I understand why there are rules against the use of video-recording devices in private-hire vehicles, but we must also note that such devices may protect parties when false accusations are made (LTA summons driver for interview after complaint is filed against him; Feb 7).

Isn't that the reason why police officers, Singapore Civil Defence Force officers and other law enforcement officers are allowed to carry such devices? Are they required to inform members of the public that they are being recorded?

In the case of the Gojek driver and the passenger, what would have happened if there was no recording of the incident? It would have been the driver's word against the passenger's.

I urge the Land Transport Authority (LTA) not to penalise the driver based on a technicality.

Instead, LTA should use this incident to review the rules and perhaps consider allowing private-hire and taxi drivers to have inward-facing video cameras installed in their vehicles.

A notice can be put up in the vehicle to inform passengers of the video surveillance. This will protect both parties in a dispute, as there will be video and audio evidence.

It will also reduce the number of crimes committed against taxi drivers, who sometimes have to deal with drunk passengers who are abusive, or those who refuse to pay their fare. We should use this incident as an opportunity to revise our rules to protect all parties.

S. Suresh