Taxi industry inquiry
Issues raised in submissions
Download 1.67 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Child safety restraints
- Safety cameras and protection screens
- Additional suggestions
- Inquiry’s response to submissions
- Taxi vehicles
Issues raised in submissionsGenerally, the inquiry’s safety-related recommendations received strong industry and community support. The proposed shift to risk-based, outcomes-focused regulation, the requirement for a regulatory impact statement prior to introducing safety-related measures and the development of guidelines for safe taxi ranks were supported by the overwhelming majority of submissions. There was also strong support for the moratorium on the roll-out of safety cameras in country areas. The main issues raised in submissions related to recommendations covering child safety restraints, safety cameras, protection screens and safe taxi ranks.
A significant minority of submissions (around 30 per cent of those commenting on the issue and mostly from industry participants) did not support the removal of the exemption for the use of child safety restraints. The VTA argued that while the recommendation was “well intentioned, there are too many operational and community health complexities in its application” (although these complexities were not detailed in the VTA’s submission).141 TISV did not support the recommendation on the basis that taxis have insufficient boot space to carry a restraint as they are already carrying a full size tyre and an LPG unit. Some taxi operators were vehemently opposed to this recommendation, arguing that it will be too costly, ‘unworkable’ or ‘inconvenient’ given the relatively small number of times a restraint is required. For example, Riviera Taxis described the proposal as “a legal minefield and a logistics nightmare” with significant OH&S implications and potentially prohibitive outlay costs.142 Other operators cited ‘health concerns’ as the primary reason for disagreeing with the inquiry’s recommendation. A number of operators supported the carrying of restraints in all taxi vehicles, provided they have some means to recoup all or part of the costs of providing the restraint. Others endorsed the recommendation if it is made clear that it will not be necessary for each and every taxi to carry a restraint, but for a restraint to be made available when a passenger requests one as part of a booked service. While commending the inquiry for tackling this issue, Victoria’s Child Safety Commissioner called for all Victorian taxis to be required to carry a convertible child restraint and a booster seat, stored in a capsule on top of the taxi. VCOSS also urged the inquiry to recommend that child safety restraints in taxis be provided “free of charge as part of a universally accessible service”.143
The VTA supported the recommendation for a moratorium on safety cameras in country areas, but considered this should also be extended to driver protection screens. While the vast majority of submissions supported the moratorium, some country taxi operators viewed the recommendation as ‘discriminating’ against country areas and stated that cameras should be mandatory across Victoria. Others shared the inquiry’s concerns that a high cost is being imposed on country taxi operators without a proper assessment of the claimed benefits or sufficient choice being permitted in the type of camera to be installed.
The VTA urged the inquiry to recommend a community engagement process to “build respect for taxi drivers”, including the appointment of a well-regarded community figure to lead a high profile campaign. The VTA also called for TSC officers to be given explicit powers to deal with taxi customers who behave in an offensive but non-criminal manner and the development of a stronger relationship with Victoria Police and other industry sectors to ensure an appropriate response to criminal actions directed at taxi drivers.144 While endorsing the inquiry’s recommendation relating to safe ranks, several disability advocacy and service groups urged the inclusion of accessibility requirements in safe rank guidelines. The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission suggested that these guidelines include accessibility requirements as set by law and other safety features “to ensure that such facilities are accessible to people with a range of disabilities”.145 At the inquiry’s hearings, Victoria Police indicated support for a number of safety-related initiatives: Improvements in the operation of safety cameras, such as self-loops The introduction of prepaid flat fares on set routes (from pre-determined ranks that are monitored by CCTV) An improved and more effective partnership (or formal accord) between the industry and Victoria Police, including elevating police involvement in such a partnership to Assistant Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner level. Victoria Police also raised the possibility of creating a specific offence for fare evasion in taxis, while acknowledging that improvements can be made to the process when taxi drivers report fare evasion at a police station.146
Recent events have further highlighted the importance and seriousness of safety concerns relating to taxi drivers. In June of this year, eight people including four youths were charged over a series of violent attacks on taxi drivers in Melbourne’s western suburbs during a 90-minute period on a Sunday night. In early August, taxi driver Stephen Seymour was murdered by a passenger in Mount Waverley. These violent attacks have prompted public discussion of additional driver safety measures, including a requirement for passengers to show identification before taking a cab, tougher penalties for assaulting drivers, making protection screens mandatory in all cabs and the introduction of purpose-built vehicles that separate drivers from passengers. The inquiry has carefully considered these options in making its final recommendations. The inquiry’s view is that more is required than simply incorporating safety measures within existing taxi vehicles in a piecemeal or ad hoc manner. The inquiry also sees driver safety as an issue that extends well beyond the industry and one that must be tackled using a combination of measures and through joint action by industry, government and police.
The inquiry’s recommendation in relation to child safety restraints does not require all taxi and hire car vehicles to carry a restraint. The effect of the recommendation is that a child passenger can no longer travel in a taxi without the appropriate restraint. This restraint can be provided either by an adult passenger accompanying the child or by the ATO or taxi permit holder. The practical effect of this recommendation will be: The driver of a taxi that is hailed in the street or taken from a rank should refuse to carry a child passenger if an appropriate restraint is either not provided to the driver or the cab is not carrying a restraint; and Where a restraint is requested when booking a taxi or hire car service, the ATO or individual permit holder must provide the appropriate restraint. The inquiry’s view is that ATOs and permit holders can decide for themselves the best option for meeting this obligation. An ATO may opt to supply all its vehicles with a restraint (carried in the car boot or in a roof top capsule) or to have a small number of restraints it can make available on request. An independent permit holder (one not affiliated with an ATO) who operates a single cab and provides a booking service may need to ensure that the vehicle carries a restraint at all times. The inquiry accepts industry arguments that providing these restraints comes with a cost and that it is reasonable for customers requiring this service to pay an additional fee. However, the inquiry notes that these costs could be recovered in the general level of fares rather than through specific additional fees. The inquiry does not accept that the ‘complexities’ in this arrangement are so great as to render the provision of restraints unworkable. As is already being demonstrated by a number of hire car operators (and in other jurisdictions), it is possible for a taxi permit holder to make available an appropriate restraint in one form or another. Implementing the inquiry’s recommendations in relation to advertising on taxi vehicles should also extend to permitting advertising on the outside of a roof top capsule to assist in recouping costs. The inquiry again notes the compelling evidence of the vulnerability of children under seven who are not appropriately restrained in a car and remains strongly of the view that any perceived ‘complexities’ should not be allowed to outweigh the safety of young children travelling in a taxi.
The inquiry notes that there was some confusion around the intent and effect of a number of the Draft Report’s safety-related recommendations. The wording of draft recommendation 7.3 in relation to the moratorium on safety cameras appears to have been misinterpreted by some people as recommending that the moratorium should extend statewide or that country taxis should have a permanent exemption from installing a camera. The inquiry’s intention was that the moratorium would apply only to country taxis and that cameras would continue to be required for all other zones. While recognising that cameras are an important safety tool (especially for their deterrent effect), the inquiry accepted the concerns raised by country operators about the high cost of installing a camera that meets current highly prescriptive specifications, with little analysis being carried out by the regulator about the associated benefits. The recommendation aimed to ensure that the regulator conducts a proper assessment of the costs and benefits of installing a camera that meets the current specifications in country areas, and also explores options for permitting a broader range of cameras to be used in taxis. Following the release of the Draft Report, the Government indicated its support for this recommendation and announced an immediate moratorium on the roll-out of taxi safety cameras in country areas while the VTD undertakes a cost-benefit assessment. The VTD has written to all country operators informing them of the moratorium. Operators may still fit cameras if they wish and existing camera systems will remain operational and supported by the VTD's camera download unit and Victoria Police. Recommendation 7.4 suggested driver protection screens should be reviewed in three years to ‘consider the impact and performance of other safety measures that may obviate the need for screens’. The intent behind this recommendation was that other measures, such as those designed to encourage the take up of purpose-built vehicles, may provide more effective protection for drivers in the future.147 The recommendation was not intended to imply that there was no need for ongoing in-car protection of drivers; rather, it was aimed at identifying whether better options may be available in the future than the current removable screens, which are not suitable for all vehicle types and are disliked (and therefore not used) by most drivers. The inquiry has amended these recommendations to clarify their intent. The inquiry has also amended its recommendations on regulatory impact statements and outcomes-focused regulation to provide better guidance to the regulator on how these recommendations should be implemented.
The inquiry has strengthened its recommendations covering the kinds of vehicles that can be used as taxis (discussed in greater detail in chapter 5). The inquiry’s recommendations aim to give the industry the option of using purpose-built vehicles that have in-built safety features, such as a separate driver compartment.
|