Taxi Driver Online
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Peterborough drivers strike against mandatory CCTV
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11366		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Sussex [ Sun May 03, 2009 5:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Peterborough drivers strike against mandatory CCTV
Taxi drivers threaten to strike over CCTV

FURIOUS taxi drivers are threatening a city-wide strike over the Peterborough City Council's insistence they foot the bill for CCTV to be fitted in their vehicles.

In a show of solidarity, hundreds of cabbies could refuse to work anywhere in Peterborough next weekend unless plans to make in-car security cameras compulsory are reconsidered.

The threat is a significant step up from earlier suggestions, reported in The Evening Telegraph, that taxi drivers would stage another go-slow protest disrupting traffic in the city centre. According to industry leader Sajad Majid, the strike action could potentially last all weekend.

Mr Majid, who is chairman of the Peterborough Taxi Owners Association, said: "The city council is putting a gun to our heads over this CCTV and taxi drivers are in an uproar about it. I have never heard of such a diabolical rule in all my 30 years in this country. It's crazy." "We want to let the council know that we are united on this issue – every single driver is the same.

"We are going to hold talks with the council, but if we can't come to an agreement, we could go on strike and no driver will work across the whole city. "I don't know whether it will be for one day, or from Friday evening until Monday morning."

The dispute centres on Peterborough City Council's plan to improve security by installing CCTV cameras in every taxi operating in the city. The compulsory scheme would mean each taxi owner is forced to pay for their own security camera system, at a cost of up to £679.

But with takings significantly down in the recession, many drivers complain it is a price they simply cannot afford to pay. A strike had been talked about for this Saturday, but it appears that danger has been averted, with the likely action now set for next weekend.

Hackney carriage driver Amran Masood said: "We hope we don't have to do it, but we will strike if we have to. We want to show the council that drivers are all in this together because I don't think they have been taking us seriously."

A Peterborough City Council spokesman said: "We are in regular contact with drivers from firms across the city, but we have received no official confirmation of a planned strike."
Author:  Sussex [ Sun May 03, 2009 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Peterborough drivers strike against mandatory CCTV
Sussex wrote:
"I have never heard of such a diabolical rule in all my 30 years in this country. It's crazy."

I wonder if he will still have that view should a collegaue of his get a knife in the throat.

FFS, £35,000 for a s*** motor and no-one gives a stuff, £700 to save a life and the world's going to end. ](*,)
Author:  toots [ Sun May 03, 2009 5:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
The dispute centres on Peterborough City Council's plan to improve security by installing CCTV cameras in every taxi operating in the city.


Why is that councils only care about HC and never PH when it comes to security :?

I agree that £700 is a small price to pay if it saves a life or even if it helps to catch the culprit of a crime committed
Author:  Sussex [ Sun May 03, 2009 7:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
toots wrote:
Why is that councils only care about HC and never PH when it comes to security :?

Is the fault with the council? Or the apathetic drivers and the couldn't care less operators?
Author:  toots [ Sun May 03, 2009 8:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
toots wrote:
Why is that councils only care about HC and never PH when it comes to security :?

Is the fault with the council? Or the apathetic drivers and the couldn't care less operators?


The council are only insisting that these are fitted to HC I'm just curious why only HC if they are interested in driver or public safety :?

With regard to apathetic drivers and operators the trade is full of apathetic people. IMO the only time apathy is removed and replaced with some interest is when money is involved :D
Author:  grandad [ Mon May 04, 2009 6:58 am ]
Post subject: 
toots wrote:
Sussex wrote:
toots wrote:
Why is that councils only care about HC and never PH when it comes to security :?

Is the fault with the council? Or the apathetic drivers and the couldn't care less operators?


The council are only insisting that these are fitted to HC I'm just curious why only HC if they are interested in driver or public safety :?

With regard to apathetic drivers and operators the trade is full of apathetic people. IMO the only time apathy is removed and replaced with some interest is when money is involved :D


Because PH must have the passengers details from the pre booking and can't just pick up anyone on the street, the council probably think they are not at the same risk.
Author:  Nigel [ Mon May 04, 2009 8:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Peterborough drivers strike against mandatory CCTV
Sussex wrote:
Sussex wrote:
"I have never heard of such a diabolical rule in all my 30 years in this country. It's crazy."

I wonder if he will still have that view should a collegaue of his get a knife in the throat.

FFS, £35,000 for a s*** motor and no-one gives a stuff, £700 to save a life and the world's going to end. ](*,)



They have got to be mad in the head if they are going to turn this down? Like you said if one of them gets a knife held to his throat their views will change then.
Author:  captain cab [ Mon May 04, 2009 11:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Peterborough drivers strike against mandatory CCTV
Nigel wrote:


They have got to be mad in the head if they are going to turn this down? Like you said if one of them gets a knife held to his throat their views will change then.


From memory, in Peterborough the passenger is more likely to get attacked by the driver :shock:

CC
Author:  gusmac [ Mon May 04, 2009 3:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
Corner shops and petrol stations have to pay for their own cctv.
Why should we be any different?
Author:  toots [ Mon May 04, 2009 3:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
grandad wrote:
toots wrote:
Sussex wrote:
toots wrote:
Why is that councils only care about HC and never PH when it comes to security :?

Is the fault with the council? Or the apathetic drivers and the couldn't care less operators?


The council are only insisting that these are fitted to HC I'm just curious why only HC if they are interested in driver or public safety :?

With regard to apathetic drivers and operators the trade is full of apathetic people. IMO the only time apathy is removed and replaced with some interest is when money is involved :D


Because PH must have the passengers details from the pre booking and can't just pick up anyone on the street, the council probably think they are not at the same risk.


I pick up off our base no particular details given there really. I could just as easily pick up from a phone box or a the corner of a street, a shop, a restaurant, a club the list is endless and mobile phones give no real info as they can be got rid of easily enough. I'm at just as much risk as a HC
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Mon May 04, 2009 4:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
£700?

whats being fitted, a full BBC camera and unit?

im sure £200 would be enough to pay, hold on, is the fitting company on a council list/tendered/back hander?.....
Author:  GBC [ Mon May 04, 2009 6:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't see why any driver should be forced to have CCTV if they don't want to.

If drivers feel the need, good luck, but stop telling people to pay for something they don't want.

The Big Brother society grows by the day, just imagine if a driver gets a complaint for say . . . going the wrong route and the Council review the footage, then a personal phone conversation the driver had earlier in the shift is overheard, where they were less than complimentary about people from Africa, the next thing the guy knows, he's up on a trumped up charge.

I work in London, I don't feel the need for CCTV, and I think we lead the table for knife and gun crime in the UK.
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Mon May 04, 2009 8:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
I want one that records looking forward out the windscreen, cos i just dont believe some of what i see...

coming off the M6 south at j3 (bedworth), a girl in a fiesta comes round me and cuts in front, then down the exit ramp she decides she wants the far right lane, then the middle, then goes round the island in the far right lane

and never once touched the indicator
Author:  DSM [ Tue May 05, 2009 12:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Peterborough drivers strike against mandatory CCTV
captain cab wrote:
Nigel wrote:


They have got to be mad in the head if they are going to turn this down? Like you said if one of them gets a knife held to his throat their views will change then.


From memory, in Peterborough the passenger is more likely to get attacked by the driver :shock:

CC


where did you obtain that golden nugget of intel from?
Author:  cabby john [ Tue May 05, 2009 1:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Tbh it is never about the drivers re safety, it is a smoke screen to make sure that the drivers are behaving and that they can keep an eye on them. One other thing or two to be careful of - will they be able to keep an eye on you/me as to how many hours you are working? or how many fares you have picked up? and who will have the power to insist on seeing a recording of your/mine journeys?

This could in many and more respects than one be used to spy on the driver.

Ironically today (yes bank hol Monday) a cam security company recommended by Cardiff Council got back to me and for a full package wanted £827, when I said that it was more than I would like to pay they said they could knock this that and the other off and that would bring it down to £748 :shock:
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/