Taxi and violence: Who should be responsible for security in Uber
Dmitry Kurkin
Moscow resident accused Uber driver of attempted rape. According to her, during the trip, the man blocked the car doors and took her to a deserted place. The woman resisted, she managed to unlock the door and escape. After which she documented the injuries inflicted on her and filed a complaint with the police.
Comfortable but not safe
Any electronic service that provides intermediary services between the driver and the passenger will assure you that the safety and comfort of the passenger is paramount to him. But the truth is that services are usually not responsible for this security. Commenting on the incident described above, Uber representatives stated that they blocked the driver before the end of the proceedings and the company is ready to "provide all the necessary information at the request of law enforcement agencies." And they really can't do anything else. Or not?
A recent CNN investigation revealed at least 103 cases in which Uber drivers were accused of sexually aggressive behavior, attempted rape or rape, at the loudest of them the driver turned out to be a serial rapist who had avoided punishment for his actions for at least a few years (as a result, he was convicted of 80 years in prison). And this is just what is known about Uber - a major player in the market, but far from the only one - and only in the USA. In New York, a city where the demand for private travel made them almost an object of worship, Uber and Lyft overtook the usual taxi in 2017: their total share was 65%. In Russia, services have to compete with illegal taxis, but nonetheless the total share of Fasten, Yandex. Taxi and Uber, Maxim and Gett in the market, according to government analysts, has already reached 32.8 percent.
License bombs
Since childhood, we have been taught not to get into strangers in the car. Taxi, private transport and advanced navigation technologies seemed to have canceled this rule of self-preservation, although the situation remains the same: getting into a car called up via electronic service, you find yourself in a confined space with a person who you most likely see for the first time and whom you usually trust. personal information including home address. In normal situations, this keeps us from getting into the car to the so-called license-free bombill. But belonging to a large service for some reason magically clears all fears.
The license of the taxi driver, of course, does not guarantee the safety of either the passenger or the driver himself (cases of sexually aggressive behavior towards female drivers are also not rare). But licensing implies a more stringent selection system and more stringent requirements for the level of professional training.
For transport services, this threshold is obviously lower, because their competitive advantage is in a larger number of drivers and lower tariffs. This led to the fact that in some countries of the world Uber was either banned or simply squeezed out of the market, but even where the lobby of taxi drivers and local authorities cannot do anything with the service, from time to time they are reminded of corporate responsibility for the safety of passengers. It’s not even about attacks on passengers (it’s almost impossible to predict such cases: for example, in India, the Uber driver convicted for rape of a passenger for life, forged to work forged recommendations and concealed a criminal record), but about trivial processing to which many drivers force relatively low rates. Until recently, they could spend behind the wheel for twenty hours in a row, thereby risking to fall asleep at the wheel and arrange an accident.
The first steps
This security concern has become the main formal reason for the recent revocation of licenses from Uber in British cities. And although the company continues to file appeals (as recently as it defended in court the right to continue operations in London), it finally took up the issue of recycling, putting at risk the health and lives of passengers and bystanders. For drivers in some US cities, a limit of ten hours of so-called passenger time (that is, driving time) is already set for each day, 60 hours of passenger time for each week. In addition, in the whole country, the company decided to introduce a mandatory six-hour break after every 12 hours of operation. For drivers in Britain, Uber imposed mandatory six-hour breaks after every ten hours of work, including all the time spent behind the wheel.
These are the first steps, and Uber makes them with obvious reluctance. But he and similar services, shaking up the hauling market and, by and large, legitimizing the same “bombing”, will have to take more responsibility sooner or later both for the selection of personnel and for their protection from aggressive customers. They made the taxi ride more affordable and convenient. How about making it safer?
Cover: Snapdeal