CCTV: YOUR SECURITY DERBY RESIDENTS ASKED IF THEY HAVE
PRIVACY CONCERNS OVER CCTV IN TAXIS AND PHVs
Derby residents are being asked if they have any privacy concerns should CCTV cameras be installed in taxis and PHVs. According to the Derby Telegraph, a consultation has been launched seeking people’s thoughts on increasing safety in taxis and PHVs for both passengers and drivers across Derby, via the setting up of cameras. The consultation asks Derby people on their thoughts of installing CCTV cameras inside hackney carriages as well as private hire vehicles licensed by Derby City Council (DCC). The consultation can be found here:
https://letstalk.derby.gov.uk/cctv-in-hackney-carriage-and- private-hire-vehicles-consultation The results will reveal if there is a need for CCTV cameras in taxis in Derby and whether DCC needs to act in any way. The idea of CCTV cameras in taxis and PHVs was first introduced as a part of the Statutory Taxi & Private Hire Standards released by the Government in 2020. One of the questions in the DCC online survey asks resi- dents: “How concerned are you about privacy issues if CCTV is installed in licensed vehicles?”. The council also asks people whether CCTV cameras in Derby taxis and PHVs should be mandatory, voluntary or if it shouldn’t be allowed at all. Recently, councillors in North Derbyshire made it mandatory for CCTV to be installed. People are also asked whether the cost of a CCTV camera would change their views depending on whether the CCTV camera would cost up to £250, £500 or as high as £1,000. A DCC report published last year on the issue said: “Any CCTV system would be required to be of a high specification so that images were clear enough for use in any litigious (legal or court) purpose. “There is an estimated cost to vehicles owners of approx- imately £500.”
Maddy Ahmed from PJ Cars – a taxi firm in Derby – said recently: “I think it is a brilliant idea for the driver’s and the passenger’s safety. There’s so many situations where there is a problem with the customer and the driver and it goes further with the police. With CCTV you can see whose fault it is, it’s all there. The cost (approximate £500) is concerning. I think it should be a choice for the driver.” People have until Wednesday, April 20 to submit their views.
BREAKING NEWS
City of York Council has gone above and beyond in the interest of driver and passenger safety and protection. The council has secured FULL FUNDING for ICO compliant CCTV systems to be installed into their licensed vehicles on a first come first served basis up to £500 per vehicle. Three devices have been approved including:
www.safesystemscctv.co.uk This is amazing news and we applaud York council and the entire team there. Special thanks too to Wendy Loveday of the York PHA for her vital supporting work on this project. The time frame is very limited to the end of March so act now, get booked in and get protected!
CCTV IN PENDLE TAXIS AND PHVs REQUEST REFUSED
Taxi,, Minibus&Fleet Insurance Specialists
Ta Fleets ro from just two vehicles 01527 757 585
www.coversure.co.uk/r edditch/commercial-motor a 30 t
Pendle borough Council recently rejected plans for CCTV in taxis. Charlie Oakes, Chairman of The Hackney Drivers Association told PHTM: “I was at a Pendle panel meeting last night and was very disappointed that the proposal put forward by the Labour group of the council to allow CCTV in taxis and PHVs was rejected by the ruling Conservative group which stated that public safety was their top priority. “Whilst we also want want to protect the public - what about the protection and health and safety of our drivers! “I have been pushing for CCTV for some time due to the alarming increase in driver attacks. Also, when a complaint is made against a driver and they subsequently appear before committee, in most instances there is no evidence that they did or did not do what the complaint said they did. “Most drivers now want CCTV and those drivers who say they don’t need it are the lucky ones that have never had a knife pulled out on them or worse used on them. “We are really for angry about this and hope that the coun- cil will reconsider its decision.”
MARCH 2022
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
