Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004 | 10:38 a.m.
Representatives of the city's taxicab industry on Tuesday unleashed their editing pens on proposed regulations that would require Clark County's 16 taxi companies to install cameras in their vehicles.
A workshop meeting of the Nevada Taxicab Authority was the first public airing of the regulations, which have been a source of contention for years. Recent assaults on cab drivers, including the murder of Pairoj Chitprasart, who was burned to death in a botched robbery attempt in August, have spurred taxi regulators to action in recent weeks.
The five-member regulatory body accepted a report on taxi cab safety and risk in Southern Nevada from Keith Schwer, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at UNLV Tuesday morning. Later in the day, board members heard testimony on the proposed regulations, which are scheduled to come to a vote Oct. 26.
The regulations proposed in a draft offered by the board:
While cab drivers clearly backed the regulations requiring cameras in cabs, company owners were split in their support. Most of the critics said the regulations -- and Schwer's report -- did not address other safety measures available for consideration.
Lucky Cab Co. owner Jason Awad suggested the regulations offer other safety options for consideration: shield systems that separate passengers from drivers, global positioning systems that would enable dispatchers to monitor the movement of vehicles and lockboxes that take large amounts of cash out of the hands of drivers and thus discourage potential robbers.
Awad was critical of Schwer's report, which included a survey of what drivers thought would best protect them and results of a focus group of cab customers.
"I'm sure that many drivers who were surveyed have never driven a cab that had a camera or a shield or a box or a GPS system," Awad said. "They don't have the expertise to determine what is most effective."
Ty Hilbrecht of the Frias Cos. said cameras are not good preventive measures.
"More priority should be given to devices that prevent rather than record the identity of the perpetrator," Hilbrecht said.
But cameras in cabs appear to be on the fast track for approval, since the largest cab companies not only support the concept, but have tested some camera systems already.
Representatives of Yellow-Checker-Star, the largest operator in Las Vegas, and No. 2 Whittlesea Bell have attempted to determine whether cameras they've tested for several weeks can stand up to the severe heat of Las Vegas' summer months.
Cheryl Knapp of Whittlesea Bell, which operates Henderson Taxi, voiced concerns over making camera equipment and software available to regulators and law enforcement representatives, and also wondered whether cameras would be called upon to monitor lost-and-found issues that occur in local taxis.
The regulations call for camera systems to be in place by April, another source of contention. While several drivers who testified that it was unfortunate for it to take so long to require systems to be in place, some owners said they were skeptical that more than 1,500 cabs could be equipped with cameras in the next seven months.
George Balaban, owner of Desert Cab Co. and a supporter of cameras in cabs, said with the number of system and operational adjustments that needed to be made, he felt that the installation of 200 cameras for his company alone would be a challenge.
Several drivers and the friends and families of drivers who have been killed on the job testified that they were doing so on behalf of their fallen cohorts. Some brought photographs of drivers that have died on the job.
Scwher's report said that while taxi drivers and chauffeurs represent 0.2 percent of the work force nationwide, they also have suffered 7 percent of all occupational homicides.
Taxicab Authority Chairman Richard Land said written comments on the proposed regulations are due by Oct. 15 and a final vote is expected to be taken on the regulations at the board's October meeting.
archive
