LATEST VIEWS F DEHUMANISATION - REHUMANISATION
We welcome back Steven Toy, NPHTA Board member from Cannock Chase, who has a few pithy words to share on the machinations of local authorities in these troubled times. He also examines the reason- ableness of other aspects of local authority approaches – especially his own – as to whether it really is crucial if a driver wears a football top or not, considering all that is going on around us.
SAFETY SCREENS
On page eight of last month's issue of PHTM there are two lists of councils in the UK, a fairly long list of those approv- ing screens fitted to reduce the transmission of Covid-19 in licensed vehicles and a shorter list of those that do not. There is a full list in this month’s edition on pages 28-29.
There should also be a third list of councils who set the bar so high regarding expected standards or attach other con- ditions for screens as to make it virtually impossible for drivers to source one in themarketplace which is compliant.
Wolverhampton is one such council and one of their stipu- lations was that drivers must carry the specified number of passengers shown on the PHV licence and cannot ask peo- ple not to sit in the front of the car.
Not much point in fitting a screen at all then, is there?
As I explained in last month’s issue on page 41, in my view, this is not actually correct in law and is simply a matter of policy. Such councils therefore cannot try to hide behind the law, especially if they have awarded full delegation of powers to their officers, enabling them to make expedi- tious changes to licensing conditions during this crisis.
What about us then?
Returning to the dehumanisation theme, the effectiveness of fitting screens in retail outlets, other workplaces, includ- ing premises licensed by the same councils or indeed in their own offices, is never in doubt; yet the rather lame argument that there is no evidence of their effectiveness in licensed vehicles is often peddled by the more mealy- mouthed councils with perhaps questionable intentions.
If screens offer protection in other settings they will surely offer protection in licensed vehicles. Why are licensed drivers being treated differently, and why is there “no evi- dence” in our case when it is otherwise accepted wisdom that they offer protection for the rest of the population?
It is simply a case of selecting the safest andmost effective designs, rather than perhaps deliberately setting the bar so high as to discourage their installation altogether.
The lives of taxi drivers and their passengers matter unless elected members and officers of certain councils (uncon- sciously) consider us to be subhuman. A lack of protection
42
is an issue for the safety of the entire community if it causes the infection rate (R) to rise. If the public then perceives our trade as being a cause of such a rise in infections, this could do untold long-term harm to their perception of us, which would create another vicious cycle of dehumanisation.
Some councils, including Cardiff, have suggested that it is a question of public safety versus driver safety. This is obvi- ously a completely false dichotomy.
Cardiff and Wolverhampton have resorted the “no evi- dence” sophistry but at least to Cardiff’s credit they are now moving in the direction of approving screens, thanks in part to interventions by NPHTA board members.
Wolverhampton council has also decided to partially con- tradict themselves with the following:
“Therefore, whilst it is possible that partitions might reduce the risk of transmission of infection, the risk would not be eliminated entirely.”
don’t think anyone is saying that screens are some kind of
panacea; surely any measure taken to reduce the rate of transmission (R), can only be a good thing.
The fitting of a well-designed and correctly installed screen made ofmaterials not likely to cause injury to vehicle occu- pants, who should be wearing seatbelts of course, is but one of a number of precautions we should all be taking. The screens and other surfaces with which passengersmay come into contact (sills, door handles, seatbelt buckles etc.) should also be cleaned between each journey. Masks should still be worn where possible.
Local authority viewpoint
My own council, Cannock Chase, is on the approved list but has actually taken a ‘Pontius Pilate’ approach as they nei- ther approve nor disapprove. This, in itself, would not be problematic but for their current refusal to allow screens to be fitted during a vehicle compliance test. They have to be removed and refitted afterwards.
Their reasoning seems to be a fear of litigation, and allow- ing the screen to be fitted while being tested seems to be some kind of endorsement that they seek to avoid.
My view is that this approach offers zero protection from litigation and only serves to endanger the public more in
JULY 2020
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
