For people who drive for a living

0333 015 6886 Contact Us
Menu

Cabbies left counting the cost of CCTV cameras

private hire taxi driver at the wheel on the motorway

Video evidence can be vital when it comes to disputes over fares, abuse and assaults against taxi drivers – even settling taxi insurance claims. It helps authorities identify who was at fault and take whatever action is necessary.

It can also act as a deterrent and provide extra protection for drivers by preventing damage, assaults and thefts taking place.

Public safety

It sounds like the perfect tool to add to every taxi and PHV – but drivers aren’t rushing to install them in their cars. As well as issues surrounding privacy, in cities such as Peterborough where there are plans to make them mandatory in all taxis and PHVs, the drivers have to foot the bill to install and maintain the devices.

Peterborough City Council wants to introduce the cameras following BBC reports about concerns over public safety. The council’s licensing committee was told: “There is evidence to support the view that taxis and private hire vehicles are a high-risk environment.”

Following consultation, the council proposed to make compulsory “for public safety, which includes both drivers and passengers”. This would mean the 100 operators and 1,800 taxi drivers in the city would have 12 to 18 months to install the cameras.

In response to the consultation, the BBC reports that those who welcomed the proposals included passengers who said they felt “vulnerable” in a taxi.

Expense

It means drivers would have to install approved CCTV systems ranging from £400 to £800 with installation costs adding a further £200 to the total, which taxi drivers in the city say is “unaffordable” and could force many of them out of the trade. They add that it could “undermine client confidentiality.

Peterborough Taxi Hire Federation representative Ali Haider told the BBC the move was “intrusive of privacy” and “a financial burden”.

Mr Haider said the federation, which represents both Hackney and PHV divers, believes the council already has “strict measures” in place to ensure passenger safety, including tracking systems which provide passengers with driver details, as well as enhanced driver checks and medical and immigration checks.

He added that Peterborough-licensed drivers would be at a disadvantage to out-of-city drivers who don’t have to abide by the same licensing laws.

He said: “We have drivers who fall under Lincolnshire, Rutland and Wolverhampton authorities operating here who don’t have to follow this rule. It’s an unfair advantage to them.

“I am afraid more Peterborough drivers, including myself, will have to leave and work for other authorities.”

Deterrent

Mr Haider said drivers were also concerned that the cameras wouldn’t be a deterrent against the main issues drivers faced, which were “verbal abuse and theft”.

He said many drivers would instead prefer upfront payments and better training to make the trade safer. He said: “The CCTV won’t prevent that. Instead, we need better driver training and a pre-paid fare payment.”

Following concerns Mr Haider raised about privacy, the council confirmed to NPHTA director David Lawrie that there will be no cloud storage of the footage or remote access to it. The council will be the data controller and will access footage in the event of any incident or accusation.

The council emphasised to the NPHTA that it believed CCTV would help drivers because “the number of allegations made where it is a case of one word against another is on the increase” and because “the protection of drivers is paramount”.

It added that it believes drivers undergo enough training and courses already and “in reality this would do nothing to adjust the behaviour of passengers”.

Responsibility

While the cost and responsibility for installing cameras would lie with the vehicle owners, drivers who already have CCTV systems installed must ensure they meet the council’s specifications, or they must be upgraded to the required standard.

Once CCTV is installed, drivers must ensure that it is always operational whenever they are on duty. This includes waiting on a rank, collecting a fare and returning from a drop off, even if there are no passengers are in the vehicle.

This means that drivers “cannot undertake any fare-paying journeys without CCTV operating, even if the passenger requests or insists that it is switched off, unless there is an extreme medical emergency.

“The driver will be able to switch off the CCTV when the vehicle is ‘off duty’ and being used solely for social and domestic purposes – ie not being used for paying passengers.”

The final decision was due to go to full council on Wednesday, but this meeting has now been deferred until December due to illness and the importance of full attendance.

The council is within its rights to put public safety ahead of driver and passenger privacy concerns, but it should offer funding assistance or discounts on approved camera schemes to soften the blow for local drivers, especially as out-of-town operators don’t have to abide by the same rules.

All information is correct at time of publication. Information provided within this article may have changed over time. No responsibility for its accuracy or correctness is assumed by John Patons Insurance Services or any of its employees.

External links are provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by John Patons Insurance Services of any of the products, services or opinions of the corporation or organisation or individual. John Patons Insurance Services bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external site for answers to questions regarding its content.

Article filed in
Private Hire & Public Hire