Robot taxis are ‘legal’ in rural parishes

THE EDITOR, Sir:

I USED to say that I wouldn’t take robot taxis until I relocated to a rural community in northern Clarendon. The typical scene when you are travelling – unregulated cabs. Unless you stay home or buy yourself a car, you have to take them. That is how you move from point A to B, or if it’s a close distance, you walk. But if you must go to school, work, church, or conduct your lawful business, you must engage one of these cars.

The first issue with travelling by this means is that it is illegal. But the problem gets worse when you analyse the risk factors and the mechanical conditions of these vehicles. And don’t mention the speed at which they drive in the narrow, hilly, winding terrain. By the way, the police don’t terrorise them. They are free to operate.

The Transport Authority has no established routes in these communities and anything goes. It is all well and good to regulate the transport sector in the metropolitan regions [town to town and city to city], but what of the rural areas where hundreds of thousands of commuters have to travel in robots. Aren’t their lives as valuable?

But to exacerbate the situation, the unlicensed cars are usually overloaded. A regular five-seater car carries up to 13 passengers (and people who are desperate may still want to squeeze themselves in, and so the number could be more, considering the use of the trunk). Just consider a cramped car, three passengers in the front (one under the driver’s arm), speeding on our bad roads. A total recipe for disaster.

If there is a serious accident resulting in injuries and death, the affected passengers get zilch, zero, nothing! Don’t even think about approaching the insurance company for anything.

What of the messages we always see on TV, hear on radio, and read on billboards that we must not travel in cars that are not registered as public passenger vehicles? How do those apply to us?

How does the Government secure a safe mode of transport for us in deep-rural areas?