Should ride-hailing drivers prioritise passenger safety over personal advances?

Question

Accepted Answer

A Singapore court found a former Grab driver not guilty, but the columnist argues ride-hailing drivers should prioritise a visibly intoxicated or distressed passenger’s safety over any sexual advances.

A former Grab driver in Singapore was found not guilty of attempted rape of a 19-year-old passenger in 2018. The passenger had been drinking after a night out and was visibly upset and frustrated when she arrived at her destination but could not find an access card to her residence. The driver said he tried to calm her by holding her hand and that she then started kissing him, with further sexual activity following, after which he drove her to another location before returning her to her residence.
The court outcome and the incident timeline in 2018
The case centred on events in 2018, when the passenger took a Grab home after declining a ride from friends. After reaching her destination, she struggled to access her residence and was helped back into the driver’s car. Hours later, she was found unconscious on the road without any underwear.

The driver was found not guilty of attempted rape, even though the prosecution argument was that the sexual activity was non-consensual because the woman was too drunk. The report also describes the driver as being in his 40s, more than 20 years older than the woman, and married.
What the driver claimed happened after the passenger struggled
The driver claimed that once the passenger was visibly upset and frustrated, he tried to calm her by holding her hand. He then alleged that she initiated kissing, and that other sexual activity followed after that point.

The account also says he drove the woman to another location and attempted to engage in more sexual activity before eventually dropping her back at her residence. The woman’s later condition—being unconscious on the road and found without underwear—was part of what raised questions about what the driver did after she could not access her home.
The columnist’s view on “basic decency” despite the not-guilty verdict
The columnist said the law may have been on the driver’s side, but argued his behaviour fell far short of any basic standard of decency. The columnist emphasised that the driver’s job was to deliver a young drunk woman home, not to take her back into his car and engage in sexual acts.

It was also framed as relevant that the driver had contact with her primarily because of his role as a ride-hailing driver, with a clearly defined responsibility. The columnist described the situation as harmful to the driver’s family as well.
What the columnist says drivers should do when a passenger is visibly drunk or distressed
The columnist argued that when a passenger is visibly intoxicated or distressed and barely known to the driver, it is generally safe to assume she is not in the right state of mind to consent. The columnist’s position was that drivers should reject advances and convey the passenger to a place where she might be safe.

The columnist also pointed to the idea that leaving a person in a vulnerable position—described as committing a furtive sex act then fleeing while the person was vulnerable—should not be accepted behaviour.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Should ride-hailing drivers prioritise passenger safety over personal advances?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends