Night Ride-Hailing During Curfew: Why Kyiv Allowed an Exception and What It Means
The decision to allow ride-hailing services to operate at night in Kyiv quickly caused confusion. Some residents perceived the news as a relaxation of the curfew, others as a hidden “loophole” for nighttime movement. In reality, the step is far narrower and far more pragmatic, driven not by convenience, but by crisis.
The curfew has not been lifted. It has been partially adapted to emergency conditions.
Starting January 17, 2026, the largest ride-hailing platforms Bolt, Uklon, and Uber are permitted to operate at night in Kyiv. The decision was made against the backdrop of a critical state of the energy system and is directly linked to risks to people’s health and lives in the event of prolonged power and heating outages. The companies clearly state that this is not about regular trips. It is about the ability to reach Points of Invincibility, heating locations, or one’s home, as well as ensuring critically important needs medical, social, and humanitarian.
At the same time, the city officially clarified curfew rules:
at night, movement on foot or by transport is allowed in exceptional circumstances, with mandatory identification documents.
Why This Decision Appeared at All
Stripped of formal wording, the reason is simple: a complete ban on nighttime mobility during an energy crisis began to create more risks than protection.
When electricity and heating disappear at night, an apartment can cease to be a safe space. For some people the elderly, the sick, families with children the ability to quickly reach a Point of Invincibility becomes not a matter of comfort, but of survival.
And this is where the city faced reality:
demand for nighttime travel exists regardless of prohibitions.
Legal Services Versus the Grey Market
One of the key arguments put forward by the platforms is the fight against grey transportation. While official services were not operating, nighttime demand did not disappear it simply moved into an uncontrolled zone: private drivers without checks, without safety standards, without accountability.
Allowing legal platforms to operate is an attempt to bring nighttime mobility back into the legal field, where:
- drivers are registered;
- trips are recorded;
- basic mechanisms of responsibility exist.
It is not a perfect solution, but in a crisis the city is choosing the lesser of two risks.
Responsibility Was Shifted to Citizens and That Is Crucial
An important detail: the services do not filter routes and do not verify the grounds for trips. Bolt explicitly states that using the service during curfew hours is the responsibility of citizens themselves.
This means two things at the same time:
- a taxi is not a “pass”;
- police and patrols continue to perform their functions.
In other words, the infrastructure has been provided, but the decision and the risks remain with the individual. It is an honest, though strict, approach.
Is This a Relaxation of the Curfew
No.
It is a controlled exception, clearly tied to the emergency energy situation.
No one has allowed “night rides around the city.” What has been allowed is reaching a safe place when no other options exist. That is how this decision should be interpreted without romanticizing it and without panic.
What This Says About City Governance
In effect, Kyiv acknowledged a simple fact: strict rules in a crisis require flexible mechanisms, otherwise they stop working. This is not an example of liberalization, but of management adapting to real conditions. The city also gains an additional tool: data. Aggregators are ready to share anonymized information about demand and movement dynamics, allowing the city to better adjust infrastructure operations during critical hours.
Allowing taxis to operate at night during curfew hours is not about convenience and not about business. It is about recognizing that in conditions of energy instability an absolute ban on movement can be more dangerous than controlled access to transport. The decision appears pragmatic and temporary. It can be easily rolled back if conditions change. But in the current situation, it demonstrates one key thing: the city is trying to manage the crisis, not pretend it does not exist.
About the Author
