Wednesday, June 15, 2005 | 10:47 a.m.
Cameras, no cameras? Sound, no sound? Video or stills? Mandatory or voluntary?
The debate that has raged for two years over whether to put security cameras in Las Vegas taxis was renewed again Tuesday before the Nevada Taxicab Authority Board, which set a July 11 date for a public workshop to try to come up with a regulation that will be acceptable to state lawmakers.
The Senate and Assembly transportation committees have made it clear to the taxi board that the regulation it approved on Oct. 26, 2004, did not conform to statutory authority and that the industry needs to try harder. That regulation has been struck down by the Legislative Commission.
"We find it unconscionable that taxi drivers in Nevada must routinely risk their lives in order to make a living," says a June 7 letter to the Taxi Authority that was signed by every member of both of the legislative committees and made part of the taxi board's record Tuesday.
"As such, we strongly believe that mandating the use of cameras in taxicabs will help prevent both drivers and the riding public from harm. ... It is important that the Taxicab Authority adopt regulations concerning cameras in taxicabs."
The lawmakers said in their letter that the new regulation must address issues including length of duration for a sound recording, whether the driver or another taxi company employee can initiate the sound recording device, how long the recordings will be stored and who will have access to them.
At Tuesday's special Taxi Authority meeting to address the camera issue, cab company owners, driver representatives, board members and the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada rehashed the arguments that have been expressed over and over, for and against, since 2003.
The one thing, however, that is different is that after two years of hemming and hawing, several cab company owners have bought and installed cameras, accepting that some form of a regulation one day would stick.
The board was told that 70 to 80 percent of Southern Nevada cabs either have or soon will have cameras installed, raising another debate over whether to skip mandatory regulation altogether and instead make the installation of cameras a voluntary action by area cab company owners.
Taxi Authority Chairman Richard Land acknowledged after the meeting that, given that so many cab companies already have installed cameras, he could not rule out that the matter might eventually be resolved with voluntary compliance.
But, he said, the overriding debate at the workshop undoubtedly will be whether to outlaw cameras that record sound.
"The audio is the big argument right now," he said.
Opponents of audio cameras, including the ACLU, say it violates privacy laws. Proponents, however, say sound cameras give them a valuable "management tool" to protect and and monitor their drivers.
Other cab company owners, who have resisted installing cameras altogether, say cameras will not deter criminals, just as security cameras have not stopped people from robbing banks or convenience stores.
"This is a tap dance that does credit to Fred Astaire," said Bill Shranko, operations manager at Yellow Checker Star Cab Co., which to date has installed digital still cameras with no sound in about 85 percent of its cabs.
Herb Tobman, owner of Western Cab Co., estimated that eventually 80 percent of local cabs will have cameras in them, regardless of the type.
"You have taken care of what you were trying to do," Tobman told the board. "You've solved the problem. ... This (voluntary compliance) is a good way to bring it to an end. Let everyone do what they want to do."
After the hearing, Tobman said he has purchased video cameras with no sound but has not yet installed them in his cabs.
Brent Bell of Whittlesea Blue and Henderson Cab Co., says the $500,000 worth of video sound equipment he has purchased and installed in all of his cabs, has had "fantastic" early success.
"Since we completed installation on March 31, we have had one robbery," he said. "The cameras are working."
Bell said cameras with sound are a valuable management tool that not only catches drivers doing what they should not be doing but also exonerates drivers when they are innocent of perceived wrongdoings.
Greg Bambic, president of the Professional Drivers Association, said the board should write a regulation that allows just cameras that take clear shots of passengers with no sound, so there is little or no risk of violating people's privacy, while providing optimum protection for drivers.
"We need simple, black and white digital cameras," he said. "To do anything else (with sound) will mean a big amount of trouble. The companies that already have put in audio cameras can just turn it (the audio portion) off.
"It is sad this has taken two years."
Lucky Cab Co. owner Jason Awad, who said he has spent $140,000 on sound cameras that he has installed in about one third of his fleet, asked the board to request a written opinion from the Attorney General as to whether such equipment violates people's privacy.
The board agreed to make that request to the Attorney General.
archive
