The growing circulation of dashcam footage showing criminal incidents involving e-hailing vehicles in South Africa is exposing a safety crisis that industry representatives say has persisted for years.
Over the past few months, social media has been flooded with footage and accounts from drivers highlighting a range of crimes, including armed robberies, hijackings and assaults.
Drivers and industry representatives say concerns remain over the lack of proactive response from e-hailing platforms and law enforcement agencies.
Melithemba Mnguni, secretary-general of the E-hailing Partners Council (EPCO), says the viral videos shared across social media platforms should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence that incidents are increasing, but rather as bringing renewed attention to longstanding safety risks in the sector.
“The increase in surveillance footage being shared today should not be viewed merely as a social media trend. It is evidence of a problem that e-hailing drivers and EPCO have been raising for years. The technology is now making visible what many of us have been saying all along: there is a serious and ongoing safety crisis in the e-hailing industry, and it requires a coordinated response from government, law enforcement, platforms and industry stakeholders.”
According to Mnguni, the industry’s inability to establish the scale of the problem is compounded by the absence of comprehensive crime data covering the sector.
“Unfortunately, there is no reliable, comprehensive data from e-hailing driver associations and committees on robberies, hijackings and other violent crimes involving e-hailing drivers and passengers. This is one of the reasons we called for in-vehicle surveillance cameras to be made compulsory, with e-hailing app companies taking responsibility for the monitoring and security of their platforms.”
Mnguni says the organisation believes stronger identity checks, combined with greater consequences for perpetrators, are necessary to reduce opportunities for criminals to exploit e-hailing services.
“In our view, two of the main contributing factors to crime targeting e-hailing users are the lack of verification of users by platform providers and the lack of arrests and consequences for criminals committing these crimes.
“Where criminals believe they can commit crimes without being identified or apprehended, the absence of consequences creates an environment of impunity.”
Hijackings expose driver risks
The threat extends beyond robberies during individual trips. An e-hailing operator and driver, who prefers to remain anonymous, told ITWeb about an incident in which one of his two vehicles was hijacked and subsequently used in another crime.
The operator says the incident shows how an e-hailing vehicle can become part of a wider criminal operation, and how the driver was put in danger during the hijacking.
“My other vehicle was once hijacked and used as a getaway vehicle by criminals who were on route to a robbery. Once they finished their job, they dumped the vehicle in the forest. Luckily, my driver was not injured, as they had tied him down and kept him in the boot of the vehicle.”
The operator also raises concerns about profile-sharing arrangements, arguing that the practice can undermine the ability of platforms to establish who is actually operating a vehicle or collecting passengers.
“The biggest vulnerability lies in the renting out of profiles by drivers who are unknown to the platform, posing a major risk for the riders they pick up. Drivers’ lives are also at risk when riders are not properly verified, and that’s how we end up with criminals masquerading as riders. What makes it worse now is that Uber has recently decided to hide the final destination of each trip.”
The operator adds that the changes to the mapping system affects the information available before a driver is able to accept a trip. This has introduced another concern for drivers who want to assess potential risks, making it hard to identify requests involving areas regarded as potential crime hotspots.
“This means that, as drivers, we don’t know where we are taking the rider until we reach the destination. So, we can’t even ignore requests that are going to common hotspots. The e-hailing platforms continue to fail us – there is a lot of room for improvement, and they know that very well. If this was the US, they would have invested millions more in safety features.”
In February, 22-year-old e-hailing driver Isaac Satlat was murdered near Pretoria by criminals pretending to be riders of Bolt. The e-hailer later stated he was not registered on the active account because he was unlawfully using another driver's profile.
Beefing up verification
Simo Kalajdzic, senior operations manager and media spokesperson at Bolt South Africa, tells ITWeb that crime affecting drivers and passengers needs to be viewed within the broader South African context, where public transport and road users are also exposed to criminal activity.
“Safety is a core problem we face in this market and when you look at e-hailing, it's not the only industry being impacted by crime in general. It spans across public transport and it also spans across public life in general.”
Despite this, he adds that e-hailing drivers can present an attractive target because criminals will know they have a vehicle, mobile phone and potentially cash.
“The e-hailing driver is likely to be targeted a lot more compared to the rider. But we also need to consider that it's not only drivers in general on the road. Let's talk about smash-and-grab drivers who are going through dangerous areas and ultimately criminals understand that this individual is potentially an e-hailing driver,” notes Kalajdzic.
Bolt has, therefore, introduced features intended to give drivers additional information before they accept trips, including warnings when a requested pick-up is in a potentially dangerous area.
The aim, according to Kalajdzic, is to give drivers the option of deciding whether to accept a trip after receiving the warning.
Kalajdzic adds that safety measures introduced by Bolt extend beyond the initial verification of drivers and passengers, with technology being used during trips to identify potentially abnormal activity.
“The platform monitors elements such as sudden stops and deviations from a planned route. Where the system detects activity that could indicate something has gone wrong, it can trigger Bolt’s internal safety team and other support structures. Bolt also has a dedicated emergency response function, supported by private security personnel across the country,” according to Kalajdzic.
An Uber South Africa spokesperson e-mailed the following statement to ITWeb: “Safety is central to how we build and evolve the Uber platform. We continue to invest in technology, processes and partnerships designed to help protect riders and drivers, including GPS trip tracking, RideCheck, real-time trip sharing and 24/7 incident support.
“Our in-app emergency assistance is supported by a third-party emergency service provider, enabling riders and drivers to request private security or medical assistance using live location and trip information.”
Police response under scrutiny
The availability of video evidence does not necessarily resolve the challenges associated with reporting and investigating e-hailing crime. EPCO says a lack of arrests and difficulties opening cases have contributed to frustration among drivers.
“Police disinterest in opening cases and the lack of arrests in e-hailing-related crimes have, in our view, emboldened criminals, while simultaneously discouraging affected e-hailing drivers from reporting incidents to the police.
“Our call for an ad hoc committee involving all relevant stakeholders dates back to 2019. In fact, this was one of the reasons the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport facilitated a process of democratisation within the e-hailing sector, culminating in an E-Hailing Summit Conference and ultimately the establishment of EPCO.”
The proposed structure would bring law enforcement, platforms, government departments and industry representatives into the same forum, according to EPCO.
“The intention is for e-hailing to have formal representation on the committee alongside all relevant stakeholders, including SAPS, e-hailing application platforms, the Department of Transport, Santaco and others, so that these issues could be addressed collectively and systematically. This would avoid a situation where SAPS points fingers on the basis of a lack of supporting evidence.”
E-hailers InDrive and Wanatu had not responded to ITWeb’s requests for comment by the time of publication.
Share
