MARAL.

UBER SAFETY  /  UX RESEARCH + PRODUCT DESIGN

Safety shouldn’t hide
when riders need it most.

Rethinking Uber’s ride-hailing safety experience to make support easier to notice, understand, and use across every stage of a trip.

Research  •  Strategy  •  Interaction design  •  Mobile experience
Ride-hailing route shown during an active trip

PROJECT CONTEXT / THE CHALLENGE

Safety tools fail riders in the moments they’re built for.

Safety features such as sharing a trip, emergency calling, and driver verification are often hidden behind multiple taps. In high-stress moments, every second counts—but riders must first remember that the tools exist, find them, and decide whether the situation is serious enough to use them.

The risk is real—and the response has to be easier. Safety statistics show 2,717 sexual-assault reports, 878 new lawsuits, and 127 fatalities.

THE CURRENT EXPERIENCE

Uber already has safety tools. The problem is reaching them in time.

I mapped the current safety experience across pre-trip, in-trip, and after-trip moments to understand what support is available—and when riders are expected to find it.

Current Uber safety tools mapped across pre-trip, in-trip, and after-trip stages

The gap was not the absence of safety tools. It was discoverability, speed, and confidence in what happens next.

WHERE THE EXPERIENCE BREAKS

Four points of friction repeatedly appeared in riders’ comments.

01

Lack of awareness

Riders cannot use tools they do not know exist.

02

Low emergency visibility

In emergencies, every second matters and safety actions need immediate visibility.

03

Driver verification

Riders need stronger confirmation that the driver and vehicle match the information shown.

04

Trust and reporting

After reporting, a lack of transparency makes the process feel uncertain and high-stakes.

WHAT WE HEARD FROM RIDERS

Safety is not a single emergency moment. It is a changing need for control.

Rider and driver interviews revealed six recurring behaviors, concerns, and coping strategies across the trip.

01

Map checking gives control

Riders check their own map—or the driver’s phone—to make sure the route feels correct.

02

Safety tools feel hidden or slow

In stressful moments, riders want fewer steps and faster access to help.

03

Reporting feels high-stakes

Many riders leave a low rating instead because formal reporting feels unclear or too consequential.

04

Sharing location is the most common safety behavior

Riders share live location, trip details, or screenshots with people they trust.

05

Driver behavior shapes comfort

Calm driving and respectful communication build trust; personal questions or unusual behavior can quickly undermine it.

06

Dangerous driving increases anxiety

Speeding, hard braking, and risky turns make riders feel they have less control.

DEFINING THE AUDIENCE

Two riders, two different ways of seeking safety.

The project direction had to support both self-reliant riders and riders who feel safer when a trusted person stays connected.

Comparison of Max, an independent rider, and Maya, a connected rider

MAPPING THE FULL RIDE

The need for reassurance changes from booking to arrival.

Comparing Max and Maya revealed the specific moments when riders seek control, involve others, hesitate to report, or need faster access to help.

Journey map comparing two riders across booking, pickup, the ride, uncertainty, and arrival

LEARNING FROM OTHER SAFETY PRODUCTS

Direct competitors repeated the same tools. Indirect products supported the emotional gap.

Comparing ride-sharing and personal-safety apps revealed patterns for faster activation, quiet escalation, trusted-contact visibility, and reassurance before an emergency.

Competitor analysis of ride-sharing and personal-safety products

DEVELOP / PRIORITIZATION

Prioritizing ideas by impact and effort.

After expanding the solution space, I evaluated each concept by its potential value for riders and the effort required to deliver it. This narrowed the strongest ideas into a focused feature direction.

Effort-impact matrix prioritizing safety concepts

DEVELOP / CONCEPT DIRECTION

The strongest ideas became a graduated safety system.

The matrix narrowed a broad set of possibilities into four connected features that support riders before, during, and after a trip.

01

Ride preferences

Comfort starts before booking.

02

Adaptive response

Support changes as concern changes.

03

Stay with me

Help remains visible and transparent.

04

Direct actions

Critical tools stay within reach.

FEATURE 01 / BEFORE THE RIDE

Comfort becomes part of the booking experience.

Ride preferences let riders communicate everyday comfort needs before pickup. Selected settings stay visible on the ride option, connecting comfort directly to the booking decision instead of burying it in account settings.

Ride preference screens shown before requesting a trip

FEATURE 02 / DURING THE RIDE

Safety support changes as the rider’s concern changes.

A persistent safety control makes reassurance visible without demanding attention. Moving from Safe to Concerned quietly starts protective actions, then asks for just enough context to guide the next response.

Adaptive safety response progressing from reassurance to active protection

FEATURE 03 / GUIDED SUPPORT

Help stays present—even when the rider cannot keep interacting.

Stay With Me connects the rider to a safety agent, keeps automatic protection active, and makes every step visible. Riders can reply, choose a quick answer, or remain silent while monitoring and recording continue.

Stay With Me screens showing live progress and safety chat

FEATURE 04 / DIRECT SAFETY ACTIONS

Each action shows what is active, shared, and happening next.

The safety menu opens distinct flows for emergency calling, audio recording, trip sharing, and issue reporting. The four states focus on confirmation, persistence, and clear follow-up.

Direct safety action screens for calling, recording, sharing, and reporting

DEVELOP / USABILITY TESTING

Testing changed two specific moments in the safety flow.

Rather than redesigning the entire experience, the revisions focused on where the participant needed clearer navigation, more choice, and greater control over escalation.

Before and after comparison of lock-screen safety navigation
Before and after comparison separating immediate support from private documentation

DELIVER / USABILITY TESTING

Testing showed that riders needed choice before escalation.

One moderated usability session focused on the safety entry points, slider, and response flow.

KEY FINDINGS
  • Open the relevant safety flow directly from the home or lock-screen entry.
  • Ask whether the rider wants immediate help or only wants to document the experience.
  • Let riders save privately and request support later, without automatic escalation.

DELIVER / FINAL RESULT

A safety system that adapts without taking control away.

The final prototype connects prevention, graduated response, documentation, and visible follow-up in one continuous experience. Riders can ask for urgent help, stay accompanied, or simply record what happened—without being pushed into escalation.

FINAL PROTOTYPE WALKTHROUGH

One connected experience, across the full ride.

BEFORE THE RIDE

Ride preferences reduce avoidable discomfort before booking.

DURING THE RIDE

The adaptive safety control keeps support visible and proportional to concern.

WHEN SOMETHING FEELS WRONG

Riders choose immediate help or document the experience without forced escalation.

AFTER AN ACTION

Visible progress, safety chat, saved notes, and case summaries preserve clarity and control.