1 / 25

Evaluating the effect of cameras in taxicab driver safety

Evaluating the effect of cameras in taxicab driver safety. Preliminary Findings Cammie Chaumont Menéndez, Ph.D. September 13, 2011 . Taxicab Driver Fatalities. Decreased over past 20 years Fatality rates remain higher than national rates

morela
Download Presentation

Evaluating the effect of cameras in taxicab driver safety

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating the effect of cameras in taxicab driver safety Preliminary Findings Cammie Chaumont Menéndez, Ph.D. September 13, 2011

  2. Taxicab Driver Fatalities • Decreased over past 20 years • Fatality rates remain higher than national rates • Expected to increase as city crime rates began rising in 2010

  3. Occupational Homicide Rates For All Workers and Taxicab Drivers, United States – 1992—2008

  4. Prevention Measures • Industry-led initiatives and/or ordinances • Partitions • GPS and automated dispatch • Cashless systems • Cameras • Safety training • Variability in adoption of prevention measures

  5. Cameras as a Safety Feature • Based on principles of crime prevention by surveillance • Affordability and availability facilitated adoption by leading taxi companies • Ordinances began requiring installation of security cameras in taxicabs

  6. Key Public Health Questions • Are cameras truly effective in preventing crimes against taxicab drivers? • What features should cameras be equipped with for maximum effectiveness?

  7. Binational Multi-City Study • Partnership between IATR and CDC/NIOSH • Prominent metropolitan areas in both Canada and U.S. • Camera status per city • Number of licensed taxicabs per city • Crime reports/statistics involving taxi drivers • City crime rates • Time series with pre-post data and comparison groups spanning >15 years: 1996-2010

  8. Newspaper Clippings Data • Additional data source • Complements crime reports • Complete throughout time period, supplements crime reports • Same major limitation as crime reports

  9. Crime Report Data Camera cities Control cities • Vancouver (2005) • Ottawa (2007) • Winnipeg (2003) • Toronto (2001) • Portland (2004) • Las Vegas (2005) • San Francisco (2003) • Seattle (2006) • Tampa • Denver

  10. Crime Report Data • Distribution of homicides pre- versus post-camera installation

  11. Preliminary Findings:Crime Report Data

  12. Crime Reports vs. Newspaper Data • Distribution of homicides pre- versus post-camera installation

  13. Preliminary Findings:Crime Reports vs. Newspaper Data* *Top row represents crime report data and bottom row represents corresponding newspaper data.

  14. Newspaper Data Camera cities Control cities • Vancouver (2005) • Ottawa (2007) • Calgary (2007) • Winnipeg (2003) • Toronto (2001) • Portland (2004) • Orlando (2009) • Las Vegas (2005) • San Francisco (2003) • Seattle (2006) • Houston (1999) • San Antonio (2000) • Dallas (2000) • Austin (2005) • Montreal • Washington, DC • Atlanta • Tampa • Miami • Reno • Columbus • Denver • San Diego • Phoenix • Sacramento • New Orleans • Honolulu • Cincinnati

  15. Preliminary Findings:Newspaper Data

  16. Study Limitations • Possible underreporting of crime reports • Unable to determine license status of drivers • Unable to evaluate safety trainings • Unable to evaluate level of enforcement

  17. Conclusions • The data suggest a protective effect from cameras for homicide rates • Preliminary data • Ecological data do not reflect individual risk but, rather, is an aggregated experience • We are planning study to evaluate individual risk of drivers with cameras versus drivers without in 3 cities

  18. Acknowledgments • Harlan Amandus, PhD • Scott Hendricks, MS • Srinivas Konda, MPH And special thanks to: Terry Wassell The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  19. “Taxicab Security Camera System Evaluation Study” Project Progress Report Shengke Zeng, Bradley Newbraugh, Richard Current, Douglas Cantus, Darlene WeaverPlease contact: szeng@cdc.gov

  20. Objectives of Camera Evaluation Study • Determine requirements for taxicab camera system evaluation • Determine minimum requirements for taxicab camera systems • Evaluate technological advantages and limitations of sample taxicab cameras in use • Determine research needed to improve taxicab cameras to maximize effect • Develop technical guidance for taxicab security camera selection and use

  21. Status of Evaluation Study (1) • Completed human subject tests and calculations to determine head movement speed • Re-measured field taxicab light conditions • Modified taxicab lighting equipment setup • Modified the methods of reference camera parameter measurements

  22. Status of Evaluation Study (3) • Will complete reference camera tests in late Sep. 2011 • Will send test photo sets to photo quality evaluators for threshold determination in late Sep. 2011 • Will complete sample camera system tests in Dec. 2011 • Will complete test report/guidelines in Mar. 2012

  23. Preliminary Findings:Crime Reports vs. Newspaper Data* *For each variable, top row represents crime report data and bottom row represents corresponding newspaper data.

  24. Preliminary Findings:Crime Reports vs. Newspaper Data* *For each variable, top row represents crime report data and bottom row represents corresponding newspaper data.

  25. Preliminary Findings:Newspaper Data

More Related