The recent spate of private ride-hailing car accidents have ignited a debate calling for tougher restrictions, but is this the right reaction?

Recently in Singapore, a fatal car accident resulted in the death of an Uber passenger, ignited yet another debate in the country about whether tougher restrictions should be placed on private ride-hailing drivers.

It is hard not to ignore these calls since this is the third case of a private ride-hailing accident that resulted in the fatality of either the passenger or a pedestrian.

An opinion piece from the Straits Times called for the minimum age of private ride-hailing drivers to be raised to match the taxi industry standard, which is 30 years old. Another individual wrote to the same paper echoing similar sentiments, even adding that drivers above 65 years old should be barred from becoming private ride-hailing drivers.

Their arguments do hold some water; they are backed by studies that found younger drivers were more accident-prone than older ones. The insurance premiums for younger drivers are also substantially higher.

But while these are valid arguments, I wonder if these suggestions are over-simplistic and a knee-jerk reaction to these accidents. Deaths are always tragic, and the instinctual reaction to tragedy is usually to introduce heavy-handed — and sometimes emotionally charged — measures to prevent future occurrences.

Harsh measures are counterproductive

The burgeoning ride-hailing industry has seen incumbents quake in their boots. In fact, private ride-hailing cars now outnumber taxis by at least half, according to the Land Transport Authority (LTA). Reactions from the taxi industry has been mostly lukewarm.

Many lament the numerous discounts that undercut market rates; others say many of these private ride-hailing drivers are inexperienced and rely too much on GPS to guide them. The latest accident has only cemented their bias.

But heavy-handed policing, such as ComfortDelGro calling taxi drivers to report on private ride-hailing cars that enter taxi stands (a low blow really), is unnecessary and counterproductive.

And other measures such as age restrictions, though dressed under the guise of “protecting the consumer”, are really designed to please the incumbents’ shareholders.

Also Read: Here are the 10 best tech companies to work for in Singapore

It is easy to see how this would work. An age restriction reduces the number of private ride-hailing drivers on the road. The consequence of an increase in surge pricing in both cost and frequency. And when that happens, guess where consumers would go running?

Road safety is an industry-wide issue. Taxi companies do not exactly have spotless records either; there have been a fair number of taxi accidents, so why has there been no public outcry on their safety record?

Tech makes rides safer

Disclaimer: I’m not advocating for a ‘wild west’ scenario where private ride-hailing operators have free rein to uproot established practices as they please.

But I think the ride-hailing industry is still nascent, and the appropriate response to ironing out its chinks is for incremental regulations to be introduced.

The Singapore government has already implemented the Private Hire Car Driver Vocational (PVDL) license programme. The course, which consists of two hours of self-study, and classroom coaching of eight hours, helps ensure that these drivers have attained some level of standard to ensure better quality of service.

These include ensuring that they have passed LTA’s required medical examination and background check; have held a valid Singapore Driving Licence for a continuous period of at least two years at the point of application; and be able to speak and read simple English.

Also Read: Twitter is the most powerful company in tech

More importantly, it is on the onus of the ride-hailing companies to leverage the technology, business and engineering expertise they have at their disposal to ensure the safety of their passengers — and ensure errant drivers are dealt with post-haste.

Pey Chee Claire Chai, a Public Relations manager at Grab, said that the company has a 24/7 customer hotline. The team also constantly monitor and evaluate each driver’s performance through the driver rating and passenger feedback system on the app (Uber has an identical system as well).

The app employs the use of telematics, said Chai. This is a system that allows the unsafe driving behaviour, such as speeding, hard braking, sudden acceleration and dangerous swerving to be recorded.

Then by using machine learning and predictive analytics, the team can identify rides that exhibit dangerous driving behaviour and present drivers with weekly reports of their safety score.

Chai claimed that using this system, they were able to identify offending Grab drivers and send them for re-training sessions, this led to a 35 per cent reduction in speeding incidences (across all of Grab’s markets).

Additionally, Chai said that Grab also organises feedback sessions, training events, and workshops with its drivers.

The incumbents are complacent

New technologies often have a disruptive effect, but that is the very essence of any groundbreaking invention. Ultimately, they need to serve the greater good of people.

Ride-hailing companies have proved to be a boon to consumers. A recent survey by the Public Transport Council (PTC) found that respondents were more satisfied with private ride-hailing services than with taxis.

Still, pushback is inevitable. Companies who have experienced decades of a comfortable monopoly will not like to see the grounds beneath them shift.

Those with enough foresight — and humility — will extend an olive branch to their disruptors and work towards a mutually-beneficial goal. Or at least dust off their thinking cap and find out how to best their competition through their own innovations.

Those who would rather sit by and erect walls and barriers will soon find out they are simply barricading themselves on a shrinking island.

—

Image Credit: libertos / 123RF Stock Photo

The post Restrictions on ride-hailing services are ill-serving and work against the interest of consumers appeared first on e27.