Editorial: Safety first

OPINION: Driving a taxi, especially at night, can place the drivers in a highly vulnerable position. They must often pick up strangers, not knowing if the passengers are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, mentally disturbed or intent on robbery. Stories of drivers being assaulted abound and in the past 15 months two, first Abdulrahman Ikhtari in Christchurch, and now Hiren Mohini in Auckland, have been murdered.

Following the Auckland murder the Government is to work with the taxi industry to review security measures, with new mandatory safety precautions being mooted.

Some drivers have already resorted to storing a wrench or a similar weapon under their seats, whileseveral companies and operators have of their own accord installed panic buttons or security cameras in their cabs. Yet all these measures have drawbacks or limitations.

Although carrying a weapon is an understandable precaution it might also have the effect of escalating the level of violence in an attack. A panic button has the advantage of alerting other drivers to an incident but, as in the case of Mohini, by the time assistance does arrive it might be too late.

The Taxi Federation supports the use of security cameras and favours them being made mandatory. In the wake of Ikhtari's murder this option was considered by the Government but ultimately rejected.

It was considered that the cost of installing cameras would be prohibitive for many taxi operators and that not all drivers, especially those whose companies were not members of the federation, supported their use being made compulsory.

But, as the Government again grapples with the issue of taxi safety this measure should be reconsidered. Supporters of the use of cameras in taxis argue that they have a deterrent effect on potential assailants or robbers.

This might be generally true, which is why their mandatory use should be seriously considered. Yet there would always be a minority of passengers who, perhaps emboldened or befuddled by alcohol or drugs, would disregard the cameras and attack a driver regardless.

Another measure which should be investigated is the use of protective screens around drivers. As in Australian cities where screens have been considered or introduced, their use in New Zealand would be controversial within the taxi industry.

Many drivers object to their cost or believe that drivers' traditional rapport with passengers would be eroded. Because of this, if screens did emerge as a preferred safety option, they would have to be mandatory, which might be a step too far for the Government.

For smaller operators especially the cost of either cameras or screens would be a significant financial burden, especially if they were not subsidised by the Government as occurred initially with security cameras in Sydney.

It is also true that no security measures can guarantee that attacks will not occur.

But the priority for both the Government and the industry must now be to take all possible measures to provide a safer working environment for taxi drivers, and cost should not determine which measures are adopted.

- © Fairfax NZ News