By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to an incident where a driver drove off with a sleeping child, Uber Canada has announced updated emergency protocols. The company’s revised internal procedures now allow frontline customer support agents to facilitate communication with drivers in exceptional circumstances. The changes follow a previous incident where Uber refused to contact a driver for a mother whose child was left in the car. Uber Canada has also shared how it handles emergency requests with Toronto police and is working with the city to improve safety procedures. The update reflects a recognition that time is of the essence in such scenarios.
Read the original article here
Uber Canada says it’s changed emergency policies after driver left with child in backseat, a situation that understandably sparked concern and a wave of frustration. It’s easy to see why people are upset. The core of the issue boils down to a child being left in a vehicle after the adult exited, and the driver apparently driving off without realizing it. The subsequent actions, or lack thereof, by Uber in response to the situation, have triggered this response.
The outcry over the situation stems from the feeling that Uber’s procedures are too cumbersome and slow, potentially endangering those who are vulnerable. Imagine a scenario where time is of the essence. A simple phone call, perhaps even an immediate message to the driver, should be the initial reaction. Instead, the suggestion is that complex protocols involving portals, teams, and forms seem to prioritize process over people, something that should be quick and simple to address.
The idea of involving law enforcement, and the potential hurdles Uber might face in sharing driver information, gets brought up, and it’s easy to see why there’s confusion. While privacy laws exist, there are clear exemptions for imminent danger, like the situation with the child. These laws are often designed to protect, not to hinder, safety in emergencies. However, an interesting point is raised about the legal fears Uber has, potentially making them hesitant to act quickly. It is pointed out that the company is often cautious to avoid the risk of lawsuits.
Some point out the driver’s responsibility. They were the one who drove off without ensuring the child was safe. Uber “encourages” drivers to check their back seats, but that’s not enough. However, the focus shifts to the company’s failures. A recurring sentiment is that the company seems to use drivers as a scapegoat and that the fault lies more with their ability to take swift action and provide customer care in emergencies.
There’s a lot of discussion about the practicalities of emergency response. How quick would the company be in reaching out to the driver? The speed and efficiency of this are key to resolving the situation, but from some accounts, it appears that the process is not as streamlined as it could be. It is suggested that the company’s inability to immediately alert the driver or contact the relevant authorities is a significant issue. It could be as simple as the app displaying a full-screen alert, overriding settings and making the alert impossible to ignore.
The discussion highlights the need for clear, straightforward emergency protocols. Why not simply contact the driver immediately? Why do policies sometimes seem to hinder rather than help when it comes to child safety? There are concerns about whether the company is willing to take on liability by making the drivers their employees, which would allow greater control and oversight. This raises questions about the fundamental structure of the ride-sharing business model.
There are a few points that seem to come up: One, the criticism is not aimed at the drivers. The focus is on the company’s inability to respond to emergencies and the slow emergency procedure. Two, there’s a consensus that the company’s emergency response is too slow and unnecessarily complicated, potentially putting safety at risk. Three, there is a concern that the system seems to have a clear reluctance to take responsibility for something, which makes the process even longer.
Finally, it appears there are suggestions and questions as to why these processes aren’t already in place. The need for a simple, quick alert mechanism, like an app-based notification, is mentioned. And the need to cut through corporate bureaucracy and prioritize the immediate safety of riders in a crisis. The conversation repeatedly brings up how it should be handled.