[TalkingPoint] Should surveilliance cam be allowed in taxi ?
-
Two men plead guilty to attacking bus driver
SINGAPORE: Two men have pleaded guilty to attacking a SBS Transit bus driver and smashing empty beer bottles at the bus windscreen.
Sin Teck Hock, 46, and You Yee Chong, 41, committed the offences on November 9 last year, along Hougang Avenue 1.
Their acts were captured on multiple cameras on the bus and played in court on Wednesday.
The four-minute clip recorded the chronology of the incident.
At about 10.55pm, 36-year-old bus driver John Achin drove bus service 87 to Hougang Avenue 1.
But the bus couldn't enter the bus bay as a lorry had been parked at the entrance.
He then sounded the horn.
Sin, who was in the driver's seat of the lorry, got out to confront Mr John. He rapped the windscreen of the bus and challenged Mr John to alight.
Mr John ignored Sin, who then went to a nearby coffee shop to take a crate of empty beer bottles.
On seeing that, You joined Sin and took turns to throw the bottles at the windscreen of the bus.
Mr John then urged his passengers to move to the upper deck of the bus for their safety. There were about 20 passengers on board.
The two then forced their way into the bus and started punching and kicking Mr John on his head and body.
Just then, two policemen who were in the area rushed to the scene.
One of the officers, Sergeant Ignatius Lim, warned Sin and You to stop the bashing.
Sin then approached Sergeant Lim and placed his hand on Sergeant Lim's shoulder, while You continued beating Mr John.
You stopped only after the other policeman, Staff Sergeant Mohn Firdhaus pulled him away.
Mr John suffered head injury and had a three-centimetre bruise on his arm.
The court heard Sin and You had paid SBS S$3,000 for the damage.
Discussion is ongoing with regard to Mr John's medical compensation.
A Health Sciences Authority report showed Sin and You had alcohol traces in their blood, hours after their arrest.
The court heard Sin had previous convictions, including robbery in 1991, cheating in 1996 and armed robbery in 1998.
For damaging the bus, they face a maximum jail term of two years and a fine.
For hurting Mr John, they face up to two years' jail and a S$5,000-fine.
For obstructing a police officer's duty, Sin faces up to three months' jail and a S$2,500-fine.
Sin and You are currently on a bail of S$5,000 and S$4,000 respectively.
Their case will be heard again on November 20. -
"Their acts were captured on multiple cameras on the bus and played in court on Wednesday."
The bus driver were protected and video were brought in to testified in court .....
Taxi drivers CANNOT instal similiar cameras to protect ourself ?
And bring in our own video clips to testify and sue culprit in court ?
What rubbish is this ?
-
Why double standard ?
Taxis in some cases , graded as public transport , in some cases , not graded as public transport .
-
Very difficult to implement la..........
Privacy always the headache la............
The only chances for surveillance camera..........install by company.........no access by drivers..........like that you want?...........
-
Originally posted by Rbs70:
Very difficult to implement la..........
Privacy always the headache la............
The only chances for surveillance camera..........install by company.........no access by drivers..........like that you want?...........
I won't mind if company install and i can't view the video or post on YouTube, at least prevents false accident claim, false passenger accusation towards drivers. Deter pax from running without paying fares.Now so many FTs in Singapore, these FTs also bring along all their foreign tricks to cheat TDs.
A lot of benefits and a lot of camera systems for fleet management out there, the only thing taxi companies worried about is cost. Privacy is the least concern to them, all those fleet management surveillance systems provides locakable/tamper proof systems.
One way maybe taxi company can implement such system is provide driver with option, want it rental slightly higher, but at least peace of mind. Don't want normal rental rate. Best is the authorities makes it compulsary for taxi company to install.
Not only will benefit taxi companies and TD, but also police can use such system as evidence, for instance got accident/robbery at certain place certain time, can use MDT GPS coordinate track which driver around that area, then TD bring down taxi to office download video. Office pass to police.
Like my previous thread, links to DVRs meant for Taxis:
http://www.verifeye.com/news.php
Some video clips of such 4 channel DVR:
http://www.movinongps.com/mobile-dvr-video-surveillance/dvr-sample-videos/
-
Ya dun view dun post dun access nevermind. Most important is dun need us to pay. I heard the CDG selling the LTA approve camera cannot be access by driver. But still got alot of kum lan people go buy...Lol
-
The argument whether Taxis are Public or Private vehicles will never end. I label these arguments, "Delay Tatics".
As to whether cameras should be installed in Taxis! My answer is, All! Vehicles should come with video recorders installed, just like their cash card IU system. Surveillance systems in vehicles are more important than the IU cash card system for vehicle owners and drivers as it provides clear proof and the real truth in the event of an accident. But guess what is more important to them. Cash IU as it makes cash. If car cameras can make cash, it will be mandatory immediately. Argument about invasion of privacy etc... is all crap. If pax rob taxi driver, is pax privacy important?
Car cameras should be installed in all Taxis as it protects both the pax and drivers. In this case, it should be recorders which record both inside and outside views. Privacy issues should be shoved up their ass. If the bus did not have video recording in the bus, how they know how the driver kena hammer.
There are approved cameras for Taxis but the taxi driver has to pay for it. Video is only front view. If pax hammer taxi driver or run without paying, it does not help taxi driver, but taxi driver pays for the useless camera.
Videos taken by these approved cameras can only be downloaded and viewed by the Taxi company. Reason given is to prevent Taxi drivers from editing the footage. Most taxi drivers I know have difficulty using a computer to send emails, leave alone downloading and editing videos.
There are some taxi drivers who have taken the initiative to buy and install their own cameras. In the event of an accident, whether these videos can be used in court, is questionable. Worse if the taxi driver is accused of illegal modification or invasion of passenger privacy and charged further. Now if a private car owner has such a camera and presents the video evidence in court, it is accepted without question of whether he could have edited it. Why the double standard?
My guess if aiyah! If taxi drive got accident, just hold his deposit and send one letter to tell him to standby accident access fee loh! Why bother look at video and argue with insurance company. You know how long these cases can drag. If taxi companies really do this, you think insurance company won't increase charges for that particular taxi company?
Just my 2c worth.
-
China taxi got install le.. Why SG no have?
-
As usual mah.........Company install, drivers pay..........
Knn 1 la.........you go attend those cb dialog, you vomit blood.......
-
Originally posted by Ohyaitsme:
China taxi got install le.. Why SG no have?
why?
because got some idol td use it to peep
-
Originally posted by Ohyaitsme:
China taxi got install le.. Why SG no have?
有�？？？国内哪里�
俺在ä¸å›½å¥½å‡ 年，现在还天天在和è€�å�‹ä»¬QQ，好象没å�¬è¿‡æœ‰è¿™å�—å�的事。
-
Taxi Camera is US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q-MAasyeRs
Another one, pax attacked TD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzQvfC7_EwI
Australia:
VerifEye TaxiCam G5:
VerifEye (forgot which model):
-
Originally posted by Red5xx:
why?
because got some idol td use it to peep
Bro.......you like up up skirt also..........
-
Originally posted by cyben764:
Taxi Camera is US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q-MAasyeRs
Another one, pax attacked TD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzQvfC7_EwI
Australia:
VerifEye TaxiCam G5:
VerifEye (forgot which model):
Stay in Singapore
-
Originally posted by PS2U:
Stay in Singapore
Singapore Ferrari Taxi Crash Footage
That one front, all my links showing inwards facing camera like what this thread about. If want to stay in local context then only my vid I post in "Garang side of Poolman"
-
Originally posted by cyben764:
That one front, all my links showing inwards facing camera like what this thread about. If want to stay in local context then only my vid I post in "Garang side of Poolman"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEQKLfXF_to
Should surveilliance cam be allowed in taxi ?
-
Originally posted by PS2U:
Should surveilliance cam be allowed in taxi ?
Bro, this type of thing also u want argue.. U win!
LoL, read what people talking about lah in this thread, if front facing camera, u think we would argue about privacy and upskirts?
If front facing cam can take upskirts do tell me how also..