Bike taxi ban: Drivers bear the brunt of regulations aimed at tech platforms

Bike taxi drivers have been routinely stopped by transport authorities and their vehicles impounded by the Regional Transport Office. (Image: REUTERS/File)

The bike taxi driver or the motorcycle delivery worker is a tenuous category for governments despite platform workers slowly getting the recognition they deserve from our lawmakers. Bike taxi rides have become commonplace in most big and small cities.

But the worker – the motorcycle driver – has worked in a grey regulatory area for years. Delhi is the latest in a series of governments that have banned bike taxis on account of this regulatory mess.

Regulatory Grey Zone

The central government law (Motor Vehicles Act 2019) recognises bike taxi aggregators. But the Delhi government case rests on the fact that the state government can choose to bring out its own aggregator policy. Without the policy, platforms have not applied for or received licenses from the Delhi government, creating the environment for a ban.

The Transport Minister, Government of Delhi, tweeted the penalties for bike taxis that ply despite the ban: A monetary fine of Rs 5,000 for the bike taxi driver, and on second offence imprisonment up to a year with a Rs 10,000 fine and having the vehicle impounded.

The regulatory lags and debates around technological innovation tend to fall on the driver (or worker’s) shoulders. While the licensing regime makes platform services illegal or unregulated, the penalties are on the driver, and some on the platform. Drivers are the face of platform companies that they are contractors for.

Drivers Bear The Brunt

This puts them in a situation where they bear the brunt of regulatory pressure that the company faces. The driver becomes accountable for a service he or she has little control over, and has little stake in.

Bike taxi drivers have been routinely stopped by transport authorities and their vehicles impounded by the Regional Transport Office. The only recourse drivers have is to use their own wits and negotiation skills to prevent impounding, and to bear the costs of fines themselves.

In many instances, platform legal and operations teams are able to help drivers retrieve their vehicles or prevent impounding from taking place. This varies company to company and state to state. Drivers, who earn through piece rate payment systems need their vehicles to work. Operating in a grey industry puts them doubly at risk.

No Just Transitions Here

Until the 2019 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, drivers have faced recurring bans across many states almost every few weeks or months. Unfortunately, the amendment to the Act did not change the operational environment for drivers.

Speculation is rife that the Delhi government has enforced a ban as part of a forced transition to electrical vehicles. Banning current platforms will force them to apply under new licences that they are eligible for only if they are plying with EVs. Uber’s recent blog states that the Delhi government has preempted its own timelines.

Some firms are better prepared for an EV transition given their own choices and aims, while others have shown no commitment to the cause. The impact of these decisions, made by platforms in their corporate strategies, fall again on the drivers’ shoulders. Some companies are better prepared through setting up an ecosystem with financiers, manufacturers, and the requisite EV infrastructure.

For those platforms that are not aligned to the EV policy, drivers will face a tougher time using those platforms. Either way, drivers will be bearing the cost of this transition with little government support. Currently, there is little support for the costs of EV vehicles, charging infrastructure, maintenance. Unlike the CNG transition, where vehicles were retrofitted, with EVs the expectation is that each driver who wishes to earn from bike taxis or delivery work will bear the costs of these.

Without State Or Employer Support

EV policies and aggregator policies have so far not worked in tandem with contemporary regulatory changes like the introduction of social security for platform and gig workers. The social security cover for many kinds of platform workers has been slow. So far only the Rajasthan government has financially backed social security programmes with an allocation of Rs 200 crore.

In Maharashtra there has been an attempt to bring Urban Company home services workers (electricians, etc) under the Construction Workers Board. There are many small fragmented outcomes of the operationalisation of the Code on Social Security thus far. In a bid to shift to EV as a more sustainable transport or to create regulations for bike taxis the most vulnerable should be kept in focus by non-social security policies.

Bike taxi drivers, being ‘gig’ workers using digital platforms, do not earn without their bikes and the platform. Platforms do not offer unemployment cover during regulatory upheavals or even act-of-God events like the Covid-19 pandemic. At most, their efforts to support bike taxi drivers are sporadic and uneven since not all drivers get their help.

To sum up, it is important that the central government and state governments come on the same page with regard to regulation of bike taxis. Issues like power of state governments to regulate roads and transport within its territorial limits also deserve a humane touch given that it is the income security and livelihoods of an important segment of urban workers that are at stake. At the same time, companies that continue to ply while being “illegal” force workers to work in unfair environments without creating support infrastructure, or taking responsibility for them.

Aditi Surie's work examines platform capitalism, and livelihoods and economic progress for communities on technology-mediated markets. She is Senior Researcher at Indian Institute for Human Settlements. Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.