CCTV: YOUR SECURITY
CAMBRIDGE CABBIES THREATEN COURT ACTION AGAINST MANDATORY CCTV IN VEHICLES
Some cabbies in Cambridge have said they will consider taking legal action against plans for mandatory CCTV in their vehicles. All drivers applying to Cambridge City Council for a taxi or private hire licence from April next year, will be required to have CCTV installed in their vehicles. According to CambridgeshireLive, the decision was taken in order to help improve safety of both drivers and passengers in taxis and private hire vehicles. The authority had planned to require all licensed vehicles to have CCTV by April 2022, but this was not met due to delays identifying an approved supplier for the cameras and the covid pandemic. Some cabbies have said that while they supported the safety aims of the cameras, they could not afford the cost to buy and install them. In a report presented to the city council’s Licensing Committee on Monday, October 24, it said the estimated costs for a single camera system to be between £75 and £100, and to be between £100 to £125 for a two camera system. A single camera system and panic button is estimated to cost £320, and to cost £500 for a two-camera system with two panic buttons. While the saloon style taxis are expected to only need one camera, a larger eight seater vehicle may require four cameras. One driver of a WAV taxi told councillors that he could not afford the cameras and feared the city would lose more WAVs due to the increased cost. He said: “April is way too early to bring CCTV in. I cannot afford it
52
and that will put a question mark on if I continue doing my job.” Ahmed Karaahmed, the chairman of Cambridge City Licensed Taxis, said the city council was creating an extra expense for drivers when they were already struggling. He said: “The taxi trade is trying to recover from covid. Next year will be another challenging year for our business, and winter will be tough. The council is creating an extra expense for the taxi trade.” He said other authorities that had implemented similar policies had paid for the cameras. He also argued that not being able to turn off the cameras when the taxi was being driven for private use was a “privacy risk”. Mr Karaahmed told the committee that if the policy was agreed then they would consider taking the matter to court. Councillor Iva Divkovic asked council officers if they had looked into the possibility of the city council subsidising the cost. Officers explained that if the city council did subsidise the money would have to come from the general fund and would therefore need to be a budget bid for it. They added that they would be happy to go away and look into it, but said they “would not hold up
much hope” that internal funding could be found. Cllr Naomi Bennett, said she was concerned that the increased costs being faced by taxi drivers could lead to fewer WAVs. She said: “The larger the vehicle, the more cameras are needed and the more expensive it will be.” Cllr Bennett said she knew there was a “black hole” in the city council’s finances, but asked whether a zero interest loan scheme was possible to help drivers with the cost of the cameras. The licensing officer said they would have to speak to the finance team about whether that was an option for the authority. Cllr Geri Bird said she understood the drivers financial concerns, but said their safety and passengers safety needed to be the priority. She said: “I understand your problems with the cost of living, like everyone else has got, we as a council have got problems with the budget. I do feel for you, but I also feel for the passengers and your safety and I think that should be the most important thing to look at.” When put to a vote the committee approved the recommendation that any new taxi or private hire vehicle licence, or the renewal of an existing licence, from April 1, 2023, will require the vehicle to be fitted with CCTV. Councillors did agree for officers to look at potential subsidising options, either from the city council, or funded externally, and asked for the committee to be updated at the next meeting about progress on this.
NOVEMBER 2022 PHTM
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
