LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
4. Remember, the test is not even ready yet, and there are over 80,000 vehicles licensed in London alone, so the waiting time for a test is anyone’s guess. People could die waiting!!
There’s more!!
“There is no evidence available that demonstrates that partitions in taxis or PHVs reduce the risk of transmission of Covid-19 infec- tion. Partitions in taxis or PHVs do not provide a fully sealed compartment which completely separates the driver from the passenger. Therefore, whilst it is possible that partitions may reduce the risk of transmission of infection, the risk would not be eliminated entirely.”
Really? So why is it then that every other walk of life has been told to install the very same screens in order to open to the public or open their place of work “where safe distancing cannot be achieved?” as shown in theWelsh government guidance and that of others:
https://gov.wales/taking-all-reasonable-measures-maintain- physical-distancing-workplace
Under “reasonable measures” it states:
“Physical distancing is intended to supplement a range of other actions being taken to seek to minimise risk. These include staying away from others when exhibiting symptoms, working from home where practicable, erecting barriers between people where suit- able or wearing personal protective equipment where guidance says it is necessary.”
Under “Where reasonable measures are not possible” it states:
“The key purpose of the regulations is to minimise the risk of trans- mission of coronavirus.Where contact or closer working is required, it is important that other measures are considered, for example:
• minimising the level of interaction • physical barriers improved hygiene and reminders about the importance of hygiene
• washing hands well for 20 seconds with soap after close contact • ensuring those with symptoms are not present on the premises”
All buses have them, as do trains, shops, chemists, even the local authorities’ very own reception areas, so why do they have “phys- ical barriers” if “there is no evidence available” that they reduce the transmission? Is this yet another example of #theforgottenindustry? Or are the lives of taxi and private hire drivers - indeed the travel- ling public who use the service - worth much less than anyone else’s?
OK, so what could be done; how could we resolve this?
1. Forget MIRA: it is not ready, it is only for London, it is too expen- sive, the waiting time makes it unreasonable, unrealistic and unachievable.
2. Forget vehicle manufacturers’ certification, it is impossible to obtain, therefore unreasonable, unrealistic and unachievable.
3. Of course have standards, notify the local authority nominated testing centres of what those standards are (as if they need telling)
4. Add a few tick boxes to the compliance/MOT test (some local authorities have both, some only have compliance) which would
JULY 2020
It is extremely worrying to note, that as a direct result of these dra- conian, unreasonable, and impossible to achieve measures taken by TfL, even the long established and well-known brand of Addison Lee; has now had to issue a statement to all drivers to remove all screens which had previously, and proudly, been installed into all of their vehicles in the interest of protecting the public and saving lives.
It is time to wake up to the risks here, it is time to not only allow, but actively applaud the initiation of safety measures being taken by members of this, our forgotten industry.
27
• Thirdly, the presence of such a screen could potentially reduce the number of attacks on drivers simply because there is an obstacle.
Let’s not forget of course that this is not just an issue which affects private hire vehicles, since in many local authorities across the UK, saloon vehicles are licensed as hackney carriages, so this is indeed right across the board within our industry. Similar pro- tection is deserved also by licensed minibus drivers and their passengers.
If drivers or vehicle owners are willing to invest time or money, or both, into providing this level of public protection, and the screens are fit for purpose, then why not follow the approach taken by Leeds City Council? Embrace the idea in the name of public protec- tion, allow screens that are fit for purpose to remain as a more long term installation, or at the very least leave the removal down to driver discretion, and maybe, just maybe follow the lead of Leeds City Council andmore recently Bradford andWatford Councils: pro- vide funding to assist and support the industry.
simply be “screen is securely mounted” “screen is safe” “screen is made of suitable materials”.
Since our June edition covering this topic, many Scottish local authorities have approved the installation of screens; such a relief, but what about the rest?
We published last month our ‘do or die’ list, (those who approve and those who would rather put lives at risk).We can happily state this month – and include them in our updated list - that many more have now approved the installation of safety measures and taken the common sense approach.
However there still seems to be an underlying issue which we sim- ply must finish with here, and that is the use of “temporary” or the stipulation to have these screens removed within varying time frames by someof the local authorities: some are 21 days, some are 14 days some are even within 7 days “of the Covid virus no longer being an issue”.
The first question simply must be asked:
• Is there some indication somewhere that this coronavirus is going to simply go away as rapidly as it appeared? All medical reports and government announcements seem to be quite clear on the fact that this is going to remain with us potentially forever, and be likely to have resurgences.
• Secondly, these screens could possibly protect against the com- mon cold, the flu, or any other airborne illnesses which result in illnesses and infections being transmitted between the travelling public and drivers.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
