Put cameras in the damn cars. It is a minimal cost, and protects drivers too. This is 100% on Lyft for not requiring these before now.
>One woman claims that after spending an evening with a friend, she was “raped and sodomized” by her Lyft driver in his home. In 2016, another woman ordered a Lyft after a night out. Hours later, her friends walked in on her Lyft driver allegedly raping her in her bedroom.
Simple solution: ride in progress, camera is switched off? Send an alert. Your camera is broken? Too bad, you're not getting any rides until it's working again.
> And if they did, they would delete the evidence after as it's not feasible for driver's to upload video live from their device to Lyft during all trips.
Lots of criminal energy and knowledge required ... and they'd make themselves look guilty as hell.
Cameras obviously don't stop crime, but they would help with law enforcement and stop future crime: if a driver is in jail, they can't assault anybody else.
And who knows, if the situations you quoted there began with a driver forcing them into his place, or following the rider into her house, then a camera could also have prevented them - or have been clear evidence.
if the woman willingly went with the driver to his home or let him into her own, this obviously has nothing to do with Lyft
You can pay for it if you want, ask shareholders to pay for it, ask the banks to pay for it, or create your own premium ride sharing with cameras startup. The main point of Lyft/Uber is that they’re still cheaper than a taxi.