good question. i would like to know this anwser too. i drove taxi before shields it was better but not too safe. camaras should be better and no back pain.
I'm a driver who has considered putting a camera in my cab. From the research I've done, it seems that those drivers in other cities who have used cameras have found them to be a successful deterrent against crime. However, I think there are some interesting points to be mentioned on both cameras and shields.
1. Despite the fact that shields do cut down on passenger legroom and driver comfort, they also act as a physical barrier against an attacker's weapon. A camera can't stop a knife from coming at a driver's throat; it can only capture the attack on tape in the hopes of catching the attacker.
2. That being said, in my experience, most drivers don't close their shields, thus effectively negating their purpose.
3. Like I said, those drivers in other cities who do use cameras say they have been successful. Numbers don't lie - in cities like Toronto and San Francisco where cameras were mandated, crimes against drivers have decreased.
4. Mary is right - cameras would be a better way to stop non-violent crimes against drivers, such as fare-jumping. Also, a camera could be used as evidence to settle a dispute between a driver and a passenger.
5. Cameras are located everywhere these days and crimes still happen. If someone has decided to rob you, they will whether you have a shield or a camera.
6. What about privacy, both for drivers and passengers? Do we really need "Big Brother" watching us in another place? When do we stop being on tape?
7. In a discussion on this forum about media bias, someone mentioned that violence against drivers rarely makes the papers. Perhaps that's because the attackers are rarely caught? If a driver is attacked and the attacker is captured and punished because of video tape, that could send a message to others thinking of committing a similar crime against a cabbie and that message would be: "If you attack a cabdriver, you will be caught and you will be punished." That could be the best crime prevention of them all! The minute drivers stop being portrayed as "easy targets" and "helpless victims," that's when drivers will start to be safe.
Shields cut down on passenger legroom... only if they are installed in such a way that limits front seat adjustability. Seat travel restrictions from stationary partition installation is avoidable.
"drivers don't close their shields, thus effectively negating their purpose."
It doesn't matter if the 'weapon-hole' is open or closed. The driver is a fish in a barrel either way.
"If someone has decided to rob you, they will whether you have a shield or a camera."
A bit fatalistic aren't you? It IS possible to change their minds.
Bring back cash only cabs in Chicago. Cameras protect us
If, Cameras are so safe, And, will save are lives from being rob. Then, get rid of credit cards and we can only care cash again. The Comminssoner wanted us to take credit cards. So, if we get robbed. They will just take care recpits and some cash.
Re: Bring back cash only cabs in Chicago. Cameras protect us
Sir, The camera is an aid to law enforcement to ATTEMPT to capture the robber/attempted murderer/murderer. You already know that a partition is the drivers best friend.
What you don't know is that the city plans to force us into smaller taxi's. No room for a partition. Use a camera. They are going to send us out without proper protection to hold the rate of fare down. We currently offer luxury service for bargain rates. The city doesn't want to stop this so they are telling us to downsize to save. What we really need is fair rates of fare. This should be the number one issue. Why should I be crammed into some small vehicle just to save my passengers a buck or two? My riders want more room as it is now.
