often forget the risk taxi drivers can face on a regular basis.

Do you agree or disagree with audio/video recording for protection.

Does anyone have any examples of when recording would have been beneficial?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10054003 ... taxi_CCTV/

Evidence gained from taxi CCTV


CCTV cameras in taxis have been used to provide evidence 18 times the Argus can reveal, including in a hit and run case and for footage in a firearm attack.

Brighton and Hove City Council were criticised for ordering that cameras had to be installed in private hire and Hackney carriages in 2010.

But six months after they were made mandatory in April 2012 they have proved useful, despite only 72% of Hackney carriage and 54% of private hire drivers agreeing with them.

At the end of June this year, a taxi was shot at with an air rifle after a gang of men refused to pay and the driver was also threatened with a knife – all of which was caught on camera.

CCTV also captured a driver being hit with a hammer at the end of May, as well as numerous non-payments and car crashes.

At the end of July this year a group of young people ran off without paying.

The driver grabbed hold of one of them, but his friends ran back and started throwing stones at the driver.

The council admitted that “anxieties continue to be expressed within the trade around the principal of installing CCTV and some of the detail”.

Approximately half of taxis now have CCTV but all are set to have it by 2013.

A Brighton and Hove City Council spokeswoman said: “The presence of CCTV in taxis is designed to keep both passengers and taxi drivers safe. The indications are so far that it is proving effective and we will continue to keep it under review.

“CCTV can be an important means of detecting and deterring crime and the council only looks at a relevant piece of footage if there has been a reported incident to a passenger or driver, and it must follow strict guidelines set out by the Information Commissioner.”


http://theandersonshelter.co.uk/?p=69

Terrified Taxi Driver Attack, Caught On CCTV



After spilling his bottle of wine, James Pilgrim suddenly turned on 52-year-old Hastings Taxi driver Lee Curtis. Throwing multiple punches, he grabbed him in a head lock and proceeded to bite him on the face. There can be absolutely no excuse for this type of unprovoked attack.

The physical signs of this attack, which took place three weeks ago will fade, but mental scars take far longer to heal. It is unclear whether Mr Curtis will ever again be able to face driving a taxi.

Nobody should have to fear abuse, physical or verbal, when at work, or indeed fear for their life, as Mr Curtis did, and yet for taxi drivers in recent years, this threat is increasingly a reality.

In the last three years, assaults on taxi drivers have gone from extremely rare occurrences to almost commonplace -though thankfully most attacks are not so severe.

It’s thanks to the CCTV installed in Mr Curtis’ taxi that the perpetrator was swiftly brought to justice.

CCTV should be mandatory in all taxis. Unfortunately there are many protest groups who argue against, as they say this is in breach of their privacy.

Having CCTV footage to refer back to protects not only the driver, but also the passenger. Any disputes can be resolved quickly by watching the tape back, and if a crime is committed the footage can be used as indisputable evidence.

Of course, CCTV is not the solution to the problem of violent acts being committed in the first place. All Taxis which unlike private hire, pick up mostly unbooked, unrecorded passengers from the street or licensed Taxi rank, should be fitted with attack proof partitions like the ones used in London’s Taxi Fleet.

However CCTV is a positive move forward that could provide an extra layer of protection to every licensed Taxi driver, nationwide.


http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Cab-s ... z2LzmSh9Pu

Video: Cab's CCTV snares racist attacker


A PASSENGER who carried out a racist attack on a mini-cab driver has been jailed after the assault was captured by an in-car CCTV camera.

Ashley Marlow was sentenced to eight months in prison after admitting the assault on a DG Cars driver in Carlton Road, Sneinton, in November.

The 34-year-old is believed to be the first person in the city to be convicted using CCTV footage taken from inside a taxi (story continues below footage).

The driver, a 37-year-old Iranian national, said the attack took place after he stopped his car and asked Marlow to get out.

He had become tired of being racially abused as he tried to clarify where he wanted to go.

"He started swearing at me and grabbed my radio microphone," he said. "I pressed the emergency button on my computer meter and asked my base to send drivers to me.

"I told him that he should be careful as there was a camera in the vehicle and he went to grab my sat nav but could not rip it out.

"He sat back and began swearing again before punching my head three times.

"I opened my door and got out and he also got out and started trying to hit me again."

Marlow was arrested and handcuffed after police arrived on the scene.

He ran off as officers were interviewing the attacked DG Cars driver only to be caught again minutes later.

The assaulted driver said: "I picked him up on Parliament Street in the city centre.

"He was swearing at girls outside the car. I was wary of him so I turned on my CCTV camera."

During a hearing at Nottingham Crown Court last month Marlow, of Bendigo Lane, Sneinton, admitted racially aggravated common assault in relation to the attack, which happened at around 6.30pm on November 5.

He was jailed for eight months.

He also admitted assaulting a police constable and possession of cannabis. He was given a two-month concurrent sentence for the police officer assault.

The victim, who does not want to be named, enlisted the help of Nottingham South MP Alan Simpson in his dealings with the police.

In a letter to the driver, Mr Simpson wrote: "I know that assaults of taxi drivers are a matter of serious concern in the city, not just among drivers themselves.

"One of the problems is that such assaults regularly take place in circumstances where there is no evidence of the assault and no clear identity of the perpetrators.

"Your case gives the police the opportunity to pursue a change that would send out a message which carries a far wider significance."

Ian Pole, director of DG Cars, which has bases in the city centre and Sherwood, said the decision to install CCTV cameras in their vehicles last year had followed an increase in attacks on drivers. They are still the only taxi or private hire car company in the city to do so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 402703.stm


Abusive cab driver loses licence


The three passengers never made it to their destination

A cab driver has lost his licence after being filmed on his own security camera verbally abusing three elderly women.

Elyas Haidari was taking the women, who were in their 80s, to a Southampton day centre in October when he swore at them and told them they were about to die.

He later abandoned them by the roadside after ordering them out of his vehicle.

Southampton City Council said Mr Haidari admitted insulting them when confronted by officials. He could not be reached for comment.

'Severely frightened'

The council said the taxi driver had refused to help the women - who were partially-sighted - fasten their seatbelts.

John Burke, Southampton City Council's licensing manager, said: "I think he quite severely frightened them.

"Within four hours of the incident taking place the facts were put to him and he immediately admitted them."

Mr Haidari's licence was revoked at the local authority's licensing committee on 26 November.

During the meeting, Councillor Brian Parnell, chairman of the committee, said: "Mr Haidari's extremely offensive behaviour, abusive language and actions towards three elderly and infirm residents, who just wanted a taxi to take them to their day centre, was truly shocking.

"The whole of this serious incident was captured on the "cabcam" fitted to the vehicle which made the evidence easy to see and hear."

'Found out anyway'

Earlier this year, the committee voted to make it compulsory for CCTV cameras to be installed in hackney carriage taxis and private hire cars, when they are due to be replaced.

But Radio Taxis (Southampton) Ltd, which booked Mr Haidari but does not employ him, said it would have found out about the verbal abuse without cameras.

Graham Williams, from the firm, said: "We have not had cameras in the cars and it never made a difference then.

"I think we would have picked [the incident] up even without the camera."

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:27 pm
Posts: 7
This is great, some interesting stats here too.

My other question therefore is regarding who should pay for the recording equipment taxi drivers are being told they must have?

I read on here yesterday that equipment can cost the taxi driver about £500, would it not be more cost effective to have a lone worker device that can connect directly with the Police if a driver feels threatened or is experiencing abuse? These can either be paid for on a monthly contract, like a phone, or bought out right for a fraction of £500 and pay only for the monitoring.

Surely councils and taxi companies should look into these more? Thoughts anyone?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 14152
Location: Wirral
Do 'lone worker devices' collect evidence in the same way as CCTV does?

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:27 pm
Posts: 7
Different ones record evidence in different ways. The Identicom lone worker device records audio during an alert and stores it so it can admissible in court if necessary. It's designed to look like an ID badge and so is discreet in operation. The alert is raised through a button on the back of the device and goes straight through to an Alarm Receiving Centre who can escalate to a Police response if necessary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 14152
Location: Wirral
jessjohnson wrote:
Different ones record evidence in different ways. The Identicom lone worker device records audio during an alert and stores it so it can admissible in court if necessary. It's designed to look like an ID badge and so is discreet in operation. The alert is raised through a button on the back of the device and goes straight through to an Alarm Receiving Centre who can escalate to a Police response if necessary.


I think it is necessary that devices collect visual as well audio. The problem with Southampton was they wanted it running all the time even when drivers weren't working. When things become mandatory they tend to become more expensive and the current climate doesn't leave much in drivers coffers to pay for the extras :wink:

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10591
Location: Scotland
There is nothing wrong with having cctv in a cab or PH but they should only record video without sound, but could be fitted with a panic button that could then record the sound


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:27 pm
Posts: 7
Thanks for your opinions and thoughts everyone.

I agree that the video/audio shouldn't be constantly recording, but record only when necessary - so when receiving verbal abuse etc.

As mentioned above about the Identicom device, it can also video live to the Alarm Receiving Centre monitoring the incident, helping to not only record evidence, but also establish a more informed response as emergency services responding would know what was occurring.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
skippy41 wrote:
but they should only record video without sound


Why?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10591
Location: Scotland
captain cab wrote:
skippy41 wrote:
but they should only record video without sound


Why?


If the punters are behaving and having a private conversation why should the audio be recorded, or if the driver has a general conversation with the punters, voice recording should only occurs when there is trouble or verbal threats


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
skippy41 wrote:
captain cab wrote:
skippy41 wrote:
but they should only record video without sound


Why?


If the punters are behaving and having a private conversation why should the audio be recorded, or if the driver has a general conversation with the punters, voice recording should only occurs when there is trouble or verbal threats



But the only time the audio CCTV evidence would be used would be in the case of verbal threats - so what difference does it make?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10591
Location: Scotland
Come on CC get the brain in gear, you work it out for yourself :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
skippy41 wrote:
Come on CC get the brain in gear, you work it out for yourself :roll:


I'm going to need it explained - because there's very often allegations of driver's behaving improper towards passengers - these allegations are often malicious - under these circumstances would a driver switch on the audio??? I don't think so.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
jessjohnson wrote:
Thanks for your opinions and thoughts everyone.

I agree that the video/audio shouldn't be constantly recording, but record only when necessary - so when receiving verbal abuse etc.

As mentioned above about the Identicom device, it can also video live to the Alarm Receiving Centre monitoring the incident, helping to not only record evidence, but also establish a more informed response as emergency services responding would know what was occurring.

Are you a salesman for the company supplying this system?

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 14152
Location: Wirral
jessjohnson wrote:
Thanks for your opinions and thoughts everyone.

I agree that the video/audio shouldn't be constantly recording, but record only when necessary - so when receiving verbal abuse etc.

As mentioned above about the Identicom device, it can also video live to the Alarm Receiving Centre monitoring the incident, helping to not only record evidence, but also establish a more informed response as emergency services responding would know what was occurring.


That's as maybe but if it is reliant on the driver pressing a button I think that is it's first flaw, as CC alluded no driver is going to be the one to press the button if it is they that are being abusive.

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 623 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group