One of the reasons I keep coming back to this thread is that the incident poses a practical moral problem. Namely, there are conflicting principles, both moral principles and safety principles, which it brings to light. It is interesting to see how people deal with them (here mostly intemperately, unfortunately).
Let me pose the issues as a parable.
Suppose a taxi driver, TD1, drives in a 30kph zone through the middle of my village at 70 kph. In my village we have our share of older people and very young children who cross the road, which has a long curving blind corner in it, and have little chance to get out of the way. And a driver cannot see them in enough time to stop, at 70 kph.
A fellow driver, TD2, observes the manoeuvre and radios in to the dispatcher to let the driver know, and asks the dispatcher to relay the message.
The dispatcher relays the message about moderating speed, and TD1 says "I know what I am doing". His colleague TD2, unsatisfied with this reply, posts the incident on a WWW site, to which residents of the village, as well as taxi drivers and other interested members of the public have access. TD2 says when and where the incident happened.
Some opine that TD2 should have filed a report to the taxi licensing authority and not posted the incident for discussion on a WWW site. Others opine that TD1 is the driver of his vehicle and a professional, and must have known what he was doing. Others say we don't actually know the incident happened, despite what TD2 says. Others say that since TD1 didn't run anybody over or hit anything, that he obviously made an appropriate decision.
Someone points out that the village has a CCTV traffic camera which recorded the incident and is available for public viewing.
The licence plate of TD1's cab is apparent from the video, as is the time and date of the occurrence, but TD1 himself is not identified.
While TD2 is supported quietly but definitively by some of his colleagues, others opine that his action was morally reprehensible, bringing the actions of his colleague TD1 to the attention of the public.
Someone who identifies himself as a member of the public, let's call him P1, writes to the taxi licensing authority and draws their attention to the incident and existence of the video evidence, asking that they look into it. He posts to the WWW site to say he has done it.
P1 is vilified by many self-identified taxi drivers, some of whom say things like "We are professionals and know what is right and wrong and will report when necessary". Certain members of the public disagree that the incident just concerns taxi drivers alone.
So now the questions.
1. Should TD1 have driven through the village at 70 kph?
2. Is it appropriate for PD2 to bring the incident to anyone's attention?
3. Is it appropriate for PD2 to open a semi-public discussion?
4. Is it appropriate for residents of the village to have an opinion on this incident?
5. Is it appropriate for residents of the village to express what they think of this incident on the WWW site?
6. Is it appropriate for P1 to write to the taxi regulation agency asking them to look into it?
7. What do people think the consequences of this episode will be?
My answers are
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7:
a. TD1 will get the message, informally if not officially, and think twice before driving at 70 kph through a 30 kph zone again.
b. Other taxi drivers who might not have given much thought to it become aware of the issues concerning speeding in residential areas.
c. Residents of the village and surrounding villages become aware of the issue of taxi drivers speeding through their villages.
d. Residents let it be known that they will not travel with taxi companies whose drivers speed through residential areas.
e. There is eventually a reduction in the incidence of taxis speeding through residential areas.
f. All this happens without anybody having to invoke any legal apparatus.
PBL
Last edited by PBL; 23rd Dec 2007 at 09:57.