Taxi Driver Online

Nothing particularly noteworthy here in the grand scheme of things, but maybe a quirky legal point, and a decent statement from a trade rep about dangers in the trade generally.

And another one who kicked off after a change of mind en route. It doesn't say precisely why he kicked off, but like the Surrey case I wouldn't be surprised if the driver told him it would cost more


Chorley taxi driver speaks of 'months of trauma' after customer smashes up his vehicle

https://www.lep.co.uk/news/crime/chorle ... le-4422407

A taxi driver says he’s endured ‘months of trauma’ after a customer smashed up his cab.

Aminur Rahman from Chorley said he felt “vulnerable” and “helpless” during the incident in May when 28-year-old Jack Hardacre smashed a hole in the cab’s plastic screen, causing £300 of damage.

Mr Rahman said Hardacre started throwing punches at the screen after changing his mind over where he wanted to travel to.

Hardacre, of Hennel Lane, Walton-le-Dale, pleaded guilty to the criminal damage offence on October 20 – the day of his trail at Burnley Magistrates’ Court, but was found not guilty after trial of common assault.

He was sentenced to pay compensation of £320 and costs of £200.

The impact

Mr Rahman it was “an extremely frightening experience”, adding: “When the incident took place, I did feel vunerable, and not going to lie, helpless.

"The trauma takes a few months to get over it, it’s not easy.”

Fear of taxi drivers

Mr Rahman was supported in court by the recently-formed Chorley Taxi Association (CTA)

Shaz Malik of CTA said: “When a taxi driver encounters an altercation with a customer, they must be cautious in their actions and words. Taxi drivers often feel afraid to take any action, fearing that they may lose their license as a result.Having a violent or aggressive customer is every taxi driver's worst nightmare. It can result in abuse, racial abuse, physical harm to the driver, or damage to the vehicle. These situations usually arise because the customer refuses to pay their taxi fare."I strongly encourage all taxi drivers to report any such incidents to the police. While the process may be challenging and time-consuming, it is important to take legal action to prevent these crimes from happening again to other taxi drivers.”

He added: “To customers, my advice would be to avoid putting yourself in such a position in the first place.

"Taxi drivers have rights, and they can refuse service if they feel threatened. Racially abusing a taxi driver, damaging their vehicle, or assaulting them is offensive and against the law. Taxi drivers provide a service and should not be treated as human punch bags just because you are paying for their services.”

Zero detail here, but wonder what that was all about? Maybe Sussex can shed some light, but I'd guess it was to do with smashing the screen, and the driver wasn't physically assaulted in the normal understanding of the word.

And, for what it's worth, the rep making the statement is the chap with all the hair and the twiddly moustache

surely this just means he was charged with 2 seperate offences and found guilty of one but not the other.


It makes you think though as walton le dale is supposed to be the posh part of Preston !

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Edders, not really sure if you can be charged with two separate offences for the same act in the hope that if one doesn't stick then the other one will.

But it reads like they were two separate offences, and he pleaded guilty to criminal damage before trial, but then stood trial for the common assault:

Common assault can include the fear of being assaulted, even if no physical assault occurs.

I'm surprised the court didn't find that kind of assault, but maybe the screen that saved the driver from being physically assaulted also saved the thug from being convicted of that offence.

_________________
IDFIMH

This often happens with murder/manslaughter charges, where the defendant will also be charged with the lesser offence of GBH.

A kind of legal backup plan.

_________________
IDFIMH

This below is largely rehash, but demonstrates that the kick off was about asking for more money because of the change of route - that's never happened before

And slightly more detail on the screen incident and the related (not guilty) assault charge. As Sussex alluded, presumably it was the proximity, imminence and therefore fear of actual violence that led to the assault charge, even though there was no assault in the direct physical sense


Chorley Taxi Association boss speaks out on driver safety

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... er-safety/


Image: Lancashire Telegraph

Then founder of a new association for taxi drivers has spoken out against fellow trade members being treated as “human punching bags.”

Shaz Malik has previously called for drivers across the region to follow his lead in bringing Hackney and Private Hire drivers together under a single association.

Now, following cases of violence against drivers, the founder of Chorley-based Four Sixes Taxis says this can also help protect members of his trade.

Mr Malik said: “Having a violent or aggressive customer is every taxi driver's worst nightmare.

“It can result in abuse, racial abuse, physical harm to the driver, or damage to the vehicle.

“These situations usually arise because the customer refuses to pay their taxi fare.

“I strongly encourage all taxi drivers to report any such incidents to the police.

“While the process may be challenging and time-consuming, it is important to take legal action to prevent these crimes from happening again to other taxi drivers.”

Recent prominent incidents have included an attack on a taxi driver who was pelted with stones and mud in July this year.

In February last year, police and councillors in Bolton pledged to take action to protect drivers after a brick was thrown at a moving taxi.

But Mr Malik says the emphasis should also be on how customers behave.

He said: “To customers, my advice would be to avoid putting yourself in such a position in the first place.

“Taxi drivers have rights, and they can refuse service if they feel threatened.

“Racially abusing a taxi driver, damaging their vehicle, or assaulting them is offensive and against the law.

“Taxi drivers provide a service and should not be treated as human punch bags just because you are paying for their services.”

Mr Malik says that drivers would be safer if they followed his lead in forming a new, united association as he has done in Chorley.


Image: Lancashire Telegraph

He has drawn on the example of a colleague of his who was attacked by a man he had agreed to take to Preston, who he has supported since.

The Chorley driver said: “I picked up a customer from the taxi rank and he requested a quote to go to Preston.

“However, as soon as we started driving, he suddenly changed his destination to McDonald's.

"I informed him that this change would result in additional charges, but he became verbally abusive towards me.

“Despite this, I proceeded to drive him to McDonald's.

"Once we arrived, he then asked me to take him to a cash machine, all the while continuing his abusive behaviour.

“At this point, I realised that if I were to continue the journey to Preston, the situation might escalate and become violent.

“Concerned for my safety, I made the decision to take him back to an area with surveillance cameras in Chorley.

“During the return trip, he began throwing punches at the screen in an attempt to reach me.

“It was an extremely frightening experience, as we were unsure if he was carrying a weapon.”


Image: Lancashire Telegraph

That said, it's not entirely clear what the extra charges were, and maybe the passenger did have grounds to complain, but obviously the reaction was totally disproportionate. I mean, it reads like he got into a ranked car and asked to be taken over 10 miles and immediately changed his mind and wanted to be dropped locally...

That said, without all the detail it's impossible to comment.

And there's this in the comments. Some daftie who thinks he knows it all, but obviously doesn't (the PSV reference being one obvious giveaway). But he may have a point or two of sorts

I think the situation turned for the worse when the punter wanted to go to MacDonalds.

Clearly that would have delayed matters when the thug went in to get his supper.

Personally I would have thought that a godsend, as when the punter went in to get his chips, I would have been off and running.

_________________
IDFIMH

Gotcha - that explains it. I'd missed the bit where he seemed to be saying that the punter still wanted to go to Preston

The way it was phrased, it made it sound like the original destination had been dumped, and/or he was just getting out at McDonald's


The word destination and the fact that it's the singular rather than the plural makes it sound like he'd changed his mind completely.


Problem with jobs like that, though, is that you've maybe waited an hour on the rank for the run, and maybe driven a mile or two, or even further.

So either you drive off and leave the punter and don't get paid, or you've driven off with money up front and you could be in trouble for not completing the job - theft or fraud, basically

The amount of times over the years when I would have stopped the car and told them to get out, but for the fact that I'd maybe have waited ages for the job, and driven several miles, and know I won't get paid. And then it would be back to town and to the back of the rank.

And once or twice when I've tried to terminate a job en route, things haven't went well at all