P.O. Box 303
Eastham, MA 02642
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 11th, 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.”
“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,"
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. 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. 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