CCTV: YOUR SECURITY
TAXI CCTV TO BE VOLUNTARY IN SWINDON - FOR THE TIME BEING
Taxi drivers in Swin- don will not be forced to install CCTV in their cabs by the council – yet. But they will be strongly encour- aged to do so voluntarily. The Swindon Adver- tiser reports that the borough council’s licensing manager Kathryn Ashton told councillors
she
hopes that the authority will be in a position to mandate the recording de- vices in all hackney carriages and pri- vate hire vehicles. But neither encour- aging voluntary take-up nor making
it compulsory is like- ly to go down well with drivers. Members of the bor- ough
council’s
licensing committee met to discuss the issue but were told by Ms Ashton that while there had been a 14-week con- sultation on man- datory cameras the matter had been shelved for the moment. She said: “We are waiting for advice from the Depart- ment for Transport on mandating CCTV. There are issues of protection of the data if that happens, although I would say
we are in favour of making cameras mandatory, for the increased safety of both drivers and their passengers." Instead councillors were asked to dis- cuss and vote on a resolution to en- courage drivers to install cameras in their cabs. And if they did, they should sign up with the Information Com- missioner’s Office code of practice on how to deal with the data. Cllr Peter Watts asked: “If drivers did volunteer to have cameras, would we want them to have
sound recordings or just pictures? “If they had sound, would they be able to turn it off if pas- sengers requested?” Ms Ashton said the licensing team would not expect drivers to fit sound recording equip- ment as well. But neither move received much favour from drivers. Andy Lucas of the Swindon Drivers’ Association said: “We are concerned about the cost. Across the fleet of taxis in Swindon, it wouldn’t be short of £1m. We are also concerned about
whether this could jeopardise the con- tracts we have with other local authori- ties to transport vulnerable passen- gers.” It emerged that four drivers in Swin- don agreed to install cameras as a condition of keep- ing their licence after behaving in- appropriately. Mmmm… We’ve never heard of using CCTV as a punish- ment
for in-
appropriate be- haviour on the part of the driver! Then the Drivers’ Associa- tion is concerned about the presence
of CCTV jeopardis- ing contracts they hold with other local authorities to trans- port vulnerable passengers… Surely rather than causing jeopardy, the cam- eras would reinforce the safety of those passengers…? Don’t get the logic there. And what about driver safety in all this? Obviously there is a lot to consider, the cost factor not being least; whether voluntary or manda- tory, CCTV should be a requisite tool of the trade these days. See our Glasgow feature in last month’s edition. – Ed.
LEEDS DRIVERS SUPPORT PLANS FOR CCTV IN CARS - COMMITTEE MEETING TOLD
Taxi and private hire drivers have wel- comed moves from Leeds City Council to encourage the installation of CCTV systems in their vehicles. But the authority stopped short of suggesting CCTV should be mandato- ry, due to concerns around passenger and driver privacy. According to the Telegraph
and
Argus, the council’s licensing committee discussed a draft policy to regulate CCTV in taxis and PHVs, which includ- ed cameras only running during jour- neys, with footage
62
being saved to a hard drive for at least 31 days. A council report added that CCTV was also welcomed by most drivers, as it helped keep them safe from attacks and “malicious ac- cusations”. Ghulam Nabi, head of the Eurocabs Hackney Carriage Association, said: “It is something we were involved in and is something we support. “It makes drivers feel safer – especial- ly the ones working late at night. It pro- tects us from malicious allega- tions, as well as if
drivers are assaulted by passengers. “In the present cli- mate there is so much crime going on, so we are all supportive of this.” During the meeting, a Leeds City Coun- cil officer said: “There was a con- sensus that volunt- ary CCTV gives reas- surance to the pub- lic and to drivers as a whole. But there is a trade-off bet- ween security – or the perception of security – and priva- cy.” The officer told the meeting that the working group which came up with the draft policy was
advised by the Infor- mation Commis- sioner’s Office and the surveillance commissioner that authorities should not make CCTV in vehicles mandatory “unless strong evi- dence” is provided showing how this addresses safety risks. He added: “Drivers, operators, associa- tions are broadly in favour of CCTV and they feel safer. It’s a fact of life now that people are used to CCTV being in pub- lic spaces. “We had strong advice that it’s important for the council to have a
framework of sup- pliers in place to offer a repair ser- vice.” A report by council officers into the plans stated: “The [working] group also heard that gen- erally drivers, op- erators and associa- tions were in favour of CCTV in vehicles, that drivers felt safer, and less likely to be the victim of violence or mali- cious allegations. “Some drivers had reported getting increased bookings from customers after they had fitted CCTV.” The draft policy states: “This policy
encourages the use of CCTV in taxis and PHVs licensed by Leeds City Council, but does not make it a mandatory re- quirement for taxis and private hire vehicles to have CCTV, only for the CCTV equipment to meet the council’s requirements. “The absence of CCTV in a taxi or private hire vehicle does not indicate that the owner of the vehicle has failed to pay atten- tion to passenger or driver safety.” The policy is set to go out to public consultation in the new year.
JANUARY 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
