Cab Care

Early this morning I seriously considered video taping a passenger. 

A young woman emerged from a Kings Cross nightclub, fell into the back seat and ordered a suburb thirty minutes south of the City. Whilst establishing her preferred route it became clear she was not only wasted but also short-tempered.

Whether it was booze, pills or total exhaustion I’m unsure but within minutes she’d collapsed against the door in a deep sleep. Great...

My first concern was to drive smoothly with the front windows open in order to avoid the dreaded puke. Later I would have to stop and wake her for the final address.

If I was unable to wake her then this was best done outside a police station as there is no way I’m touching a passenger. After consulting the map, however, I couldn’t pinpoint the local police station and was doubtful it was even manned at this time of morning.

So my dilemma was her potentially volatile condition; whether the large fare would become an issue; but most importantly if anything negative transpired, it would be her word against mine. In short, I was on my own.

Even though this journey eventually passed without incident – she awoke and managed to convey her address after three wrong attempts - I wasn’t to know at this point what would happen.

On final approach, it would have been easy to trigger my video camera and position it to cover the interior of the cab. In a taxi late at night with a young woman travelling alone and passed out, could I be charged with a breach of privacy in seeking to cover myself against potential trouble ?

Trains and buses have continuous filming of passengers, so why not taxis ? Today’s miniaturised digital devices means decent video and audio recording is available and relatively inexpensive.

Whilst my cab last night only had a plastic screen, most taxis have a stills camera, which records periodic images but no audio. I won’t detail the inadequacies of this current system as it’s a security issue, suffice to say these cameras are last centuries technology.

In my view there is a legal obligation and duty of care to ensure that public vehicles are operated in the safest possible environment. A basic occupational health and safety risk assessment would easily identify the security flaws in Sydney’s taxis.

Moreover, assaults on drivers and passenger allegations of inappropriate behaviour would all but disappear with continuous video recording in taxis,

Whittlesea Bell has installed audio and video equipment in all of its 386 cabs. Bell said Whittlesea Bell normally would experience one or two robberies a month. Now, he said, "our robbery statistics have dropped to virtually nothing."

Thus in the absence of updated OH&S precautions in taxis, it's entirely understandable that cabbies would seek to film dubious fares for our own protection. If warnings were placed in the cab and it could be demonstrated to regulators that the purpose of filming was genuine, what's to stop this occurring ?

Comments

[AG Canberra]

I believe that all taxis in Canberra are fitted with digital video recording - and images have been used to aprehend robbers etc. Simple, cheap technology these days that takes the he said- she said carry-on out of an argument.

If it's good enough for all highway patrol cars to have it (and they carry guns!) then it should be in all taxis....

[tim]

Hi Adrian - bit of a lurker here. However, I might be of use today. I work in the safety and risk engineering industry. The NSW OH&S Regulations are clear as to what must be done:
____

NSW OH&S Regulation 2001 (under NSW OH&S Act 2000)

Chapter 1, Clause 5:

(1) For the purposes of this Regulation, an obligation to control a risk to health or safety (in any case in which the elimination of the risk is not reasonably practicable) is an obligation to take the following measures (in the order specified) to minimise the risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable:
(a) firstly, substituting the hazard giving rise to the risk with a hazard that gives rise to a lesser risk,
(b) secondly, isolating the hazard from the person put at risk,
(c) thirdly, minimising the risk by engineering means,
(d) fourthly, minimising the risk by administrative means (for example, by adopting safe working practices or providing appropriate training, instruction or information),
(e) fifthly, using personal protective equipment.

(2) A combination of the above measures is required to be taken to minimise the risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable if no single measure is sufficient for that purpose.

(3) Any obligation in this Regulation to control a risk by taking specific risk control measures, or by taking specific risk control measures in a particular order, is in addition to the obligations referred to in subclauses (1) and (2).
_______

What this amounts to is that, firstly, they have to remove the hazard if possible. Since you have to carry passengers, the hazard is always there - no choice. This is (a), above.

Secondly, they can isolate you - perhaps provide a screen that no-one can get through to you. Unfortunately this wouldn't stop people doing a runner, so it's not a complete solution. This is (b) and (c).

Thirdly, they can provide a purely engineered solution, such as a video camera. This also falls into (c), even though it's not a physical barrier.

Thirdly, they can put up signs asking people not to steal, and, if that doesn't seem to deter people, could teach you self defence - (d).

Fourthly, they could give you a helmet and a taser - (e).

Do you see where the problem begins in this list? (d) and (e) happen after what's called the loss of control point - the incident has already started or occurred. Legally, they have to consider the options that will prevent the incident in the first place rather than those that will fix it up later. This is why employers must think of ways to stop bricks falling than just providing everyone with hardhats, and is why the above options are provided in this order.

To decide which of the options is appropriate, the benefit of each option (in order from (a) to (e) must be balanced against the cost (time, money, hardship, etc.). If this shows a clear benefit for little cost, the control must legally be adopted. The benefits of later options (eg. (b) to (e), if (a) is adopted) in view of this reduced risk are then balanced against the costs, until the risk is deemed so small as to be gone, or there are no more options.

A further principle is that of "recognised good practice", which basically says that if someone else in a similar or identical situation has seen fit to adopt a measure then this should be a starting point for consideration of controls. Good practice doesn't have to be followed, but a good reason is needed if it is not - not following it is an easy way to go down in court if an incident occurs and and OH&S case is filed.

So, assuming that cameras are cheap and effective, that they won't have half the fleet out for a month if they install, and that they're already in common use in many other cab companies in Australian cities (and possibly in Sydney), serious consideration should be given for their installation.

If you want a bit more info email me and I can give you some links. Sorry about the length!

[Paul Pluta]

Hello Adrian....
Gees.... $8- an hour for this crap..... There is a good reason there is a shortage of cab drivers.... CRAP MONEY - TERRIBLE PUNTERS....
This is a disaster.... you are exposed to all and sundry....
Adrian - are you sure you can't go back to drafting.... I know drafters can earn $60K + for a 36 hour week (3 shifts) ...... why drive the taxi?

Drunk bitches DO NOT DO IT FOR ME......

I have never seen such human excreta as when I drove cabs..... THANKS GOD I GOT A REAL JOB.

[Rainer.the.cabbie]

Paul Pluta
Sorry driving cabs was such a bummer for you, it does take a special person such as Adrian to experience and appreciate the good, bad and the ugly side of dealing with the general public. If there was no fun in it, he wouldn't do it. Good to hear you got another job, as they say different strokes for different folks

[steve at the pub]

I have 50 cameras installed, and despite the cost, they are NEVER coming out.

As a behaviour modification tool, they are without equal.

Collateral benefits are to one's own posture and deportment:

eg, secretary/barmaid/cleaner, upon viewing some footage, screeches: "Oh my god, do I look like that? Do I REALLY stand like that?"

[steve at the pub]

In the case of the post above, your own impromptu video of the ride would be a good idea.

If it all turns out fine, (as it did) "delete" and the very existence of the video is never known.

If it all goes to hell in a handbasket, then the rationale for the video becomes self-evident.

The only tricky part is if she awakens & gets her head together sufficiently to realise you were filming her while she slept. Your QC will have to do some fast talking to explain why you used your personal camera-phone to film her, especially if during the ride she moved a bit, and the camera inadvertantly caught a glimpse of her underwear or upper thigh/boozies regions.

[adrian]

Tim, thanks for the comprehensive OH&S regs confirming the legal obligations for adopting safest/best practises to minimise workplace risk.

However the question is, who exactly is responsible for safety upgrades in Sydney's taxis.

Yesterday I was informed that the responsibility for camera installation and operation resides with the operator/driver, not the taxi network or Government.

Unlike trains and buses where the Govt bears the sole responsibility for safety systems.

Yet with no apparent urgency or recognition from the Government that safety systems in cabs are inadequate and need updating, why should taxi owners upgrade when the Government only requires an inferior standard of safety camera.

It will only take one insurance barrister to question why video cameras have not been mandated by the Government, when their safety benefits and cost effectiveness is proven in other states and countries.

Thus a driver could reasonably assume that, in the absence of any legal requirement to upgrade taxi security to the standard of other public vehicles, they are entitled to make their own 'upgrades' as they deem fit. And as OH&S requires.

I also learnt yesterday that certain racial groups of cabbies subjected to constant harrassment are already using their phone/cameras to record contentious passengers, in order to cover themselves in the event of legal claims/investigation.

As Steve commented, to secretly record passengers may in the first instance be illegal, unless that recording became evidence in an OH&S issue, thereby over-riding the technical breach. For cabbies this is a risk worth taking.