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.
Steve Crowell
No comments:
Post a Comment