Janet Lee

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

Friday, March 25, 2016

The Trade Offs That Police Accept

Police officers look at this problem and make a decision.
Do I know there is a risk to rear seat occupants in a sudden stop? or a collision?  Yes.
Do I  know there is a risk of driver death in a rear end collision? Yes.
Do I want both? No.
Will I accept both? Yes.
Why? I do not know the answer to that question.

Taxi regulators look at this problem also make a decision.
Do I know there is a risk to rear seat occupants in a sudden stop? or a collision?  Yes.
Do I  know there is a risk of driver death in a rear end collision? Yes.
Do I want both? No.
Will I accept both? Yes.
Do I know drivers are shot dead, even with the bullet proof (sic) partitions? Yes.
Why continue the requirement? Cab regulators don't use taxis, so they are not at risk.

Taxi partition mandates benefit the regulator three ways.
1) The requirement creates the illusion that the murder problem has been addressed, when it has not been.
2) With the partition mandate in place, we feel justified in now universally denying second amendment rights for cab drivers with partitions. "You are protected by a bullet proof shield. You have no need for a weapon."
3) "You must not deny service to anyone." Supposedly protects the taxi bureau from liability for sanctioning discrimination. Discrimination is what the cab driving profession is all about. Racial discrimination is unkind and not what we are talking about.

Partitions are worth the risk of occupant injury, even though their use means more incinerated officers, more waffled prisoners, more injured taxi passengers, more murdered cab drivers.

Preview
Post a Comment