Actually, I think there's a great chance that a camera would have prevented this murder. People don't tend to murder people on camera where the chance that they get caught is virtually 100 percent.
What's more is that a shield would not have guaranteed that this murder wouldn't have happened. As we all know, most shields are left open so an assailant can still easily put a gun to a driver's head. What's more is that shields in Chicago are required to be "bullet resistant" rather than "bullet proof." In other words, a bullet from a powerful enough gun may slice through a shield like butter.
Furthermore, a shield would have provided no visual evidence of who the killer was. Did you notice at the end of the newscast that they are asking people to call the police with any information about this murder?
Cameras are relatively expensive compared to the shield, which is a big reason they are resisted by owners in spite of their tremendous value.
George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S526158.shtml
We need partitions in our vehicles. Does anyone think a camera would have PREVENTED this murder?
The placard has been proving very effective, as far as I know.
Any expert opinions?
Need the pla card.
It may warn the criminals before they attack a cabbie.
most cabs don't have it, why? why you don't hand it out to all the drivers or just give it at all the cab companies for drivers to pick up?
American United has Wiedersberg's Law on the back of their taxicab receipts.
Getting the word out to the public is definitely important. Still, neither placards nor receipts containing Wiedersberg's Law are substitutes for shields or cameras.
Somebody who is thinking about killing another person probably already has the idea that he can get into some serious trouble if caught.
George
George, Your reply to the posting of Mr. Tonto sounded like a consumer service standard reply. Almost like you just copied and pasted what Norma Reyes would say. My opinion.
Where did you get the statistic that 100% of people on camera images would surely be caught? Do you think the police are going to waste time with some fuzzy images? In the winter people wear gloves and hats. No fingerprints and a big ID problem even if the photos are of ok quality. Do you think the photos from these cameras will be portrait quality? Do you think the cops will give priority to a cab driver that got a black eye and had his money stolen?
I also have a street stat for you. This is from a street wise person, me. Most robberies of cab drivers do not involve the shooting of the driver. Most are robberies by other methods. Did you ever hear of a driver getting the noose? The shields have ended this kind of robbery that was very common.
Have cameras stopped bank robberies? The level of the guys that do these kinds of robberies( bank cab etc) is usually very low. Sub normal. Do you really believe a camera will stop this kind of person? How about a person strung out on drugs? Will a jury or judge throw the perp in the hospital for killing me?
"Somebody who is thinking about killing another person probably already has the idea that he can get into some serious trouble if caught.
George"
And when he's strung out George he doesn't care.
Removal of this posting would be unjust George. This forum is great for exchanging ideas and opinions as well. Even if we don't agree, this opens the door to future communication. Perhaps we can find a common ground. Or better yet a good safety solution that works for all. I ask you to try to be a fair moderator even if things are critical of you.
"George, Your reply to the posting of Mr. Tonto sounded like a consumer service standard reply. Almost like you just copied and pasted what Norma Reyes would say. My opinion."
Travis, your reply sounds like a standard reply of a shield manufacturer or a fleet owner who doesn't want to spend the money on cameras. Since you don't post under your real name, your motives are dubious.
FYI, I advocated cameras in cabs long before I heard Consumer Services ever talk about them. I advocated them before Commissioner Reyes was the DCS Commissioner.
When I started driving a cab, we didn't have shields. I miss the days when I could recline my seat. I am very proud that Commissioner Reyes made it optional to substitute the camera for the shield. Optional. I've never been a big fan of mandates.
"Where did you get the statistic that 100% of people on camera images would surely be caught?"
Is that what I said Travis? Do you know the difference between "virtually" and "surely?" Also, I was talking about murders, not just any kind of attack. Murders are taken very seriously by police.
I think you underestimate the psychological impact cameras have on people. Generally, people behave very differently when they know they are being filmed or photographed. Don't you? Smile, you're on camera.
The cab I drive has a shield. If I had the option of driving with a camera instead, I'd jump at the chance. I'd be willing to pay extra for it.
Also, the shield dehumanizes the driver. The shield makes the person behind the wheel a taxi driver. I'd rather be seen by my passengers as George. The benefits go on and on.
"Do you think the police are going to waste time with some fuzzy images?"
Have you seen the technology out there? What is your basis for saying the images are fuzzy? The images I've seen are very clear.
"And when he's strung out George he doesn't care."
That's right. He doesn't care about a camera or a shield.
"Removal of this posting would be unjust George."
Why would I remove this posting? That's an insult and a cheap attempt to paint me as a person who takes things down simply because I don't agree with them. I don't appreciate that, especially from somebody like you who knows better but has an agenda of making me look like a censor, because that's what Donald Nathan has tried to do. Is it any surprise that you are his biggest fan? 24 hour ban for that comment. Your posting stays.
George
George, The ban makes you sound Like King Ritchie Rich. You are indeed banning someone that made a comment you personally didn't like.
When someone collects 10k for you I can see why that person is his fan. The guy that posted didn't hide this.
How long have you had a city chauffeurs license George? I don't remember you as a driver 10 years ago George.
who is telling lies?
Please list their NAMES AND THEIR LIES AND LET THE FORUM DECIDE.
oR IS IT TRUE THAT YOU ARE THE DICTATOR.
oR ARE THE ALLEGED LIES THRUE?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
George, The ban makes you sound Like King Ritchie Rich. You are indeed banning someone that made a comment you personally didn't like.
When someone collects 10k for you I can see why that person is his fan. The guy that posted didn't hide this.
How long have you had a city chauffeurs license George? I don't remember you as a driver 10 years ago George.
George Years ago I paid an extra .25 per shift for a shield in my taxi. We drivers are the ones that currently pay for the shields and will also pay for the cameras. Why do you say the owners pay when in fact we are the ones that keep ending up getting ripped from all angles?
Do the owners get this equipment for free? Do they work for free? No. We end up paying for all of it and then some in leasing fees. Musthave bought a few taxis for yellow over the years. I don't want to start buying cameras for them as well.
I don't want to be touchy feely with my patrons, trade names/numbers, or get a shoulder massage from a Belmont Halsted irregular. I'm not an author looking for another story to tell. I like the partitions.
I'm also liable to puff away when my taxi is empty. I don't want my privacy invaded. Will the city be able to use these images to prosecute us? Perhaps this is part of the plan.
"I like the partitions."
I have no problem with that. I think that if you prefer to drive a cab with a patition you should have reasonable access to one.
I like the cameras. A lot of drivers would prefer a camera to a shield. Do you think that we should be forced to drive cabs with partitions?
George
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
George Years ago I paid an extra .25 per shift for a shield in my taxi. We drivers are the ones that currently pay for the shields and will also pay for the cameras. Why do you say the owners pay when in fact we are the ones that keep ending up getting ripped from all angles?
Do the owners get this equipment for free? Do they work for free? No. We end up paying for all of it and then some in leasing fees. Musthave bought a few taxis for yellow over the years. I don't want to start buying cameras for them as well.
I don't want to be touchy feely with my patrons, trade names/numbers, or get a shoulder massage from a Belmont Halsted irregular. I'm not an author looking for another story to tell. I like the partitions.
I'm also liable to puff away when my taxi is empty. I don't want my privacy invaded. Will the city be able to use these images to prosecute us? Perhaps this is part of the plan.
I'll weigh in on this one ---
I'm 6'4". I found partitions horribly uncomfortable when I was driving years ago. But I also knew they protected me when I was otherwise exposed. The death rate for cabdrivers is MUCH lower with safety shields, no matter how useless they appear to be.
Cameras help too. Whatever safety devices like these can only do good no matter what they cost and no matter how invasive or uncomfortable they may seem. Saving just one driver's life makes them well worth whatever they cost.
I don't want to work on death claims.
Donald Nathan
Death rates are not lower. The Stone Report showed higher death rates, 3, in the first 3 months... versus 3 in the entire previous year.
Dr. Stone told me he thought a higher death rate could be tolerated, actually celebrated, if it is offset by larger non-fatal assault rate reductions.
I pointed out to Dr. Stone that a 400% increase in murder compares poorly with a 20% decline in non-fatal assault.
Dr. Stone countered that the 'percentage' comparison is less relevent than actual 'real number' comparisons. He feels the 'real' number comparison is more fair. 16 fewer non-fatal assaults weighs more heavily in the anaylsis... than 1 more fatal assault does, in his opinion.
I countered to him that death is a bit more serious than merely surviving.
Stone replied, we have different opinions.
I asked him; "Are you willing to explain to the survivors of a slain cab driver that the loss of their 'loved one's life' is mitigated by the fact that fewer cab drivers will be non-fatally assaulted"?
He said; "Yes."
I hung up and vomited.
That phone conversation took place in 1997.
I wish I recorded it.
I do have a reliable witness who heard my side of the conversation.
SWC
I'm only 6'1" and was so ticked off that when they install a partition in a cruiser, the front seat is adjusted in the most rearward position, but in some taxis... it was in the most forward position. I NEVER found a cab with a partition mounted that allowed full rearward positioning for the front seat.
Let me hasten to correct myself... there have been SOME. The cabs with partitions mounted - that DID allow full rearward positioning for the front seat - were all equipped with my partition. My partition travels with the front seat adjustment.
SWC
Regarding how useless taxi partitions appear to be...
Until partitions were required to be installed in taxis the objective was to preclude incidental, accidental or frivolous interference with the safe operation of the vehicle.
When taxi regulators MANDATED partition installation, it has always been with the objective of addressing the risk of murder.
Neither non fatal assaults nor robberies... ever prompted taxi regulator mandates for partition installation, just murders.
Partitions not only 'appear to be useless'... they ARE WORSE than useless for abating murder.
Suppose just one driver encountered just one assailant 'stumped' as to how to circumvent it. Suppose that driver explained how the assailant had tried to rob him with a gun or a knife, but went away because the partition proved to too formidable.
Ah, nevermind... this is beginning to sound like the taxi regulator with the fable about the bouncing bullet.
If you ever heard that one, you might wonder, as I did, "what happened then?". I have original copies of that regulator fable... if anybody is interested. He was responding to a complaint from a world famous surgeon about the partition design hazards he knew regulators required. It was I who gave Dr. Ronald Malt the heads-up on the matter. and prompted his complaint.
I make a partition that could be kept on hand for those drivers who want it, or removed whenever a driver chooses to NOT have it.
Install/revoval only takes as long as installing or removing a child-safety-seat.
Owners could save money and avoid the accusation of disregarding driver safety.
Less cabs with partitions means fewer mutilated occupants.
Fewer occupants with the kind of injuries ER doctors have been raising the alarm about for decades, should result in smaller insurance rate increases.
Some cabs without partitions, rather than all cabs with partitions, might result in some assailants... not upgrading to guns.
Some cabs without partitions, rather than all cabs with partitions, would certainly lower the cost of partition purchase.
Scrutiny of why and when drivers opt for cabs without partitions, rather than cabs with partitions, provides real-world data on the desirability of taxi partitions.
Scrutiny of how (gun or knife) drivers are murdered when driving cabs without partitions, rather than cabs with partitions, should paint a picture for us.
Scrutiny of how many drivers are murdered when driving cabs without partitions, how many drivers are murdered when driving cabs with partitions, should also paint a picture for us.
A taxi regulator implementing a policy which requires fleets to have a sufficient supply of partitions, for those drivers who WANT one, WHEN they might want one, still affords the regulator the political mileage they seek with ANY of the current 'taxi regulator partition mandate' rules/schemes.
Comments?
George, dont need receipt with warning on it. receipts are issued after the trip not before the trip.
We need the pla card to be posted on back sheild for evil and criminal passengers to see it while riding the cab.
so pla card is much better, we need it badly!
concerned cabbie what do you mean we dont need receipts with warning on it? You talk like they cant have the placard if they have receipts. thats like saying we need eyes we dont need ears.
Heres a question for all: 1)Does the robber first pay and get a receipt or 2)does he enter and formulate his final plans before attacking?
If you answered 2 you might also feel that the robber might see the red card and think twice. Has any of us been paid for a ride, issued a receipt, had the guy read the back, and then been robbed?
another pathetic attempt by george to follow in utcc footsteps. who is ever gonna see this message? do you think potential criminals or violent drunks pay by credit cards and think about things?
so stupid.
I was trying to get other opinions. I am glad you wrote yours. I wish others would take interest in the other safety issue we have in front of us: Cameras vs. Shields. I think I'll write another post asking for opinions tomorrow. Got to hit the sheets now. I need to be on the streets early tomorrow. Money talks.
"pauli" "johal" "mr. hernandez" and "hassan" seem to be the same person...Peter Enger?
Please see the new thread posted above. ..
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
another pathetic attempt by george to follow in utcc footsteps. who is ever gonna see this message? do you think potential criminals or violent drunks pay by credit cards and think about things?
so stupid.
What difference would it make?
this way only business men and woman who cheat their companies by turnig in cab receipts who are teh attackers of cabdrivers and murdereres will know about weinersbergs law
give me a break. how do you reach the real attackers of cabdrivers george? i said knock it off.
3/8" Lexan is NOT bullet-resistant... according to ballistic standards of Underwriters Laboratories.
UL will explain that NOTHING is bullet-proof. They DO have bullet-resistance standards for low, medium and high power handguns.
What is the value of a nearly bullet-resistant material for 1/2 of a partition... when all illegal taxi partitions are designed with a weapon-access hole, and an assailant sitting in the back seat can opt, at any time, to use either front/side window while utilizing the partition to shield HIMSELF, merely opening a rear door or window??
Using a legal partition it is smart to modify the door/window options in the rear seat area. Rear doors should have the un-lock function and the 'window-down' function disabled.
I was trepidatious and very selective whenever the occasion arose that I took my prisoners to the police, but the cops thought it was pretty cool when I did it. Both times. The visual evidence I delivered was convincing for the cops.
Maybe I'm just a smooth talker. I once fired a 44 over an attackers' head, with nothing more than superficial scrutiny and mild admonition from the cops about firearm discharge in Parish limits.
Right after I shot and he ran, I yelled; "Someone call the cops." When they showed up, I made sure they saw me unloading my pistol and placing it on the hood of my cab.
SWC
Having a handgun in Chicago means jail time up here sir. It is a felony act and is taken very seriously. Your home state of Louisiana enforces different laws than the cops do here. I know of a guy that went to a Louisiana State prison, yes prison while he was waiting for his court date on a pot bust. Amount found, one small joint. Here they would just have laughed at the guy if he was clean otherwise. If they find a handgun on you here, you will end up in County jail. Not many up here know that your home state is more home rule than any other.
Now for the business of the partitions. Put a gun right up against your temple and pull the trigger. The bullet will probably end up stuck in the gun. This is what they count on with the partitions. You would have a better chance of penetrating the partiton from outside the vehicle rather than inside.
My proof of the gun to the temple statement is the Vietnam vet retired driver I know that tried it and had to get his skin stiched up afterwards. Velocity must be present to make penetration of the partition lexan or the bottom metal possible. Not much velocity has been achieved if the bullet is still in the gun barrel. Al of the bullet holes I have seen in taxis in Chicago never made it past the inner door skin. I did see one that went through the trunk where is was single sheetmetal and the bullet was found in this trunk. Anyway, my opinion is if the shot is too close or too far away there is no way the bullet will penetrate enough to go through the partition.
I know of most of this from being along time driver. If the partition is locked I still wouldn;t take the chance of testing it when I'm on the other side. The only time I was robbed was knifepoint with a noose placed around my neck. I didnt have a shield then. I do now.
My gun is kept in a locker at the range where it belongs. I guess I'll take it with when I move to Louisiana!
Does anyone think a partition ever saved a drivers' life because his assailant was too stupid to figure out how to shoot through another window... or through the gun hole in the partition?
Not me.
Does anyone think a partition ever inclined an assailant to upgrade his weapon-of-choice from a knife/brute force... to a gun?
Me!
SWC
