Annex
DETAILS OF RESEARCH
A. HOME SAFE
Home Safe Research undertaken for Merseytravel
in 19931 revealed the proportion of rail users who felt "at
risk" of attack when travelling at night to be:
| Female % | Male %
|
| Walking to/from station | 40
| 35 |
| Inside station | 35 | 25
|
| Waiting on the platform | 43
| 39 |
| On board the train | 31 |
25 |
| | |
This work found that
Arrangements for the manning [sic] and supervision of stations
are often optimised for operational convenience and cost minimisation
rather than concern for passenger security. The result is that
stations are frequently unstaffed at times when travellers feel
most vulnerable.
The situation on many rail stations can seem particularly
threatening. The frequency of arrivals and departures is substantially
less than at a bus station and the secluded nature of the platforms
means there is considerably less potential oversight of activity
from people passing by. The design of many stations with alcoves
and gaps between platform buildings also creates potential hiding
places. Access to platforms may require use of subways which are
also seen as an especially intimidating environment.
Replacement of station booking office staff by machines for
ticket vending heightens perception of risk. People unfamiliar
with how the machines work may adopt behaviour which invites contact
or may feel obliged to ask strangers for advice/assistance who,
in other circumstances, they might avoid.
Feelings of insecurity can become acute outside normal shopping/business
hours when the number of passengers falls and retail premises
close.
It is noteworthy that this study showed (a) that many people,
including current users, feel insecure while travelling by rail,
(b) that this is especially true after dark, and (c) that the
absence of staff is seen as a significant contributory factor.
Very similar findings have emerged from subsequent investigations
of the same issue.
B. PERCEPTIONS OF
SAFETY FROM
CRIME
A study of Perceptions of safety from crime on public
transport undertaken for the Department of Transport in 19962
found that
Passenger surveys in this country and abroad consistently
reveal that, despite low levels of reported and recorded crime,
passengers have real fears for their personal safety whilst using
public transport. There is evidence that these fears influence
their decisions to travel and, in particular, their use of public
transport. Some people avoid travelling after dark, some avoid
particular modes of transport or particular routes or locations,
while others do not see public transport as a viable option and
resort to either the perceived relative safety of their car or
to staying at home.
In the course of this study, focus groups were held in various
parts of the country, with participants selected to take account
of a range of personal attributes. The discussions were not limited
to rail travel, so it is noteworthy that the authors concluded
that:
The greatest concerns for personal safety were expressed
by participants in the London [Underground station] and Birmingham
[train station] focus groups, often linked to their fears about
mentally disturbed people whose actions were described as unpredictable
and erratic.
In a household interview survey conducted as part of the
same project, fewer respondents rated their personal safety while
travelling as poor or very poor than gave this rating for other
journey factors—i.e. cost, reliability, usefulness, ease
of boarding/alighting. But there were some noteworthy variations
within the sample, dissatisfaction being higher amongst women,
amongst people travelling after dark, amongst people not in employment,
amongst those with no car, and amongst residents of metropolitan
counties. About 12% had experienced or observed incidents of crime
or anti-social behaviour while travelling. In the case of rail
users, waiting on platforms was seen as markedly less safe than
travelling on trains, and the Underground as less safe than main-line
railways.
The study found that:
The absence of staff or visible and available staff contributes
substantively to people's anxieties about personal safety. Uniformed
staff [transport, security or police] were seen as being `in authority'
and helping to create an atmosphere of "control" which
passengers closely associated with a safe and secure environment.
However, the absence of staff is not only a contributing factor
to people's anxiety about personal safety in these circumstance.
The lack of staff is also an indication that there was [sic] likely
to be few passengers travelling as well . . . It is not solely
staff that fulfils [sic] people's desire for a human presence,
but people want larger numbers of people because they perceive
that the majority will not cause a problem for their personal
safety.
When asked to rate the effectiveness of eight different possible
means of improving safety when waiting for trains, the largest
vote went to the presence of staff at the station.
C. FEAR AND
EXPERIENCES OF
ASSAULT
A 2004 report for the Rail Safety & Standards Board (RSSB)
on Fear and experiences of passengers from assault (3)
analysed the information contained in databases maintained by
RSSB and the British Transport Police (BTP). When passenger/national
demographics were compared with the actual likelihood of different
passenger groups being assaulted, the consultants found some intriguing
paradoxes. Specifically:
Males are much more likely to be the victim of assault, although
females are more concerned about personal security.
Young people (under the age of 25) are victim of 68% of assaults.
Passengers over the age of 45 are rarely the victim of an assault
but are very concerned about personal security.
People from ethnic minority groups are far more likely to
be assaulted but this could be the reflection of the fact that
assaults tend to be concentrated in metropolitan areas which have
larger ethnic populations.
Another phase of the same study surveyed samples of rail
users and non-users to ascertain the extent to which they had
actually experienced assaults or abuse while travelling. Only
1% of users claimed actually to have experienced a "physical
attack", and these mostly occurred during the day, were of
a sexual nature and committed by commuters. It was concluded that
these are incidents where women are molested on busy trains, and
go largely unreported.
But 7% had experienced an incident of some kind during the
past year, and a further 8% had witnessed one. Only 12% had reported
them. Again, the profile of incidents was quite different from
that of people's fears. Incidents occurred mainly on trains, but
concerns were greater about stations. Incidents occurred as frequently
in daylight as after dark, but the latter aroused more fear. They
were committed both by individuals and groups, but concern was
mainly about groups of youths. Current users have a low level
of concern about travelling during the day, but 18% will not travel
(or travel alone) after dark, compared with 25% of non-users who
would not do so during the day and 38% after dark. The greatest
fear is of being robbed, felt by 23% of users and 30% of non-users.
This fear is felt disproportionately highly by women (who are
also concerned about sexual assault) and by disabled people. Students
and young people are particularly worried about the possibility
of being beaten up.
A series of focus groups was held to explore directly the
views of passengers who are, or who feel, more vulnerable when
travelling by train. It emerged that:
Few of those consulted had had direct experience of being
targeted for or witnessing assaults, exceptions being male school
pupils and male students. This supports national statistics which
confirm that males aged under 25 are the most likely group to
be the victim of violent crime. There was broad consensus across
the groups that alcohol and drugs are significant factors contributing
to aggressive behaviour, whilst others highlighted passengers'
frustration and discomfort linked to unsatisfactory rail services.
Many people spoke of feeling afraid and anxious when travelling
by train and highlighted smaller, unstaffed stations as being
particularly unpleasant. They provided anecdotal evidence of making
sometimes quite significant detours to avoid these stations, inadvertently
contributing to the problem.
Opinions about the effectiveness and attitude of rail staff
were mixed. Many people acknowledged the difficult circumstances
in which some staff have to operate and several cited positive
and sensitive responses when they had needed help. Youths and
male students were more critical in their comments about staff,
which may point to mutual defensiveness and concern.
There was also strong support for increased staff training,
both to help related issues to ensure they respond appropriately
to these passengers. Notwithstanding the above, there was consensus
across all groups that levels of staff need to be increased.
D. PEOPLE'S
PERCEPTIONS OF
SECURITY
In March 2004 the Department for Transport published People's
perceptions of personal security and their concerns about crime
on public transport4, a report of research in which the specialist
consultancy Crime Concern revisited the issues explored in its
1996 study (see paragraphs 4.1 to 4.5 above) to assess changes
which had occurred meanwhile and the impact of various policy
initiatives which had been taken. The summary of key differences
noted that, among other findings:
There is some evidence from the household surveys, reinforced
by the findings from the discussion groups, of greater concerns
about travelling by train, especially by women. Perceptions of
the actual train journey compare negatively with those of the
stations where security features, including the presence of staff,
are in place.
There are greater concerns in 2002, both during the daytime
and after dark, for waiting on or travelling by the Underground.
There are stronger feelings expressed in 2002 about the presence
of litter and graffiti at infrastructure and on trains and buses.
Participants in the discussion groups identify increases in takeaway
foods and the removal of litter bins for security purposes as
contributing to a greater sense of the transport environment without
proper care and management.
The absence of visible transport staff is a key contributing
factor to insecurity in 1996 and 2002. In this later study, however,
participants place greater emphasis on the need for staff to be
trained, proactive and in control of the travelling environment.
In the 2002 discussion groups, greater emphasis is placed
on the perceptions of insecurity that arose from the anti-social
and sometimes violent behaviour of those influenced by alcohol
and/or illegal drugs. Much more emphasis is placed in the 2002
study on the impact of illegal drugs and concerns that potentially
violent or erratic behaviour could result.
As in the 1996 study, the presence of groups of rowdy young
people is a source of insecurity for those travelling by public
transport. That such young people could be the source of vandalism
as well as nuisance behaviour is made more explicit by adults
in the 2002 discussion groups.
Especially in and around city centre transport systems (and
London in particular), begging is more commonly identified as
a concern in the 2002 study, possibly reflecting the apparent
increase in the numbers of those begging. Participants in the
discussion groups tend to feel irritated rather than threatened
by the requests for money. However, participants say they could
feel threatened when those begging are aggressive or drunk.
In a detailed review of the findings of a household survey
on how best to address these concerns, it concluded that between
1996 and 2002 the popularity of the presence of staff at stations
rose still further, particularly among young people, among travellers
in London, and among black (but not Asian) people.
Escorted journeys and discussion groups were conducted for
a range of different stations.
In the escorted journeys and discussion groups at
the Secure Stations and at other train stations in London and
Merseyside, the presence of staff and CCTV camera surveillance
were the prime reasons why people felt secure.
It was concluded that:
Most in the discussion groups were in favour of patrols by
uniformed officers on trains and at stations with requests that
such patrols should be regular and frequent.
and that:
Surveys and discussion groups consistently identify the importance
of visible and available staff to provide reassurance to passengers.
The training of staff is important to enhance their role in reassuring
passengers and for their own security. Increasingly, there are
initiatives to provide additional personnel to complement the
role of more traditional transport staff. For a number of train
operators providing local services in Greater London and other
cities, security personnel or guards have been contracted to enhance
the personal security of passengers and staff. There is now a
move to build on the experience of using security staff by combining
their security and customer assistance roles.
The report describes in approving detail the deployment of
travel safe officers (TSOs) by South West Trains (SWT) in November
2002.
The objective is to achieve high levels of customer service
and security, and create a general feeling of well-being and safety
when travelling by train. South West Trains commented that the
TSOs are really providing a second tier of policing and are there
to safeguard customer service standards. SWT and the British Transport
Police (BTP) provide recruitment and training for the TSOs. The
officers come from a range of backgrounds and are expected to
have the key qualities of communication, motivation and commitment.
They are skilled and trained to communicate with the public and
to offer support and reassurance in difficult situations.
Following training, the TSOs have a period of "on the
job" coaching with the BTP. The TSOs are provided with access
to intelligence provided by the BTP to identify hotspots for crime
and anti-social behaviour. For example, the presence of TSOs is
targeted to deter a growing practice of begging on local train
services coming into Waterloo station. Their presence will also
reassure passengers who are known to feel intimidated by aggressive
begging in a confined environment where, unlike the street or
station, they cannot easily walk away.
The role of the TSOs is to provide reassurance to the travelling
public on trains and stations, enforce the railway by-laws and
provide support and assistance to passengers. They are also expected
to attend local managing out crime meetings and to develop contacts
with local schools and their pupils. The officers also help with
crowd control and managing events.
At the time of the study, the deployment of TSOs was too
recent for most participants in the discussion groups to be aware
of them, but when the idea was explained the initial responses
were very positive.
REFERENCES
1 Reported in Public Transport Passenger Security—Problems
and Policies, edited by Andrew D Mellor. Steer Davies Gleave
(1996).
2 Perceptions of safety from crime on public transport.
Crime Concern and Transport & Travel Research for the Department
of Transport (June 1997).
3 Fears and experiences of passengers from assault.
Rail Safety & Standards Board (2004).
4 People's perceptions of personal security and their concerns
about crime on public transport. Crime Concern for Department
for Transport (2004).
March 2006
| 
