"Drivers
and passengers do not fully accept shields in taxis. Drivers want to detach
shields from cars they may use privately during off‑duty hours.
Some passengers
perceive shields to be an uncomfortable inconvenience. Driver safety objectives
should not be considered in isolation from passenger service objectives.
A word
of caution, we should all think about whom is ultimately responsible for the
safety of a taxi driver. Is it the
Driver? The company or taxi owner? Or a regulatory agency? Should the taxi industry take care of its
own? Or should a regulatory agency adopt a "parental" approach to the
welfare of taxi drivers?
If a regulatory
agency mandates safety equipment, it accepts some responsibility, and companion
liability if a safety device fails to protect a driver. And unfortunately no safety device or method
guarantees full protection."
In a 1997 phone call I asked Professor John Randolph Stone if he realized partitions were mandated in response to murder, not mere assault. He agreed that the bulletproof claim was intended to address drivers who were shot. I asked if he knew that his own figures in his June 1999 Taxi Partition Effectiveness Study NCSU showed that murders not only continued, with so-called bullet-proof partitions, but actually increased!
I then asked asked Dr. Stone if he thought that partitions were worthwhile, when his own figures show a mere 20% decline in non-fatal assault, accompanied by a 400% increase in murder. He said yes. I asked why. He said,"One needs to look at the real number difference, rather than the percentage difference - before and after partition installation mandates. There we see the real number reduction in non-fatal assault is 16 fewer for each additional murder."
I replied, "And the murder rate increase went from 2 in 12 months at worst, to 3 in the first three months of partition installation mandates.
Can you rationalize this? Can you endeavor to ameliorate a loved ones' grief by explaining that... "Yes, your husband is dead, but the value of his sacrifice, means 16 fewer cab drivers will be non-fatally assaulted, because of this?"
He said, "Yes."
In a 1997 phone call I asked Professor John Randolph Stone if he realized partitions were mandated in response to murder, not mere assault. He agreed that the bulletproof claim was intended to address drivers who were shot. I asked if he knew that his own figures in his June 1999 Taxi Partition Effectiveness Study NCSU showed that murders not only continued, with so-called bullet-proof partitions, but actually increased!
I then asked asked Dr. Stone if he thought that partitions were worthwhile, when his own figures show a mere 20% decline in non-fatal assault, accompanied by a 400% increase in murder. He said yes. I asked why. He said,"One needs to look at the real number difference, rather than the percentage difference - before and after partition installation mandates. There we see the real number reduction in non-fatal assault is 16 fewer for each additional murder."
I replied, "And the murder rate increase went from 2 in 12 months at worst, to 3 in the first three months of partition installation mandates.
Can you rationalize this? Can you endeavor to ameliorate a loved ones' grief by explaining that... "Yes, your husband is dead, but the value of his sacrifice, means 16 fewer cab drivers will be non-fatally assaulted, because of this?"
He said, "Yes."
No comments:
Post a Comment