Humorous? How about some crazed person breaking down a door to steal a cell phone and deleting its contacts info.
I wasn't trying to "come up with something". But the matter of locked posts is certainly not a scintillating subject.
You ask what's going on with the pending litigation concerning the April 28 ordinance. Keep in mind that the petition to enjoin enforcement of it is concerned with a lot more than just the question of the surcharge. In fact, I personally see the other parts of that ordinance as being even more onerous and in need of being overturned: the DCS Commissioner should NOT have the right to revoke or suspend a driver's C/L without a hearing if he's just charged with a felony and not already found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; fares to Burbank and Skokie from the airports should NOT be straight meter; fines at 400 West Superior should not have been trebled for petty DCS rule infractions.
You are probably aware that the City of Chicago has moved to dismiss the petition as having failed to state a cause of action. The City says in its motion, essentially, that it has the power under Home Rule to enact legislation of the sort that is in the ordinance. It claims the petition fails to assert any constitutional violation that would justify enjoining it from proceeding with enforcement of its ordinance. This is the substance of its motion.
The cabdrivers have responded that this is not correct and that if the Court is inclined to agree with the City that they should be allowed to file a second amended petition that spells out constitutional grounds for relief with particularity.
Judge Epstein has taken the matter under advisement. He is going to give us a ruling in the matter on October 17 that he is going to read from the bench. There will be no argument in the matter. He is deciding it based on the briefs and the petition.
I am satisfied that we are going to get a fair day in court. Judge Epstein is the President of the Illinois Judges Association, and he is one of the fairest men I have come across on the bench in decades. He has an excellent judicial bearing. If we lose, at least I know he will have heard us out. However, I do expect that a ruling against us is likely to be accompanied by leave to file an additional pleading - at least it is my intention to ask leave to do so if we go down on the 17th.
Let's see what happens. One way or another, I do expect we'll get a fair hearing and that the analysis Judge Epstein gives us will be cogent and well reasoned.
Donald Nathan
Hey Mr. George. Why don't YOU post something humerous, like, for example, one good reason you would support on-board video surveillance equipment in the light of mounting evidence that vieo survfeillance equipment in general does not lower crime rates, so as a dterreant, it does litle or nothing? Whose mind is it that is numb?
Where did you get the notion that video surveillance in general does not lower crime rates? Most of my research suggests the opposite. Please cite your sources.
G
I am not the person who questioned your position on video cameras in cabs.
As an owner and driver I agree with the idea of being able to have a choice of safety and security equipment.
The important thing is that we have effective means of deterring and preventing crimes against drivers.
There may be not much we can do when it comes to attacks from outside of the cab. And the shields have been proved to work in reducing attacks from inside.
But what do we really know about cameras?
Previous comments about VS (video surveillance) on this website:
"Almost all (occurrences of) crimes reported in SF are higher than the national average!"
"Source: CityRating.com"
"But according to San Francisco's recent urveillance Camera Study"
"Surveillance Cameras are Not Solution"
"Source: www.aclunc.org:"
"Studies from around the world have shown that surveillance cameras DO NOT prevent or reduce crime."
"Surveillance cameras also DO NOT appear to be deterring crime in San Francisco communities."
"Crime has INCREASED in more than half (8 of 15) of the locations where cameras have been installed."
If you reesaerch deeper, you may find that there are mixed results about VS from a variety of urban areas, shopping malls, and anywhere that VS is being used.
The bottom line at this point: VS is attributable to very little or no measurably crime reduction in many communities where they are used.
There is some positive results data, which has been extrapolated and sensationalized to sell equipment and/or law and order budgets to support the purchase of the VS equipment.
One example: Intersection cameras don't really reduce red light running, but in Chicago alone, these cameras have brought in over $25 million in ticket revenue.
Some reaearch even shows that there is an increase in rear-end accidents in and near camera-patrolled intersections.
Do you have any statistics that indicate running red lights is down in Chicago?
There seems to be an increase, at least a perceived increase, because of all the people who get caught running red lights.
Are armed and unarmed robberies down because of VS, or is there a general increase in crime in Chicago?
Have strategically placed VS equipment stopped gangs and drug sales? Or, have they moved "off-camera" to do their evil deeds?
In my opinion, the City and proponents of taxi VS may be pushing to make cab driving a more dangerous job.
JW
I spoke with Jordanna Thigpen yesterday. She's the Executive Director of the San Francisco taxicab commission. They have cameras in all 1,500 of their cabs. Drivers have the option of having shields as well.
Cabs must have shields installed at the driver's request. Only about five drivers opted for a shield. One of those drivers had been shot.
Ms. Thigpen also told me that when they were considering allowing cameras, a lot of drivers objected, citing privacy issues in that they didn't want the taxi commission spying on them. So the Commission put it in the books that they aren't allowed to review the tapes and that only the police can do that.
That's how it ought to be here in Chicago as well but the way it is, DCS has access to the tapes.
George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher
DCS has access to the tapes and you are still an advocate Mr. Lutfallah? I question your position.
George,
You advocate an intrusion of our workplace by one of the greatest offenders. The partition in the Globe cab I drive doesn't report my actions back to the city.
The day the cameras you have endorsed are in fleet use is my last day on the job. I don't need or want big brother watching me. This has the potential to be a civil rights violation of taxi drivers yet you are a chief advocate? I thought you fought for our rights, not gave them away. Johnny Z.
Neither your response, nor Ms. Thigpen's comments that you paraphrased addresses these central concerns:
"Studies from around the world have shown that surveillance cameras DO NOT prevent or reduce crime."
"Surveillance cameras also DO NOT appear to be deterring crime in San Francisco communities."
"Crime has INCREASED in more than half (8 of 15) of the locations where cameras have been installed."
If DCS has access to the VS tapes, who is to say they won't use the taxi tapes as a revenue generation tool, like the intersection cameras that generate million of dollars?
Can we put in VS in your office, to watch your every move? How about audio so we can catch every word you say?
Remember, the subject is safety and security. There is one and only sure-fire way to find out how well or how badly VS works as a deterrent. Outfit about one third of the entire taxi rolling stock in Chicago. Then watch to see what happens for about a year.
George, you should be one of the guinea pigs.
JW
The credit card law sucks. I hate us losing money on this crap. Let all go to City and tell them to take the credit card law and stick to there butts.
The city of chicago is so dam slow. Why do we have to wait until 2009 to get a fare increase? That sucks. we need now with gas prices up alot.
"Nick"
This raise was decided 2 years ago. Where have you been?
Why do you think the City turned down three previous tries to get a raise, but all we got was a $1 crumb?
ANSWER: So that could stretch it to 4 years of steadily increasing losses of money for us drivers.
They have total control. WHat makes you think we are finally getting what is due to us? When did the City ever give us what we really neeed?
This is city so dam slow on helping the cab business get better. Instead, they have messed it all up with all them stupid rules. The city finally got heart and soul on giving us a raise. Now, let's all us cabbies get rid of the credit card law. It sucks and I know all cabbies hate losing money with the rip off credit card companys suck. I wish, this world was just cash everywhere. I know. Someone, can rob you. But, I saw carry a gun, knife, Or, just hope your camera in your cab gets picture of that guy and the police do there job. On, finding that person. Instead cops just eat donuts, and write out to stupid tickets for use for no reason. So, Daley and the city can get rich off of us hard working cabdrivers.
Nooooo comments about the video cameras George? Cat got your tongue? You should go visit the OSHA blog and see what drivers and other professionals have been saying about cameras in cabs.
Oh, it's Mike's turn to tear into the UTCC? How common. One dog takes a break because he has no bite and no bark left and lets the other dog howl at the UTCC. You guys are so pathetic, it's a good thing you don't have guns, you'd only shoot your silly selves in the foot, or higher up....
The raise wasn't approved fellow drivers. They said we still need to wait for six months or so.By accepting the surcharge we cannot get a real raise for 1 year. This is why there was a lawsuit filed shortly after the surcharge went into effect.
The delay was to make sure the costs were low for people visiting Chicago for the proposed 2016 Olympics. The raise will not go into effect until after the Olympic decision is made.
