The Associated Press - WASHINGTON - Three quarters of a million infant car seats are being recalled for repair because of a potentially fatal flaw, the government announced. When used as an infant carrier, the handle of these Kolcraft car seats made by Kolcraft Enterprises unexpectedly change position, causing the seat to rotate and the baby to fall to the ground. At least one infant has suffered a skull fracture, and two have suffered concussions. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reports that 42 infants have been injured as a result of this defect. There have been more than 3,000 reports of handle-related problems with the product.

"Three quarters of a million infant car seats are being recalled for repair because of a potentially fatal flaw " because of one skull fracture, two concussions, 42 injuries and 3,000 handle-related problems?

because of a potentially fatal flaw ? How does this compare to taxi and cruiser partition flaws killing 70+ police officers, mutilating scores of taxi occupants and probably just as many prisoners in the rear seats of cruisers?

Is there some reason we tolerate dead cops and mutilated rear seat taxi and cruiser occupants, yet have no stomach for a baby bumping its' head?

Is it because we secretly don't mind when prisoners get hurt?

Is it because we secretly believe the BLM movement is valid, when we tolerate preventable loss of troopers' lives?

Or

Is it because we don't care about paying injured prisoners eight figure cash settlements?

Could it be because the usual purveyor of cruiser partitions has such a long and friendly relationship with police agencies? The solidarity of the relationship between the main supplier, Setina Corporation, and police agencies across the nation...  is hinted at, in a Setina letter. 

"During our many years designing and manufacturing police vehicle equipment, we have done much research to see if there was any federal regulation that might pertain to our products. We have found that our equipment is considered an "after-market" product" that has no federal regulations." - Judy Setina

However, our federal government said;

Do our (USDOT) safety standards apply to auxiliary interior equipment installed in motor vehicles? The answer is yes. The NHTSA authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for equipment (S103), prohibits the sale or manufacture of equipment which does not meet those standards (S108(a)(1)(A)), establishes civil penalties for non-complying equipment (S109(a)), and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (S154(a)). (paraphrased)


(Exact quote)

In addition, the Act requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (S114). This requirement applies to manufacturers of equipment, with regard to those items of equipment, and to vehicle manufacturers with regard to the entire vehicle. Thus, if auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a vehicle prior to first sale, the automobile equipment manufacturer must certify compliance with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the entire vehicle (including items of equipment) complies  with all applicable safety standards.”

“You first asked whether our safety standards apply to auxiliary interior equipment installed in motor vehicles. The answer is yes. The NHTSA authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and equipment (S103), prohibits the sale or manufacture of new vehicles and equipment which do not meet those standards (S108(a)(1)(A)), establishes civil penalties for non-complying vehicles and equipment (S109(a)), and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (S154(a)).

In addition, the Act requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (S114). This requirement applies to manufacturers of equipment, with regard to those items of equipment, and to vehicle manufacturers with regard to the entire vehicle. Thus, if auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a vehicle prior to first sale, the automobile equipment manufacturer must certify compliance with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the entire vehicle (including items of equipment) complies  with all applicable safety standards.”

Jeffrey R. Miller

Chief Counsel USDOT 1985

Baltimore "rough rides"... not a very common practice?

Baltimore Sun article (entire article)

Natalie Finegar, the deputy public defender for Baltimore City, said she does not believe rough rides are a common practice in Baltimore — or she would have heard about it.

Key, the former city police officer who is now a consultant, said another term for the practice was "bringing them up front." By slamming on the brakes, detainees would bump against the cage behind the driver's seat.

"If it's done on purpose, it's a criminal act and violates regulations," said Key, who is not involved in Gray's case. If a detainee is injured in a ride due to some action by the driver, the incident must be reported, he added.

University of South Carolina professor Geoffrey Alpert, an expert in police force, said rough rides are also known as "screen tests." When police cars or vans had screens between the front and back seats, drivers would stop short — "to avoid a dog" — sending a handcuffed prisoner flying face-first into the screen, he said.

"Cops used to laugh about it. That was big in the 1980s and 1990s," Alpert said. "It was obviously against policy and illegal. I remember in some trainings that police chiefs would say, 'You'd better bring the damn dog you were trying to avoid if you come in with a prisoner with such an injury.'"

Alpert added, "Now a lot of these vans and cars have videos in them. So it doesn't happen very often."

Where is the footage of these RARE events?

Reply to USDOT Chief Counsel O. Kevin Vincent - never answered

Steve Crowell

P.O. Box 303

Eastham, MA 02642

bestpartition@gmail.com

USDOT NHTSA Chief Counsel – O.Kevin Vincent

1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vincent,

            First, I thank you for taking the time to respond to my October letter on January 11^th, this year. Allow me to submit the following perspectives and data.

“Security” partition may be a misnomer.

Partitions installed in taxis (to reduce murders) have had a miserable failure rate. Every cab driver killed in Boston since 1970 HAD a partition in the cab. More drivers get shot now, with partitions.

Although this aspect is not a DOT issue, I offer the “1997 Baltimore report From NCSU’s urban studies professor Dr. John Randolph Stone, which says; “One of the most intuitively effective, yet controversial countermeasures is a taxi partition or shield.”

http://www.popcenter.org/library/scp/pdf/176-Stone_and_Stevens.pdf

“Intuitively effective”? What does this mean? “We think it works, so let’s assume it does.”?

Dr. Stone supports taxi regulators who overstate the objective of taxi partition use. He also says; “This study makes one implicit assumption… it is assumed that assaults on taxi drivers are a proxy measure of taxi driver homicides. Thus, if shields reduce assaults then it can be assumed that they will reduce homicides.”  

You have no need to pay attention to his data which shows a 300% increase in cab driver murders. If… partitions are viable, or not, for murder rate reductions… is not a question your office would deal with. Your office would only deal with compliance issues, and performance issues in crashes, not assaults.

Regarding paragraph four; I only request that the agency do… as required by congressional directive. In order to reduce the frequency and severity of injury and the frequency of death, your agency should make it clear that partitions, IF USED, must be built and installed in compliance with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Currently none are certified, and none comply. Regarding the merits of using a partition; you mention a trade off of safety in the absence of a partition. A previous USDOT letter (from Armstrong) mentioned a trade off of safety using a partition.

“Trading off safety” with a partition is illegal and cited in the original letter of warning in 1984.

Trading off safety by not using a partition is not your concern. There are no federal standards regarding operator retention of control, nor are there any regarding assaults on operators. Just what partitions may, or may not be viable for… is none of your business. If taxi regulators are telling the truth about assault prevention, or not… should not be up for discussion with USDOT personnel. Your job is to be sure partitions comply. Trading off safety by using an illegal partition is your concern. Any so-called trade-off of safety from assailants, from ‘not using a partition’ should not concern you.

I thank you for the information about FMVSS 226. Reading it cleared up my confusion about the ‘airbag/partition intrusion zone conflict’ question. If there are other standards that mention partitions, please let me know.

Do I understand correctly that because FMVSS no. 226 excludes partitioned vehicles, that Mr. Reid was correct when he said cabs and cruisers are exempt from all FMVSS’s? The confusion persists.

That partitions are built, offered for sale, sold or installed in violation of FMVSS’s, is your concern. Even if no injuries resulted, the law should be enforced anyway. Unfortunately, many deaths and injuries do occur. So many so, that NYC trauma surgeons were alarmed enough to conduct two studies.

Dr.  Talmor, Dr. Barie, Dr. Shapiro and Dr. Hoffman, Department of Surgery, New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, NY. In 1996 four surgeons from the Department of Surgery, New York Hospital-Cornell

Medical Center released a report, this is a review of it.

 “Craniofacial injuries resulting from taxicab accidents in New York City”

 Taxicab accidents are a common occurrence in New York City. This review was undertaken to characterize the nature of craniofacial injuries that result from taxicab accidents.

 Data were collected on 16 patients who required admission to trauma or plastic and reconstructive surgery services, after sustaining craniofacial injury as a result of a taxicab accidents. 

 Front-end deceleration collisions were the most common mechanism of injury. 

 Fifty-six percent of the patients were thrown against the bulletproof, Plexiglas driver safety divider and sustained an injury most commonly to the anterior midface. 

 Both bony and soft tissue injuries were common in the entire group. 

“Given the high incidence of craniofacial injury, appropriate safety standards for taxicabs must be initiated, including the reevaluation of the utility of the safety divider”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8722975

Another group also studied this matter.

Dr. Arnold Komisar,  Dr. Stanley Blaugrund and Dr. Martin Camins - Lenox Hill Hospital, NYC - "Every emergency room in New York is seeing patients injured in taxicabs: three here, four there, six at another hospital, so it's easy to underestimate the problem,"

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/16/news/unplanned-taxi-destination-hospital.html

Some other doctors have made independent comments about partitions.

Dr. John Sherman - Assistant Clinical Professor of Surgery, New York Hospital, New York City -  "The results are uniformly disastrous: patients with head wounds from dividers, fractured noses, lacerations and worse.  Last month I saw two patients die from taxi-related injuries.”     http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/14/opinion/l-we-need-protection-from-perilous-taxis-770395.html

I have spoken with Dr. Sherman more than once. He is exasperated and has stopped his efforts to correct the problem. He accepts the partition risks as part of life in NYC.

Dr. Marc Melrose - Emergency Physician, Beth Israel Medical Center, Manhattan - "Cabs don't have to get into an accident for people to be hurt. The cab stops short and you go flying into the screen with the handles and bolts and that metal change thing. It's dangerous."        http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/16/news/unplanned-taxi-destination-hospital.html

Dr. Rahul Sharma, NYUMC  - has worked in several city emergency rooms, is all too familiar with the  damage the anti-crime partitions, required since 1994, can cause. “Ask any ER doc in Manhattan, and they will tell you they see it very frequently,” he said. “People have a false sense of security in the backseat of a cab.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/riding-new-york-city-taxi-seat-belt-danger-health-article-1.1036853

Dr. Sharma has been working with Dr. Goldfrank and they are pursuing legislation to make people use seat belts in the rear seats of taxi cabs. I pointed out that correction of the violations of federal motor vehicle safety standards would solve the injury problem for BOTH front and rear seat occupants.

Dr. Stephen Pearlman - Upper East Side facial plastic and reconstructive surgeon - “Gaping soft tissue injuries are also prevalent, since an edge of a partition's sliding door or its metal track can tear the skin.” “In the most severe instances, this causes "almost an avulsion" of the nose.”        http://www.nysun.com/new-york/doctors-predict-fewer-taxi-craniofacial-injuries/51639/

Dr. Paul Lorenc – NYC Plastic Surgeon “Crushed noses, fractured cheekbones and eye sockets, and "stellate," or burst lacerations, are among the most common injuries suffered when a passenger is hurled into the clear partition.”

Dr. Geoffrey Doughlin - E.R. Director, Jamaica Hospital – ‘Since the partitions act as a second windshield, back seat passengers fall victim to the same type of injuries as people in the front passenger position, the "suicide seat," ‘

Dr. Gary Sbordone – Massachusetts Chiropracter  - “Could cause complex spinal injuries.”

Dr. Sbordone treated my spine injury from a partition in a rear end collision.

Dr. Kai Sturmann - Acting Chairman, Emergency Department, Beth Israel  -  “I would like to see back-seat air bags.”

Clearly, there is a problem with partitions in taxis.

There are problems in cruisers also. Those losses are difficult to document, but I have solicited a number of comments from officers who have boasted that they can use the partition to injure people. Here is one.

Tim Ray - a police officer of Monee, Illinois - wrote the following message to me on the internet. This message was available for anybody in the world to read.

"HERE'S  SOMETHING I LIKE TO DO… WHEN YOU GET AN UNFRIENDLY PASSENGER IN YOUR CAR, WHO LIKES TO RUN HIS MOUTH, PUT HIM ON THE PASSENGER SIDE WHERE THE WIRE SCREEN IS, AND WHILE HE IS RUNNING HIS MOUTH, TELL HIM THAT YOU CAN'T HEAR HIM, SO HE GETS RIGHT UP TO IT, AND WHEN HIS FACE GETS RIGHT THERE. SLAM ON YOUR BRAKES, I GUARANTEE IT SHUTS THEM UP EVERY TIME. "

Officer Ray is describing a cowardly, vicious felony, which can be fairly characterized as nationwide, institutionalized police brutality.

The sword cuts both ways. Officers are injured by partition grids also.

Dr. Stone calls partitions “Intuitively effective”? What does this mean? “We think it works, so let’s assume it does.”?

Dr. Stone supports taxi regulators who overstate the objective of taxi partition use. He also says; “This study makes one implicit assumption… it is assumed that assaults on taxi drivers are a proxy measure of taxi driver homicides. Thus, if shields reduce assaults then it can be assumed that they will reduce homicides.”  

You have no need to pay attention to his data which shows a 300% increase in cab driver murders. If… partitions are viable, or not, for murder rate reductions… is not a question your office would deal with. Your office would only deal with compliance issues, and performance issues in crashes, not assaults.

Regarding paragraph four; I only request that the agency do… as required by congressional directive. In order to reduce the frequency and severity of injury and the frequency of death, your agency should make it clear that partitions, IF USED, must be built and installed in compliance with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Currently none are certified, and none comply. Regarding the merits of using a partition; you mention a trade off of safety in the absence of a partition. A previous USDOT letter (from Armstrong) mentioned a trade off of safety using a partition.

“Trading off safety” with a partition is illegal and cited in the original letter of warning in 1984.

Trading off safety by not using a partition is not your concern. There are no federal standards regarding operator retention of control, nor are there any regarding assaults on operators. Just what partitions may, or may not be viable for… is none of your business. If taxi regulators are telling the truth about assault prevention, or not… should not be up for discussion with USDOT personnel. Your job is to be sure partitions comply. Trading off safety by using an illegal partition is your concern. Any so-called trade-off of safety from assailants, from ‘not using a partition’ should not concern you.

I thank you for the information about FMVSS 226. Reading it cleared up my confusion about the ‘airbag/partition intrusion zone conflict’ question. If there are other standards that mention partitions, please let me know.

Do I understand correctly that because FMVSS no. 226 excludes partitioned vehicles, that Mr. Reid was correct when he said cabs and cruisers are exempt from all FMVSS’s? The confusion persists.

That partitions are built, offered for sale, sold or installed in violation of FMVSS’s, is your concern. Even if no injuries resulted, the law should be enforced anyway. Unfortunately, many deaths and injuries do occur. So many so, that NYC trauma surgeons were alarmed enough to conduct two studies.

Dr.  Talmor, Dr. Barie, Dr. Shapiro and Dr. Hoffman, Department of Surgery, New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, NY. In 1996 four surgeons from the Department of Surgery, New York Hospital-Cornell

Medical Center released a report, this is a review of it.

 “Craniofacial injuries resulting from taxicab accidents in New York City”

 Taxicab accidents are a common occurrence in New York City. This review was undertaken to characterize the nature of craniofacial injuries that result from taxicab accidents.

 Data were collected on 16 patients who required admission to trauma or plastic and reconstructive surgery services, after sustaining craniofacial injury as a result of a taxicab accidents. 

 Front-end deceleration collisions were the most common mechanism of injury. 

 Fifty-six percent of the patients were thrown against the bulletproof, Plexiglas driver safety divider and sustained an injury most commonly to the anterior midface. 

 Both bony and soft tissue injuries were common in the entire group. 

“Given the high incidence of craniofacial injury, appropriate safety standards for taxicabs must be initiated, including the reevaluation of the utility of the safety divider”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8722975

Another group also studied this matter.

Dr. Arnold Komisar,  Dr. Stanley Blaugrund and Dr. Martin Camins - Lenox Hill Hospital, NYC - "Every emergency room in New York is seeing patients injured in taxicabs: three here, four there, six at another hospital, so it's easy to underestimate the problem,"

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/16/news/unplanned-taxi-destination-hospital.html

Some other doctors have made independent comments about partitions.

Dr. John Sherman - Assistant Clinical Professor of Surgery, New York Hospital, New York City -  "The results are uniformly disastrous: patients with head wounds from dividers, fractured noses, lacerations and worse.  Last month I saw two patients die from taxi-related injuries.”     http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/14/opinion/l-we-need-protection-from-perilous-taxis-770395.html

I have spoken with Dr. Sherman more than once. He is exasperated and has stopped his efforts to correct the problem. He accepts the partition risks as part of life in NYC.

Dr. Marc Melrose - Emergency Physician, Beth Israel Medical Center, Manhattan - "Cabs don't have to get into an accident for people to be hurt. The cab stops short and you go flying into the screen with the handles and bolts and that metal change thing. It's dangerous."        http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/16/news/unplanned-taxi-destination-hospital.html

Dr. Rahul Sharma, NYUMC  - has worked in several city emergency rooms, is all too familiar with the  damage the anti-crime partitions, required since 1994, can cause. “Ask any ER doc in Manhattan, and they will tell you they see it very frequently,” he said. “People have a false sense of security in the backseat of a cab.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/riding-new-york-city-taxi-seat-belt-danger-health-article-1.1036853

Dr. Sharma has been working with Dr. Goldfrank and they are pursuing legislation to make people use seat belts in the rear seats of taxi cabs. I pointed out that correction of the violations of federal motor vehicle safety standards would solve the injury problem for BOTH front and rear seat occupants.

Dr. Stephen Pearlman - Upper East Side facial plastic and reconstructive surgeon - “Gaping soft tissue injuries are also prevalent, since an edge of a partition's sliding door or its metal track can tear the skin.” “In the most severe instances, this causes "almost an avulsion" of the nose.”        http://www.nysun.com/new-york/doctors-predict-fewer-taxi-craniofacial-injuries/51639/

Dr. Paul Lorenc – NYC Plastic Surgeon “Crushed noses, fractured cheekbones and eye sockets, and "stellate," or burst lacerations, are among the most common injuries suffered when a passenger is hurled into the clear partition.”

Dr. Geoffrey Doughlin - E.R. Director, Jamaica Hospital – ‘Since the partitions act as a second windshield, back seat passengers fall victim to the same type of injuries as people in the front passenger position, the "suicide seat," ‘

Dr. Gary Sbordone – Massachusetts Chiropracter  - “Could cause complex spinal injuries.”

Dr. Sbordone treated my spine injury from a partition in a rear end collision.

Dr. Kai Sturmann - Acting Chairman, Emergency Department, Beth Israel  -  “I would like to see back-seat air bags.”

Clearly, there is a problem with partitions in taxis.

There are problems in cruisers also. Those losses are difficult to document, but I have solicited a number of comments from officers who have boasted that they can use the partition to injure people. Here is one.

Tim Ray - a police officer of Monee, Illinois - wrote the following message to me on the internet. This message was available for anybody in the world to read.

"HERE'S  SOMETHING I LIKE TO DO… WHEN YOU GET AN UNFRIENDLY PASSENGER IN YOUR CAR, WHO LIKES TO RUN HIS MOUTH, PUT HIM ON THE PASSENGER SIDE WHERE THE WIRE SCREEN IS, AND WHILE HE IS RUNNING HIS MOUTH, TELL HIM THAT YOU CAN'T HEAR HIM, SO HE GETS RIGHT UP TO IT, AND WHEN HIS FACE GETS RIGHT THERE. SLAM ON YOUR BRAKES, I GUARANTEE IT SHUTS THEM UP EVERY TIME. "

Officer Ray is describing a cowardly, vicious felony, which can be fairly characterized as nationwide, institutionalized police brutality.

The sword cuts both ways. Officers are injured by partition grids also.

As a manufacturer of federally compliant partitions it would be absurd of me to campaign against the use of all partitions. I have never asked that all partitions be removed, just those that don’t comply and those that aren’t certified to comply. Beyond that, I’d like to see mandates for all partitions in taxis lifted. Use of a taxi partition should be a choice for the taxi driver to make. But that is not a DOT matter.

             If you are leaving enforcement to the cities and/or states, please explain their obligations under federal law, pertaining to setting standards that are lower than the federal standards.

Thank you,

Steve Crowell

            As a manufacturer of federally compliant partitions it would be absurd of me to campaign against the use of all partitions. I have never asked that all partitions be removed, just those that don’t comply and those that aren’t certified to comply. Beyond that, I’d like to see mandates for all partitions in taxis lifted. Use of a taxi partition should be a choice for the taxi driver to make. But that is not a DOT matter.

             If you are leaving enforcement to the cities and/or states, please explain their obligations under federal law, pertaining to setting standards that are lower than the federal standards.

Thank you,

Steve Crowell

NYC TLC refusal to recognize risk of partitions in 1997

January 28, 1997

        

                                   NEW YORK CITY

                                  TAXI & LIMOUSINE

                                     COMMISSION

        

         221 West 41st Street, New York, New York 10036-7208 (212) 840-4520

        

         DIANE McGRATh-McKECHNIE

     

        

        

                                                       January 28, 1997

        

               Mr. Steven W. Crowell

               4706 Canal Street

               New Orleans, Louisiana 70114

        

               Dear Mr. Crowell,

        

                    Thank you for taking the time to share with us your concerns

               and opinions, as stated in your January 15 e-mail.

        

                    If I may, I would like to clear up some of the

               misconceptions expressed in your communication.  It was far more

               recently, two or so years, in fact, since the partition was

               mandated for fleet taxicabs.  Former Police Commissioner Bratton

               was in no way involved in the process, which was enacted wholly

               by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission and supported

               by the Giuliani Administration.

        

                    I must take exception with your remark regarding the City's

               motives in passing a partition requirement.  Through its passage,

               as well as the passage of rules mandating such other innovations

               as the trouble light, we have done more than  appear functional

               in protecting cab drivers,' we have been successful in protecting

               cab drivers.

        

                    If you have information pertinent to the safety of taxicab

               drivers in the City of New York, we would indeed be most grateful

               if you would share it with us.

        

                                                  Sincerely,

                                                  Diane McGrath-McKechnie

                                                  Chairperson

                                                  New York City

                                                  Taxi and Limousine Commission

        

               DMM: aj f

Crowell Manufacturing Company

211 ~ Westend Parkway #233 New Orleans, LA

504-451-5033

Fax: 504-366-7702

Steven Warren Crowell

President & Founder

Crowell Manufacturing Co Inc.

2111 Westbend P&kway #233

New Orleans, LA

April 7, 1997

Dianne McGrath-McKechnie

Commissioner of The TLC

221 West4lst St.

New York, NY 10036-7208

Dear Ms. McGrath-McKechnie,

I received your letters dated January 28th and March 28th of this year. Thank you for your attention to those matters.

Can you tell me, as far back as you can find, what the evolution of partition requirements has been for NYC medallion cabs.

In your Jan. letter you state that the partition requirement was mandated for fleet cabs in the last "two or so years" in the March letter you state that "The partition was first required for non-individually owned and operated cabs approximately two years ago and independently owned cabs are not required to have partitions".

Is this a different application of the partition requirement or is it the same thing worded differently?

Does this mean that all partitions used, before two years ago, were used on a voluntary basis?

I have seen a copy of the NYC TL&C regulations dated prior to 1987, and the partition requirement is in there. Although I do not know lust exactly which cabs they are required for. I was under the impression that 'mini-fleets' were not required to install them at that time.

One of the things that prompted the Boston Police Department to require partitions in 1970 was the alleged success of their use in New York.

About safety - In 1984 I met with Capt. Arthur Cadegan to tell him I was disturbed about the removal of shoulder harnesses (which was supposedly unavoidable to permit partition installation) from Boston cabs, in addition to several other hazards inherent in popular partition designs. I told him of the frustration I had encountered speaking to the manufacturer/installer of the partition, in that they felt safety was of less concern in a cab even though cabs have a great deal more daily human exposure than regular cars. I suggested that the BPDHD abandon their efforts to set specification requirements for partition design and instead refer to the Federal standards for items of after-market motor vehicle equipment and insist on a certification of compliance label on the partition.

            Captain Cadegan told me that Federal standards had no jurisdiction in Boston.

            Needless to say, I was stunned to hear a law school graduate say such a thing and countered that the feds did have superceding authority. Captain Cadegan then told me "If that is true, why don't you have the feds tell me so?" So, I did have the feds tell them (and three northeast U.S. partition manufacturers - two in Boston and one in New York) that Federal standards are applicable to cab partitions.

            In March of 1987 I forwarded copies of - the formal letters of warning to the manufacturers and the letter of caution sent  to the BPDHD - to the NYT&LC. I suggested at that time that the TLC abandon the partition requirement or be sure that the only partitions used - be those which are certified to be in compliance with all applicable Federal standards in the form of a label or tag on the partition. I also let the TLC know that I offer a partition that is certified to comply with Federal standards. I was never able to confirm, in writing that that the requirement was abandoned, but I believed it had been, given that there is a 'new' partition requirement as of "two years ago".

            Regarding your taking exception to my comment regarding the 'appearance of function without substance', I did not mean to say that there may not have been appreciable reductions in cab driver assaults since the partition requirement.  (Personally, I feel safer without one.)

            Your predecessors' implementation of bad partition requirements is not a thing you are responsible for. Failure to recognize the need to enhance occupant safety in cabs with partitions is a potential error.

            What I did mean to say is, after burying so many co-workers, slain by killers of cab drivers, that I am distressed that partition manufacturers and cab regulators tout the bullet-resistance capacity of a device that is so easily circumvented.

            It is not my intention to put anybody on the spot. It is my intention to see that no cab driver is led to a feeling of false security regarding assault attempts by persons with guns, that are easily aimed at the driver through the drivers' window.

Sincerely,

Steve Crowell

            

16 years ago a retired cop spoke out

C&D Forum cop doc  Roth517GTP  Senior Member  posted April 29, 2001 09:34 PM                

               No we don't have problems. Their ALWAYS handcuffed behind their back, seat

               belted in and within arms reach, so I'm never worried. There's a radio rack between

               us, so they can't try and kick the pedals or anything. It's better having them there

               because you can always see what they're doing,

 unlike with them riding in back

               behind a partition, 

out of sight. 

They don't usually go nuts enough to cause any

               problems. If they should, I pull over and can deal with it.

Roth is, or was a frequent contributor To C&D cop forum. His poignant observation that being able to see your prospective adversary has an advantage over not being able to see their actions is sad because it should be self-evident. Most people in favor of taxi partitions give this little thought. 

The two applications bring about radically different modes of use. Taxis with partitions versus cruisers with partitions."Pulling over and 'dealing with it'" are not suggested procedures for cab drivers.