Janet Lee

Janet Lee
Photo:Janet Lee, injured by a taxi partition.

Saturday, March 19, 2016

2/7/1988 New York Times Excerpt regarding false start date for partition mandate

"...passenger injuries may have come from taxi passengers' hitting their heads on the plastic partition between the front and back seats... made mandatory in most cabs beginning in 1994. 
A study of 200 accident victims by Bellevue in 1995 and 1996 found that passengers in cabs are two and a half times more likely to suffer cranial or facial injuries than those in private cars." NYTimes 2/7/1998

Aside from the fact that passengers in cabs are two and a half times more likely to suffer cranial or facial injuries than those in private cars being a disturbing fact, is the fallacy that the plastic partition between the front and back seats... was made mandatory in most cabs beginning in 1994.
The requirement began many years earlier. This is not a benign lie. 

The reason they lie about the start date of the partition mandate is this; 
in the mid to late 1990's Rudy Giuliani was Mayor and had police advisors Maple and Lender implementing a policy referred to as "Zero Tolerance".

 It has been alleged that in New York City, the decline of crimes rate started well before Rudy Giuliani came to power in 1993, and none of the decreasing processes had particular inflection under him.[17][18] and that in the same period, the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy. But the experience of the vast majority of New Yorkers led them to precisely the opposite conclusion... the perception that zero tolerance policing was key to the improving crime situation in New York City. (Wiki)

It was not an allegedly 'new' 1994 Partition Mandate that was responsible for declines in crimes against cab drivers. The NYC TLC seized the opportunity to steal the thunder and attributed the declines to a 24 year old (September 1968, actually) partition mandate, claiming the mandate was new in the mid 1990's.

Read the January 30th,1969 New York Times article. 

New York Times
Thursday January 30th, 1969

Cab Robberies Drop[1] as More Policemen Work as Drivers

The owners of 6,800 fleet taxicabs here reported yesterday that there had been a sharp decline in the number of assaults and robberies on cab drivers in the second half of 1968.
In the first four months of the year there were 235 assaults and robberies of drivers and in the last eight months, 170, The Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade said. The fleet owners had no definite explanation for the decline, but suggested two possibilities.
One was the increase during the year of the number of policemen who drove taxis during their off hours to supplement their income. Considerable publicity has surrounded the apprehension of muggers by cab-driving policemen, who carry their pistols and this was believed to have deterred assaults[2].
About 4,000 policemen have obtained taxi licenses since the Police Department authorized limited off-duty driving in September of 1967[3].
A second factor, owners believe, was the installation of partitions between the driver and passenger of all fleet owned taxicabs last September.
The 4,600 cabs owned by individuals were not required to install partitions because 60% of assaults and robberies occur between 9 P.M. and 6 A.M. and most owner/drivers tend to work during the day[4].
          The fleet owners are hopeful that the decline will continue and that more drivers will be attracted to the industry, particularly for work at night, when many cabs are idle[5].


In 1988, Boston taxi regulators asserted that their 1984 partition installation requirement caused the drops in assaults of 50% in 1986 and 33% in 1987. There is no explanation for the absence of results from the 1970-1983 partition rule. In fact, Boston asserts that the partition requirement began in 1984, not 1970. They lie also.



[1] This, with four full months of partition requirement implementation in effect.
[2] If armed drivers deter assaults… why not allow cab drivers their constitutional right to bear arms. If the argument against that - is the 'supposed gun expertise' of police officers VS cab drivers' expertise, how would it be explained that Carlos King, a police officer - moonlighting in a Manhattan (medallion?) cab, was murdered.
[3] This, with one full year before partitions were required.

[4] This type of a hedging of the bets is no better than policies that say it is OK to pass up people, who are hailing, just because they are… WHATEVER!!! Fill in the blank… with anything except the illegal bases of discrimination. No time of day ever killed a cab driver. And no partition ever defeated the ill-intentioned drug addicts' willingness to rob an/or kill to get the money he needs.
[5] This implies that the situation that prompted the partition requirement was a result of the inability of fleet cab owners' to get enough (or all) of their cabs to work… even the night shifts Which until the partition ruse, was perceived to be too dangerous. 
Post a Comment