A horrific report at the Washington Post revealed that Uber not only allows drivers to remain on the ride sharing app up until they commit three “strikes” — including sexual advances and assaults — but it also fails to report instances of crime to the authorities, other ride sharing apps, or background check firms.
Uber’s faced a series of minor scandals over the years. Some proved absolute nothingburgers, such as the #DeleteUber campaign that began because the company seemed insufficiently anti-Trump, and the ousting of CEO Travis Kalanick, who became a sacrificial lamb for the company’s unremarkble bro culture. Others, such as its disappointing IPO and failure to turn a profit, loom larger in the company’s potential. But no problem threatens the brand’s long-term viability more than rider safety.
Uber can continue to justify its net losses by pointing toward its market dominance, consumer loyalty, and the imminence of self-driving cars. One day, Uber’s supporters hypothesize, the company’s years of accrued user data and brand value will make it the transportation market leader thanks to its own fleet of self-driving cars. Until then, Uber can operate in the red so long as consumers keep clicking for rides. After all, seeing as self-driving cars simply have to have a lower collision rate than humans that day may be coming sooner than we all anticipate.
But that will never happen if consumers lose confidence in the company’s commitment to public safety.
By design, Uber is actually much safer than regular taxicabs. If you’re harassed or attacked by a driver, you have his or her full name and the plate number. Unlike with cabbies, who notoriously hide their identities or make them impossible to read, it’s easy to report Uber drivers both to the app and to law enforcement. On average, Uber seems to aggressively ban drivers from the app for safety violations.
The Post found that Uber banned over 300 drivers in two-and-a-half years in Chicago alone. Taxi drivers also have to undergo background checks just as Uber drivers do. But without the technology of the app, drivers can more easily commit crimes without ever being identified.
Still, Uber needs to do two things if it wishes to prioritize rider safety and thus maintain its long-term viability as a company.
First, Uber has to enforce its own standards and report criminal conduct. Sex crimes, which comprise one-third of complaints handled by Uber’s Special Investigations Unit, ought to be held to a far stricter standard than the company’s blanket three-strikes rule. Executives should not be allowed to override the rule and allow a driver to commit a fourth strike, as a rider alleges a driver did when he raped her. The company may be reluctant to take responsibility for driver conduct because of mounting and ill-advised pushes to force them to treat drivers like employees rather than contractors. But as long as the company refuses to be proactive in taking responsibility for consumer safety, those calls will grow.
Second, Uber needs to monitor rider data better. Presumably scared off by the federal government’s attack on their “God View” system of monitoring riders, Uber relies on driver data more than rider data during trips. It seems as though a ride is mapped out while en route only using the driver’s phone. This means that if a driver turns his phone on airplane mode, he could veer off course, either accidentally or with ill intent, without the company keeping track of the ride. In a nightmare scenario, a predatory driver could abuse this function to abduct, drug, or assault a rider.
Uber has enormous potential to radically reshape and improve daily life. Moms could one day subscribe to a cheap Uber plan for a self-driving car to take their kids to and from elementary school. Future generations of Americans could completely forgo car ownership in exchange for a greener and more efficient future of ride-sharing.
But that can’t happen if consumers distrust Uber’s regard for their safety in the first place.
