As regards the road safety aspect of this, I suppose it's difficult to assess without seeing precisely what kind of equipment he was using etc. But he's certainly managed to persuade councillors here
The other big dimension is actually uploading stuff from a dashcam etc. You'd think forward facing stuff of people in a public place would be OK, but that's potentially another dodgy area...
As for the second case, seems very similar to yesterday's Bolton case in terms of facts, but the committee's decision is totally the opposite.
Or maybe the new applicant here will be fit and proper in four weeks and can try again then
Perhaps slightly more seriously, I suppose it's maybe a bit easier for councillors to reject a new application rather than revoke an existing driver, despite the facts being almost identical.
Taxi driver quizzed on TikTok videos recorded from his cab has his private hire licence reinstatedhttps://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/tees ... s-34071037The motorist said some of his social media films were recorded from a mounted GoPro camera or by a relative in the passenger seatA taxi driver who recorded TikTok videos from his cab was allowed to keep his licence after he was quizzed about the films.
The motorist had his hackney carriage and private hire driver's licence suspended "due to evidence indicating that he operated a mobile phone whilst driving", minutes from a Stockton Council general licensing committee meeting show. But these claims were disputed by the driver, who said he had three cameras mounted in his car, all hands-free.
He said he had two cameras in the taxi for safeguarding himself and his passengers, as recommended by policy, "and his own GoPro camera which he used for filming outside of his car and which he used for his TikTok account". The GoPro footage he captured was automatically sent to his phone, which he edited and uploaded to the social media account when he was not driving.
The committee heard the unnamed driver "liked to make TikTok videos for fun as a hobby and in some cases used AI technology". His representative Simon Walker said he was a family man with no cautions, a full UK driving licence and no complaints against him, except one which had been discredited.
A licensing officer showed video clips and screenshots which seemed to show the driver "posting footage of members of the public on social media without their knowledge or consent". They included one which zoomed in on a vehicle in front of the taxi, footage of a horse and cart and a video taken on a residential estate.
One "included manual zooming" and one was "shaky and filmed horizontally displaying movement inconsistent with a fixed dashcam or hands-free set-up", say the minutes. Another was described as showing the driver with a filter over his face "whilst holding a phone or recording device whilst his vehicle appeared in motion".
Mr Walker said one clip was filmed by the taxi driver's nephew from the passenger seat, and another was sent to him by a friend and the cabbie "regrettably uploaded the footage however explained the person in question had tried to steal from him". The motorist told the committee he used AI to generate other clips, showing how this could be done.
The committee decided, "after much deliberation and consideration", to lift the suspension and reinstate the driver's hackney carriage and private licence as he was a "fit and proper person" to hold it, with a warning about his future conduct to go on his record: "The committee expressed to [the driver] that he must be careful what he uploads online, and the comments that he makes on the footage, as this could reflect badly on [him] as a driver, and on the council as the licensing authority."
In a separate case dealt with in the same meeting, the committee considered an application for a hackney carriage and private hire licence from another unidentified motorist who had a conviction, six penalty points and a £516 fine for using a vehicle without insurance in June 2024. Members said an application would usually be refused until at least four years after such a conviction for a major traffic offence, "November 2028 at the earliest" in this case.
The committee heard the motorist had been delivering food for Uber Eats when he was stopped by police. He said he was using "pay as you go" insurance but did not know his payment for the insurance had been declined by his bank, so he was uninsured.
He told officers he would not use this type of insurance again. He told the licensing committee he had knowledge of the area and previous experience as a taxi driver in Pakistan.
The committee said they were not satisfied they could allow people to enter a vehicle with the driver because of his conviction, and there were no exceptional reasons to depart from their policy. They found he was not a fit and proper person to hold the licence and refused the application.
Login
Register
FAQ
