My dad told me a short story this winter, when three grandkids flew down to Florida to see him. When ready to go to the airport, he offered to call them a taxi. Not needed, they said, we’ll just Uber!
The cars arrived quickly. They were cheaper than taxis. Dad was amazed.
So what is the cost? No, I don’t mean the cost of the airport trip; I mean the cost to society.
The cost is this: Far more people are likely to be injured and killed by companies such as Uber that rely on apps and speed than by regular taxis or car services. And the worst part is, it’s part of the business model.
Uber drivers, you see, must respond quickly to the incoming notification on their smart phones — reportedly within 15 seconds. Otherwise, they lose that fare. Repeatedly make the mistake of failing to quickly respond? Then you lose your ability to work for Uber.
This means that Uber drivers must be diddling with their dinging smart phones while driving and responding. Instead of looking at the road. The Uber business model not only encourages dangerous distracted driving, but actually thrives and profits because of it.
How dangerous is distracted driving? It’s three times more dangerous than paying full attention. From the Viriginia Tech Transportation Institute:
The study, entitled The Impact of Hand-Held and Hands-Free Cell Phone Use on Driving Performance and Safety Critical Event Risk, shows that engaging in visual-manual subtasks (such as reaching for a phone, dialing and texting) associated with the use of hand-held phones and other portable devices increased the risk of getting into a crash by three times.
Car and Driver did a test for texting/reading while driving, and compared drunks with a .08 blood alcohol level with those who are sober. Time and again, those who were texting, or merely reading their texts, took longer to hit the brakes and stop their cars. And when I say longer, I mean the drunks were quicker to the brakes than the text readers. And these were people on a straight road track who knew they were being tested.
Let’s repeat that: Driving while reading texts is more dangerous than driving while drunk.
The conclusion is inescapable: Uber cars are uber dangerous.
There is a deadly cost to getting Uber drivers to their customers so quickly. And this is a cost not only to passengers, but also to others on the road — most significantly of all, to pedestrians who are not enveloped in that big metal cocoon with seatbelts.
Now take those distracted Uber drivers and put them in New York City, where such vehicles are currently allowed (though they are not yet allowed elsewhere in the state). Our street life hums and thrives on pedestrian traffic.
Uber is significantly more dangerous when people are walking about. The injuries such drivers inflict on pedestrians will likely be far more catastrophic than others, due to the delays in responding to danger by distracted drivers. In other words, an uber accident. (Though collision is the proper word.)
The first lawsuits against Uber drivers are now percolating through the system. They will raise many issues, a few of which are:
- Are the drivers employees of Uber or independent contractors? You can be sure Uber wants to call them independent to shield itself from liability as being responsible for their employees’ actions. But just because they want it doesn’t mean they will get it.
- Is the Uber app a defectively designed product, as it actively encourages distracted driving? Is it inherently dangerous?
- Can Uber be held liable for simply sending messages to people that they know are behind the wheel and moving? I covered this subject last month, with respect to potential liability for friends sending texts to people they know are driving.
- Knowing full well the danger, will juries decide that such conduct is reckless, and therefore subject Uber to punitive damages?
Are the issues interesting? You bet they are. For a lawyer. Not so much when you are splayed out on the blacktop waiting for the ambulance.
But perhaps more importantly, Uber will likely go running to the Legislature complaining about its insurance rates — as it’s inevitable that their drivers will get in more accidents, that the injuries will be more severe, and their insurance will obviously go up as a result. Insurance goes up for drunks, doesn’t it?
Did I say “will” be running to the Legislature? As it happens, they are running there now. A piece in Politico/New York discusses extensive lobbying efforts going on now for them to expand outside New York City. And the bill must go before the insurance committee.
One hopes that, if such bill does appear, and does go before the insurance committee, that legislators pay particular attention to the fact that Uber’s business model is exceptionally dangerous, and that the injuries they inflict to others will be far more catastrophic due to the delays in responding by distracted drivers.
The most dangerous drivers are probably those cruising for fares and waiting for the phone to ding.
If the technology is not going to be outlawed because it’s just too damn dangerous, then Uber (and Lyft and others of their ilk) should be made to carry significantly more insurance than others to cover the costs that they will inflict.
It isn’t enough for Uber to say, “let the injured and killed be damned so that we can make more profit.” And it isn’t enough for the victims and taxpayers to be left paying for the damage that the distracted drivers inflict.
Pingback: Non-Driving Text Sender May Be Liable in Crash | New York Personal Injury Law Blog
These do make for some interesting questions, Eric. And I do believe that somewhere in Uber HQ, this tech company is working on solutions to upgrade the platform for Uber Drivers that streamline this dangerous process of pitch and catch between riders and drivers.
This reminds me of the Domino’s Pizza incidents in the 1980s and early ’90s (http://nyti.ms/1sMLVZJ). The public wants a quicker ride (or a quicker pizza), but not at the expense of public safety. Domino’s suffered from the perception that its delivery drivers were speeding and driving recklessly to save the company what amounted to $3.00.
Juries punished Domino’s (appropriately, it seems) when people were injured or killed by those drivers. Do you think the outcome will be similar for Uber?
Juries punished Domino’s (appropriately, it seems) when people were injured or killed by those drivers. Do you think the outcome will be similar for Uber?
A perfect example of speed over safety. And yes, I think that (if you can prove it) the result will be the same to Uber. While the company directs drivers not to text/drive, the dinging phone is too attractive to ignore for many people (hence the problem not only with distracted drivers, but with distracted dinner companions).
I’m sorry, but how can you make the numerous claims of danger (and the claim of more dangerous than taxis) without any backing evidence or actual statistics? Your argument solely lies on supposition. And, that supposition is a bit flawed as accepting requests as an Uber driver means simply touching the screen of your phone. Arguably, this action is less distracting than changing the radio in your car, which is not anything that people are up in arms about. Additionally, your blanket statement is patently false when compared to numerous other aspects of Uber compared to taxis that you choose to ignore (like the fact that the entire trip is documented and allows for peace of mind that any driver or rider would be silly to do anything nefarious because of the ease at which either would get caught, there is no need to exchange cash, and despite a general absence of government regulation the cars appear to be more mechanically sound than any taxi I’ve ever used in the past). Provide hard proof of your argument in the form of the number of documented accidents by Uber drivers as a percentage of total Uber drivers operating compared to taxi accidents. Otherwise, your statement is just a very misleading and misguided opinion.
Your argument solely lies on supposition.
Without actual data yet, this is what I am left with — giving my opinion based on logic and the knowledge that distracted driving is exceptionally dangerous.
And, that supposition is a bit flawed as accepting requests as an Uber driver means simply touching the screen of your phone.
You assume perfect conduct, but I assume natural human behavior with drivers wanting to know where they have to go.
Additionally, your blanket statement is patently false
Opinions are incapable of being true or false.
Provide hard proof of your argument in the form of the number of documented accidents by Uber
These don’t exist yet, though they might be held internally by Uber. I provided data that distracted driving is not only dangerous, but likely more dangerous than driving drunk.
If your argument is based entirely on distracted driving, there is still no basis to make the claims that Uber drivers are any more distracted than regular drivers or taxi drivers. The Uber app may ultimately be a minor driver distraction (much less than the arguably more lengthy distraction of reading or responding to texts), but your argument basically assumes that Uber drivers on average engage in the same amount of general distracted driving as other drivers and then on top of that they have the additional distractions of the Uber app. The counter argument that is ignored here is that, at the very least, the Uber driver offsets other distracted driving activities with glances at and touches of the Uber app, which would make the amount of distracted activity compared to other drivers a veritable wash. I would go even further and make the claim that Uber drivers are actually less distracted than all other drivers simply because they might be less likely to engage in the other forms of distracted driving as they must keep the Uber app in the foreground to avoid the chance of possibly missing a request. And the act of simply touching the screen once to accept any requests while driving is definitely less distracted than trying to digest texts or emails while driving. However, that would blow up your inflammatory claim and negate the likelihood of your blog getting noticed. Not sure why there is a vendetta against Uber here, but the facts and the suppositions still don’t add up to Uber being any more dangerous than taxis or driving in general.
The Uber app may ultimately be a minor driver distraction (much less than the arguably more lengthy distraction of reading or responding to texts),
The Uber app requires the driver to read, doesn’t it? (How else do they know the address?)
Not sure why there is a vendetta against Uber here
I have no vendetta against Uber. I do, however, have a vendetta against distracted drivers, since the vast majority of crashes are caused by human error.
The app truly does not require the driver to read and comprehend the address. Once the request is accepted by a driver with a touch of the phone’s screen, a second touch of the screen will deliver the address info directly to either Uber’s navigation system, Google, or Waze. From there, turn by turn directions by voice are automatically provided if the app settings are adjusted this way. So, theoretically, an Uber driver never even has to actually look at his/her phone while driving when accepting and responding to or heading towards a trip request. Again, any distraction by the app for navigation reasons easily can be deemed at least within the range of similar distraction from navigation and other means for regular drivers and taxi drivers. So, your argument that Ubers are more dangerous still doesn’t hold water based on the facts that are actually available through minimum discovery. Singling out Uber and falsely assuming that these drivers somehow commit these infractions on a larger scale simply ignores the vast majority of the overall problem you seek to eradicate.
Any time you actively encourage the use of communications electronics in the car, by the driver, you significantly increase the chance of distracted driving. There are lots of things that should be true “theoretically,” as you state, but don’t happen. Such as reading/texting while driving (or failing to use hands-free calling) which anyone can see if they were looking into the windows of other cars. (Hopefully, you are doing the looking as a passenger.)
Telling me what a perfect world would be like doesn’t diminish what happens in the real world.
And yet it’s at least anecdotally true (no doubt Uber has even better numbers) that show the availability of quick access to ridesharing services has a strongly positive affect on DUI/DWI arrests and crashes. See, e.g., Travis County, Texas (Austin), who saw DUI/DWI arrests drop 14% in 2014, DUI/DWI crashes drop 23%. We will see what happens now that Austin has chased them out.
http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local-news/57935567-story
And yet it’s at least anecdotally true (no doubt Uber has even better numbers) that show the availability of quick access to ridesharing services has a strongly positive affect on DUI/DWI arrests and crashes.
I do not compare Uber to the customer instead driving drunk. I compare it to the customer taking an old-fashioned taxi.
You are doing an apples-to-oranges comparison.
But you ought to if your concern is — as you suggest — one of broad public safety, rather than quantized (and actionable) incidents of individual negligence.
The addition of Uber services has reduced DWI/DUI arrests in a way traditional taxis have not. Taking an “old-fashioned” taxi requires that an “old-fashioned” taxi be available and it’s pretty clear the ubiquity of an Uber has made people rely on them much more than they could a taxi. Wait around 45 minutes for a taxi? Or roll the dice on a DUI. You know full well what (many) people actually do confronted with that choice.
I have no qualms with a lawsuit against an individual driver who was texting while driving and caused an accident, but as a broad public benefit question, you cannot ignore the drop in DUI rights and be making a complete analysis of the problem.
The addition of Uber services has reduced DWI/DUI arrests in a way traditional taxis have not. Taking an “old-fashioned” taxi requires that an “old-fashioned” taxi be available and it’s pretty clear the ubiquity of an Uber has made people rely on them much more than they could a taxi.
This is simply an argument to add more taxis and car services (and I have no problem with that).
Wait around 45 minutes for a taxi?
My post was pretty specific to NYC and other high density areas, due to the increased number of pedestrians. We are not talking about being out in the boonies.
By the way, there are many things that might cause a drop in DUI, not the least of which has been a massive PR campaign. I hope you aren’t implying that there is empirical evidence it is due to Uber (or similar services).
This blog post actually appeared in a news feed, which is unfortunate that most people will read the headline and immediately form a drastically wrong opinion (that Uber as a whole is dangerous) in relation to the actual contents of the blog post, which also comes off as too authoritative and is ultimately misleading. Since most people may not fully digest the entire page, let me at least post a few excepts from the DISCLAIMER at the bottom of the blog in an attempt to further de-legitimize the overall claims of the post itself:
“The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising… No reader should consider this site to be authoritative…”
Since most people may not fully digest the entire page, let me at least post a few excepts from the DISCLAIMER
You gotta do better than that. I’ve had that disclaimer for 9 years, and 1,400+ posts, b/c you never know how an ethics committee might try to interpret a changing field.
Trying to kill the message by shooting the messenger might be a time-honored tactic, but it’s evidence of the last gasp of a failing argument.
I’m just trying to kill a misleading message that has a misleading headline and is produced by an uninformed and highly assumptive messenger. Your Uber post is the failed argument. It passes off as fact that Uber is dangerous (and more dangerous than taxis) when no such data actually exists.
It passes off as fact that Uber is dangerous
As opinion. The facts — how many collisions, how bad were the injuries, why were they caused — would be held by Uber itself and its insurer, and I don’t believe that info is public.
You would then have to wrestle that info out of the insurance carriers that insure taxi companies in the hopes of doing a real apples-to-apples comparison.
I think you miss a bigger issue: insurance, specifically the Uber driver’s insurance. How many individuals who become Uber drivers inform their insurance company that their car – initially insured as a daily driver – is now a car for hire? That would substantially change their insurance, and likely result in an increase in their rates.
I know plenty of people who, faced with a property that couldn’t sell during the recession, turned their homes into a rental property. Downsides? Well, insurance, for one, and your mortgage (in which you claim the property will be owner-occupied) for another. I met a lot of people who weren’t aware of the potential pitfalls of both, and by sheer good fortune, avoided them.
But, as someone I know likes to say, it works until it doesn’t. And when it doesn’t, it fails spectacularly.
I think you miss a bigger issue: insurance, specifically the Uber driver’s insurance. How many individuals who become Uber drivers inform their insurance company that their car – initially insured as a daily driver – is now a car for hire? That would substantially change their insurance, and likely result in an increase in their rates.
There are many aspects of Uber that I didn’t cover. I focused on distracted driving in densely populated areas with pedestrians since that is, in my opinion, the most dangerous.
Wow this one has stirred up some comments. Whilst the article is full of supposition, it makes sense. What they call an opinion piece, I think.
Anyway. There would be one simple way to avoid the problem – Uber’s driver’s app should only allow calls to be accepted when the vehicle is stationary. Simple.
There’s just no way drivers should be interacting with an app in a moving vehicle.
There’s just no way drivers should be interacting with an app in a moving vehicle
That makes perfect sense.
Counselor, a few small factual corrections. First, the Uber (or Lyft, etc, for that matter) driver is unaware of where the trip requested is actually going – they are limited to hitting yes or no, and then the app pulls up the GPS mapping app and gives them the route, no different than any other non-Uber drivers, so it is less interaction with the screen than you intimated. Second, I can definitely testify that every Uber car is in far better shape, both mechanically and safety-wise, (side air bags, etc) than 95% of taxis or livery town cars. (Due to the law of unintended consequences, this factor alone may make them safer for passengers over traditional cabs, even if Ubers do indeed have a higher rate of collisions from distracted driving.) Third, there is an interesting advantage over TLC in NY for Uber, in that (so I have been told) each car carries a $1 Million liability policy. I don’t have to tell you that this is many times the TLC minimum for taxi cabs in NYC. If we could erase all traditional yellow/livery cabs in NYC and replace them with Ubers, would pedestrians, passengers, and other cars be more or less safe than the status quo? I think there are many questions of fact that need to be resolved in order to answer this hypo fairly, especially as the current TLC driver licensing/oversight is not exactly the gold standard. I share your concerns, but I would argue against wholesale discarding of the Uber model due to safety concerns, because there are a number of factors that cut both ways.
and then the app pulls up the GPS mapping app and gives them the route,
Which they look at, which takes their eyes off the road. Less of a big deal in suburban and rural areas but a huge thing in congested NYC.
no different than any other non-Uber drivers
GPS isn’t really needed in the most pedestrian-jammed parts of NYC. But it is instrumental to Uber (and Lyft, etc.)
I can definitely testify that every Uber car is in far better shape…
I wrote about distracted driving, not any of the other pros/cons of such services.
each car carries a $1 Million liability policy
Now we are getting to the meat and potatoes. If you read the piece, you see I end with the fact that a bill is likely to be presented to the Senate/Assembly Insurance Committees. Uber insurance should be higher, because I believe that the danger of distracted driving will result in more collisions and injuries that are more serious.
But you can bet your last dollar that Uber will try to get the Legislature to lower its insurance, which is exactly the wrong thing to do, and the point of my piece.
With a more technological reliant based service, Uber may prove to be more dangerous than traditional taxi services. However, should the technology be outlawed just because the system may have more hazards than the traditional approach? These cases should provide more structure on the issues of disruptive developing technologies.