Caught on camera: Delhi woman records her own accident during Rapido ride
Recently, Delhi-based Instagram user Priyanka shared a clip—of her own accident—along with a caption detailing how a Rapido bike ride left her shaken.
She claimed that the Rapido bike driver did not give her a helmet, saying it was not needed and not wearing one himself.
He also took the wrong side of the road several times to reach the destination, she added.
In her Instagram post, Priyanka said: 'This might be the first time where I felt super unsafe with the way the Rapido driver was driving.'
'First, I asked for helmet to which he replied no need to wear it (he was himself not wearing it). Then, his super chill nature despite of breaking so many traffic rules altogether was bothering me (sic).'
'He was taking wrong side on each main road and with those twist and turns my heartbeat was racing even more. I took out my phone to record all this.'
Priyanka also said that during the ride, the Rapido guy was continuously listening to music.
According to her post, the Rapido bike soon collided with another two-wheeler coming from the other side. The accident took place in front of a Delhi Police vehicle.
She further said: 'With all this incident I just want to highlight @rapidoapp @rapidocaptain to hire people who are responsible rather than those nonchalant guys who rides like they have 9 lives. (sic)'
Replying to her Instagram post, Rapido apologised for the incident.
It said: 'We understand your concern regarding safety and sincerely apologise for the unpleasant experience you had.'
The company also reiterated that helmets are mandatory for both drivers and passengers and urged her to share her ride details via direct message so that appropriate action could be taken.
Priyanka's video has raised concerns among the Rapido and other bike taxi passengers. Here are some comments posted by users on the video--
- 'Oh my goddddddddwddd😭 r u okayyyyy'
- 'Bhaii you okayy lagi toh nhi???'
- 'Hope you are fine and dint hurt yourself much ?You should definitely reach out to there support and complaint about the driver because he is putting a lot of lives in danger like this.'
- 'Got into an accident just 3 days back. We were wearing helmet but the one in wrong was my captain. Thodi see tareef kardi ki nayi bike hai kya baat hai...hawabaazi mei gaadi mei pel di.'
- 'Insuarance claim karo, rapido rides are insured.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Why a court ban on encrypted email service Proton Mail has sparked digital privacy fears
A two-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court is now hearing a challenge filed by Proton AG, the Swiss company that runs the encrypted email service, Proton Mail. On April 29, a single judge of the high court had directed the Union government to block the service in India, setting off a wave of criticism from digital rights advocates. Many of them told Scroll that the court's ban set a dangerous precedent that threatens the privacy of whistle-blowers, activists, journalists, and others who rely on encryption for more secure communications. They said the court had erred in blaming encryption for Proton's alleged non-cooperation with the Karnataka police in its investigation into online harassment by anonymous culprits through its email service. What did the High Court order say? The case began when a Bengaluru-based organisation approached the High Court after some of its female employees were subjected to prolonged online harassment. The company received a torrent of emails from two Proton Mail accounts containing obscene and abusive content, including morphed images of the employees. The company filed a police complaint and reached out to Proton Mail's abuse team. While Proton disabled the offending accounts, it could not provide the company personally identifiable details of the sender of the mail. This is because, it informed the company, under Swiss law, it could only disclose user data upon receiving a formal legal request from Swiss authorities through established international cooperation channels. The police investigation hit a similar wall. The police told the court that they could not identify the culprit through the mutual legal assistance arrangements between India and Switzerland. However, the judgment didn't clarify what specific steps were taken or where those efforts stalled. Nevertheless, Justice M Nagaprasanna took a stern view of the matter in his judgment. Describing the situation as a 'menace', he noted that Proton Mail had also been used to send bomb threats to schools and even to the Chief Minister of Karnataka. 'The State machinery [is] hamstrung by the absence of enforceable cooperation from Proton AG,' Nagaprasanna observed. 'This Court fails to understand the complacency of the Union of India in not taking action towards blocking the Proton Mail…' Concluding that the court could not remain a 'mute spectator', the judge directed the Union government to initiate proceedings to block Proton Mail in India under the Information Technology Act. 'Troubling precedent' As of July 25, Proton Mail was still accessible in India. While the court's intent to protect the victims of harassment is clear, technology lawyers and digital rights advocates raised concerns about the order's sweeping nature and its wider implications. They argue that blocking an entire service used by many for the criminal acts of a few is a disproportionate response that could undermine digital security for everyone. The order 'sets a troubling precedent,' said Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy Director at Access Now, a digital civil rights organisation. 'It signals that entire encrypted services can be taken down based on allegations linked to a handful of users.' A ban could lead to a domino effect, warned Apar Gupta, lawyer and founder director of the Internet Freedom Foundation. 'Other encrypted platforms could face pressure to weaken their security or risk being blocked,' he explained. 'This approach may inadvertently chill free expression, as journalists, activists and at-risk communities who rely on encrypted communications for safety might feel less secure.' This view was echoed by technology lawyer and online civil liberties activist Mishi Choudhary. 'In today's day of heightened cyber security issues and surveillance, privacy-protecting technologies are more crucial than ever,' she said. Blocking Proton Mail would not eliminate online abuse either, said technologist and interdisciplinary researcher Rohini Lakshané. 'Malicious actors can simply migrate to other encrypted email providers or deploy additional anonymisation techniques,' she said. The fear is that the High Court's order could give cover to authorities to take a heavy-handed approach towards any platform that offers privacy. 'This move will embolden the bureaucracy and the political powers to act first and think later,' cautioned Tanveer Hasan, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, an internet and digital technologies research organisation. As Choudhary noted, 'India cannot be a destination that issues blocking orders at the drop of a hat if investigative authorities aren't able to access some data.' Gupta warned that the order would create legal uncertainty for overseas service providers. 'Those in jurisdictions with strict privacy laws could be caught between home-country obligations and Indian court demands, deterring them from offering services in India,' he said. Encryption versus user identification A key point of contention is the court's conflation of the protection of a message's content with the ability to identify a user. The court identified encryption as a factor for the police's failed investigation – without explaining how. Encrypted services like Proton Mail are prevented from seeing the content of messages sent on their platforms, but may still access user metadata, such as internet protocol address – a unique alphanumerical identifier assigned to each computer connected to the internet – from which an account was created or accessed. Nikhil Narendran, a partner at the law firm Trilegal, argued that the ban was based on a misunderstanding of the technology 'Encryption only protects the content of a message but does not prevent a receiver or sender from disclosing it wilfully,' he explained. 'It also doesn't prevent a company from disclosing user information once the content is disclosed.' This metadata can be a crucial tool for law enforcement to trace the origin of a criminal act. In 2021, Proton Mail handed over the internet protocol address of French Proton Mail users to the French police upon an order by the Swiss government. 'So, the idea that Proton Mail is immune to legal process is simply not true,' Chima said. Sharveya Parasnis, a journalist at the technology policy portal Medianama, questioned the court's invocation of encryption. 'I don't know if the case is about encryption as much as it is about the obligation of foreign companies to comply with Indian law enforcement requests for user data,' he said. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 mandate that online platforms 'enable the identification' of anyone communicating through the platform upon a government or court order. The right way forward? Experts pointed out that a blanket ban failed the three-part test for restricting fundamental rights laid down by the Supreme Court in its landmark privacy judgment in 2018. Any restriction must be lawful, necessary and, crucially, proportionate. 'Here, less intrusive options clearly existed,' Chima said. He and other experts Scroll spoke with argued that instead of resorting to bans, Indian authorities should strengthen and use existing legal channels. India and Switzerland are both signatories to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, a formal mechanism for requesting and obtaining evidence for criminal investigations. The treaty should be reformed 'so investigators can lawfully obtain data in a timely manner,' suggested Gupta. 'Regulators can also establish clear, transparent protocols for engaging with encrypted services based abroad, and even update outdated agreements to address modern cybercrime.' Rahul Narayan, a partner at the law firm Chandhiok & Mahajan who has expertise in privacy and data protection, batted for more legislative clarity in such situations. 'Precise parameters for when a service may be blocked should be laid down in a legislation, rather than decided on an ad-hoc basis by courts,' he said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Punjab: Man linked to BKI arrested over grenade attack on Batala police station
The Delhi Police has arrested a 22-year-old man allegedly associated with the banned terrorist organisation Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) involved in a grenade attack on a police station in Punjab earlier this year, an officer said on Sunday. Karanbir alias Karan, a native of Chananke village in Amritsar, was apprehended on July 26 from Gurdaspur under the Arms Act. (HT File) Karanbir alias Karan, a native of Chananke village in Amritsar, was apprehended on July 26 from Gurdaspur under the Arms Act registered at the special cell police station, the officer said. Police said Karanbir is also a key accused in the April 7 grenade attack at Quila Lal Singh police station in Punjab's Batala. 'The incident is currently under investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA),' deputy commissioner of police (Special Cell) Amit Kaushik said. 'The investigation initially began after the arrest of another accused, Akashdeep alias Bazz, from Indore on July 22,' Kaushik said. 'During interrogation, Akashdeep revealed his involvement in the grenade attack and named others linked to BKI which led to the arrest of Karandeep. A post claiming responsibility for the attack had surfaced on social media, allegedly shared by BKI operatives Happy Passia, Mannu Agwan and Gopi Nawanshahria,' the DCP added. According to police, Karanbir revealed during interrogation that he was in contact with a BKI handler based abroad through social media and was receiving instructions to carry out terror activities. ' Karanbir travelled to a West Asian country last year and received money for the April attack. He revealed that he had sheltered two men at his house before carrying out the attack,' the DCP said. 'His brother Gursewak, also involved in the conspiracy, has already been arrested by investigating agencies,' the DCP added.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Social media companies not liable for 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, New York court rules
Several social media companies should not be held liable for helping an avowed white supremacist who killed 10 Black people in 2022 at a Buffalo, New York grocery store, a divided New York state appeals court ruled on Friday. Reversing a lower court ruling, the state Appellate Division in Rochester said defendants including Meta Platforms' Facebook and Instagram, Google's YouTube, and Reddit were entitled to immunity under a federal law that protects online platforms from liability over user content. The case arose from Payton Gendron's racially motivated mass shooting at Tops Friendly Markets on May 14, 2022. Relatives and representatives of victims, as well as store employees and customers who witnessed the attack, claimed the defendants' platforms were defective because they were designed to addict and radicalise users like Gendron. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Other defendants included Alphabet, Discord, 4chan, Snap and Twitch, all of which Gendron used, the mid-level state appeals court said. Writing for a 3-2 majority, Justice Stephen Lindley said holding social media companies liable would undermine the intent behind Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, to promote development of and competition on the internet while keeping government interference to a minimum. While condemning Gendron's conduct and "the vile content that motivated him to assassinate Black people simply because of the color of their skin," Lindley said a liability finding would "result in the end of the Internet as we know it." "Because social media companies that sort and display content would be subject to liability for every untruthful statement made on their platforms, the Internet would over time devolve into mere message boards," he wrote. Justices Tracey Bannister and Henry Nowak dissented, saying the defendants force-fed targeted content to keep users engaged, be it videos about cooking or puppies, or white nationalist vitriol. "Such conduct does not maintain the robust nature of Internet communication or preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet contemplated by the protections of immunity," the judges wrote. Gendron pleaded guilty to state charges including murder and terrorism motivated by hate, and was sentenced in February 2023 to life in prison without parole. He faces related federal charges that could lead to the death penalty. Questioning of potential jurors in that case is scheduled to begin in August 2026, court records show.
