CCTV: YOUR SECURITY
SEXUAL REQUESTS AND ABUSIVE PASSENGERS HIGHLIGHTED DURING CCTV IN DERBY CABS ROW
Almost 200 serious incidents involving taxis have been revealed by Derbyshire police. But despite this, council bosses believe CCTV cameras are not needed in cabs. According to the Derby Telegraph, one incident alleges a taxi driver “asked for sexual favours” and another alleges that a taxi driver drink-drove and swerved on a road. Several incidents suggest taxi drivers were being abused and threatened by passengers. However, despite the 176 reports made between February 1 and August 22 this year, council bosses believe
there is not enough
evidence to warrant CCTV cameras being installed in taxis for the benefit of drivers and passengers. Derby City Council is only able to mandate the use of CCTV in licensed vehicles:
“if it can
demonstrate that it is a proportionate response to local issues which can be justified”. Many councils, including North East Derbyshire District Council, have a mandatory condition for the fitting of CCTV in taxis. Derby
City Council’s licensing
committee decided on Thursday September 15 not to adopt CCTV cameras. This was despite a public consultation on the subject in which the majority said it was “highly likely” that placing CCTV in taxis would have a positive effect in terms of safety. As part of the research carried out ahead of the decision, Derbyshire police released details of incidents involving cabs across the county in the last six months. But the information only gives minute details of the call made at the time,
62
it does not detail where the incidents happened and what happened following the call. Incidents reported to
police
include: • “Whilst on a journey, customer throws up inside taxi, driver tells them to get out, customer becomes violent, threatens driver and smacked car.
• “Yellow cab driver threatening another driver (road rage)”
• “Aggressive customer, driver refuses to take him to destination.”
• “Taxi driver asks for sexual favours instead of money to pay for journey.”
• “There’s a drunk male in my taxi being abusive saying he’s going to punch me and refusing to pay.”
• “Report of a taxi driver drink driving, swerving over lanes and driving fast and then really slow.”
• “Robbery - customer tries to take driver’s
mobile phone and
popped two tyres with what driver believes is a knife.”
• “Taxi driver locking customer inside cab refusing to let them go inside and get cash from their house.” Despite the serious nature of the reports, Derby City Council officers feel there is not yet enough evidence to warrant taxis having CCTV cameras installed and are recommending the licencing committee come to the same conclusion. A council report says: “Officers have evaluated the data and are of the opinion that the data collected does not show that there are local circumstances within Derby which indicate that the installation of CCTV would be of
benefit. The subject, however, is fluid and can be revisited should the situation change or trends identified.” Should the committee decide there is a need for CCTV cameras in taxis then it is likely to come at a big cost to taxi drivers themselves with an earlier report on the matter stating it would cost in the region of £500 per vehicle. Maddy Ahmed, owner of Derby taxi firm PJ Cars, feels CCTV cameras in taxis are needed. He said: “Having CCTV provides security for everyone - the driver and the passengers. If someone wants to commit a crime then a camera may put them off. “There are many incidents that go unreported - that’s one of the biggest issues we face. Cost is also a problem because taxi drivers are struggling as it is these days with everything going up.” NPHTA: With such a damning result; not only is there enough evidence
to demonstrate the
need, there is enough to warrant the council applying for funding from various sources in order to fund the scheme - as York and Telford councils both successfully managed - in order to “support those they regulate” and in the interest of public and driver safety. If even one driver has been in front of a licensing committee, or has been attacked, then there is a need, the guidance does not suggest waiting for a fatality or prosecution, it suggests: “where there is evidence of a need.” A review of the DfT recent consultation on this topic might help.
OCTOBER 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
