Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
And I prefer rational debate based on sound data. I think the vast majority of people on here believe women should be and feel safe whilst using public transport but sensational headlines that don’t stand up to scrutiny don’t really help anybody.
Yes, I know, I was referring more to the grumbles by those who seemed to think it necessary to add that men get attacked too. We all know they do. But it seems paltry and almost slightly ignorant to complain about that or suggest that it's an even score, when it really, really isn't.
I know so many women who don't even feel comfortable walking to the shop down the road alone after 6pm, let alone sitting on late night trains, because so many parts of the UK aren't safe places for women walking alone now. I, as a man, am fortunate not to have that problem, and I do think it's important blokes like us acknowledge the difference.
And I prefer rational debate based on sound data. I think the vast majority of people on here believe women should be and feel safe whilst using public transport but sensational headlines that don’t stand up to scrutiny don’t really help anybody.
Do you have access to the data? Or do you have just object to the use of a baseline for one of the calculations in the report? Because without access to the data and methodology, you can't really comment on the soundness of the data. Similarly, a poster above stating there is noise on the data is making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny unless you have the data and have run proper analysis.
People who you know and love may be facing feeling unsafe, insecure or even suffering from the experience of being made to feel uncomfortable or even the experience of being a victim. It's disappointing that the reaction of many on here is to object to the phrasing of a headline or the need to relate it to themselves.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's 11357 too many for sure, but considering there are 1.61 billion journeys per year, doesn't that make the railway quite safe? An incident rate per journey of 0.00000706024
Completely agreed. Violence against women is a real problem in this country that only seems to get worse each year, and it's high time it was addressed. 11,357 is a staggering, sickening number. That's an average of 31 women a day, harmed or violated on the railways they have a right to feel safe using.
not if you are one of the peopel attacked! Seriously, perception is important here. If peopel think trains are unsafe they wont travel and this will become a self fulfilling prophecy
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
not if you are one of the peopel attacked! Seriously, perception is important here. If peopel think trains are unsafe they wont travel and this will become a self fulfilling prophecy
An incident rate per journey of 0.00000706024. I'm sure there are many mundane daily tasks that are statistically more dangerous.
Perception and reality are two different things though, and surely an increasing number of people are able to question the constant media narrative of negativity and the 'decline of Great Britain' and make sensible, rational transport decisions? Young people are increasingly ditching TV and print news, because they're tired of the same old narratives and negativity, so the 'perception' may not have much of an impact at all.
11,357 is too many. That is what matters, not the increase. I have to say I feel increasingly uncomfortable travelling on public transport but as an aging male, it could be partly due to my senility.
Protecting women is the necessary action here but the harder issue is how do we resolve the problem in society where violence is more prevalent than ever and in many communities acceptable.
Completely agreed. Violence against women is a real problem in this country that only seems to get worse each year, and it's high time it was addressed. 11,357 is a staggering, sickening number. That's an average of 31 women a day, harmed or violated on the railways they have a right to feel safe using.
And I prefer rational debate based on sound data. I think the vast majority of people on here believe women should be and feel safe whilst using public transport but sensational headlines that don’t stand up to scrutiny don’t really help anybody.
Suggesting that an uptick in crime is the result of 'illegal' immigration without access to data or citing any data source is not an honest and sensible discussion.
Yes, I know, I was referring more to the grumbles by those who seemed to think it necessary to add that men get attacked too. We all know they do. But it seems paltry and almost slightly ignorant to complain about that or suggest that it's an even score, when it really, really isn't.
I know so many women who don't even feel comfortable walking to the shop down the road alone after 6pm, let alone sitting on late night trains, because so many parts of the UK aren't safe places for women walking alone now. I, as a man, am fortunate not to have that problem, and I do think it's important blokes like us acknowledge the difference.
6.Groups of people most likely to be victims of violent crime
The year ending March 2022 Telephone-operated Crime Survey for England and Wales (TCSEW) showed that:
men were more likely to be victims of violent crime than women (2.2% of men compared with 1.6% of women);
11,357 is too many. That is what matters, not the increase. I have to say I feel increasingly uncomfortable travelling on public transport but as an aging male, it could be partly due to my senility.
Protecting women is the necessary action here but the harder issue is how do we resolve the problem in society where violence is more prevalent than ever and in many communities acceptable.
Sorry, this doesn't mean violence is 'more prevalent than ever.' There are more people in the country than ever, so it is only logical that 'violence is more prevalent than ever.' What would be more useful is a comparison of the rate. It's also worth noting that this data is released and being compared to a time where few people were travelling. It's also likely that more people feel comfortable reporting these crimes now than ever before, which is a minor positive.
Also, between 1939 and 1945 crime in the UK, including sexual assaults went up 60% despite us being taught that this was 'our finest hour' ...it's not a new thing and the 'alarming rise,' is clearly explainable in this instance by the quiet travel period before this data period. Alarmism due to clever media data manipulation probably sells more newspapers, but it's incredibly dull watching so many people fall for it and propagate some form of continous existential societal crisis because of it.
That's not to say the subject matter is not one that should be taken seriously, and it absolutely should be addressed.
Where is the logic in that? Suggests that other areas should be targeted probably with similar results. Seems like a classic case of massaging the figures downwards irrespctive of reality!!
there seems to be a number of posters seeking to minimise this information or find a way to dismiss it or question the data. We shouldn't do that. Regardless of the noise this is a headline that should worry us all. If women are more at risk of assaults or sexual interference on trains then something is wrong and we simply shouldn't stand for it.
We all have a wife, partner or mother and we should be trying to make sure they safe and secure using trains wherever and whenever regardless of whether this is 43 or 51% rise in reported/unreported activities!
The apparent questioning of the statistic is not an attempt to downplay it, I see it as an attempt to reduce the possibility of misleading claims based on insufficient data. It is a (logically) valid point that in 2021, far fewer people were travelling by train so fewer people would be exposed to the risk of assault when travelling by train, which could explain at least part of the 50% rise if not all of it. Of course any assault is unacceptable and having a lot of female friends, I find assaults, sexual or otherwise, on women repulsive and I cannot state on here what I would like to do to the perpetrators without violating forum rules.
Back to the statistics thing, the way it was presented in the OP reminds me of the assertion that cycling is dangerous thrown out by the usual media suspects, via putting out figures showing an upward trend in cyclist deaths on the roads over the last decade or two. What they fail to show is the increase in the estimated cycling mileage or number of people cycling, which turns out to be increasing at a faster rate than the deaths meaning cycling is actually getting safer per person or per mile cycled.
The ultimate point is that forming opinions and conclusions based on an incomplete set of the data can lead to poor decision making, and flawed opinions once formed are near impossible to change most of the time. One thing we can all agree on is that assaults, whoever the victims are, are unacceptable.
As for what we can do about it, it is difficult otherwise we would have solved it by now. It is not possible to have an authority watching every person on every train ready to react to an assault. The first question I would ask is what is the motivation for committing assaults on others who have nothing to do with them and are not interacting with them at all (i.e. people who are not being irritating/thoughtless/antagonistic)? Is it linked to social deprivation and anger, similar to how the recent rioting kicked off? If so, the way to reduce this is to improve the quality of life of those at the deprivation end of the population distribution, and that is up to the government to work out how to do this.
As a 6ft, 19 stone male, I realise that I have to take these figures on trust as I’m unlikely to be on the receiving end and most of these incidents are likely to take place when there aren’t any potential witnesses around. Still, I know that my cousin’s daughter stopped taking the train to university in Lincoln because of unwelcome attention when changing at Doncaster or Retford.
The mechanisms for reporting this kind of thing are probably as good as they’ve ever been and a political priority for improvement- by definition, making reporting easier means that the numbers are bound to go up.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
not if you are one of the peopel attacked! Seriously, perception is important here. If peopel think trains are unsafe they wont travel and this will become a self fulfilling prophecy
No, they will travel by car which is, I estimate, far more risky than travelling by train. You are correct, perception matters because with humans, emotion trumps logic which is at least partly why poor decisions are made frequently.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sorry, this doesn't mean violence is 'more prevalent than ever.' There are more people in the country than ever, so it is only logical that 'violence is more prevalent than ever.' What would be more useful is a comparison of the rate. It's also worth noting that this data is released and being compared to a time where few people were travelling. It's also likely that more people feel comfortable reporting these crimes now than ever before, which is a minor positive.
Also, between 1939 and 1945 crime in the UK, including sexual assaults went up 60% despite us being taught that this was 'our finest hour' ...it's not a new thing and the 'alarming rise,' is clearly explainable in this instance by the quiet travel period before this data period. Alarmism due to clever media data manipulation probably sells more newspapers, but it's incredibly dull watching so many people fall for it and propagate some form of continous existential societal crisis because of it.
That's not to say the subject matter is not one that should be taken seriously, and it absolutely should be addressed.
It is not just about the violent crime. Women are victims to verbal abuse especially of a sexual nature which doesn't cause physical pain but does cause emotional pain/discomfort. I doubt men are on the receiving end of sexual harrasment in anywhere near the numbers that women are. Both physical and verbal violations cause distress, so adding the two together, I can believe that women are more vulnerable to experiencing unwanted and distressing attention.
The apparent questioning of the statistic is not an attempt to downplay it, I see it as an attempt to reduce the possibility of misleading claims based on insufficient data. It is a (logically) valid point that in 2021, far fewer people were travelling by train so fewer people would be exposed to the risk of assault when travelling by train, which could explain at least part of the 50% rise if not all of it.
You seem more interested in scoring a dull point about how many people travel by train in a particular year rather than worry about the message behind the statistic. I couldn't care less about the statistical basis for the claim. Discussing that is minimising the problem by deflection. I worry more about the fact people are being attacked on trains and may, therefore, feel less safe and less willing to use the train.
But yeah, lets debate the statistical basis for a claim rather than the issue and by doing so seek to downplay it and pretend the issue isn't as bad as suggested.
Back to the statistics thing, the way it was presented in the OP reminds me of the assertion that cycling is dangerous thrown out by the usual media suspects, via putting out figures showing an upward trend in cyclist deaths on the roads over the last decade or two. What they fail to show is the increase in the estimated cycling mileage or number of people cycling, which turns out to be increasing at a faster rate than the deaths meaning cycling is actually getting safer per person or per mile cycled.
We also need a breakdown of incidents based on location if at a station and also by route if it is on a train. All this information must be recorded. It is not uncommon for the media to show maps of areas which have greater incidences of burglary than others.
If that information was available it would provide a heads up for those wating to make an informed personal risk assessment.
It’s blatantly flawed, as has been pointed out multiple times now.
I’ve acknowledged the seriousness of the topic at least twice now. Discussion is fine as long as you are able to think critically about the data, acknowledge its flaws and not over rely on it.
Knee-jerk reactions aren’t helpful. You’re arguing for arguments sake at this point.
no - I am saying that challenging the statistical methodology behind a headline is an attempt to minimise the problem. I also disagree with your stance that because the report is "blatantly flawed" the subject should not be discussed.
I am not seeking to rely on the data or the headline. I am trying to look beyond and consider the issue. You and others seem hung up on methodology and seem unwilling to do the same. Park the dull discussion about statistics and consider the issue.
My view ( anecdotally or perhaps emotionally which you wont like) is that women DO perceive a higher risk of travelling alone on trains and public transport. That is based on talking to women in my life. My partner is a fairly solid Yorkshire woman with broad experience of life. If she says she has felt uncomfortable than there is a problem.
I ask again: what are we going to do about this? It is on us as rail users and as men to try and address this issue.
no - I am saying that challenging the statistical methodology behind a headline is an attempt to minimise the problem. I also disagree with your stance that because the report is "blatantly flawed" the subject should not be discussed.
I am not seeking to rely on the data or the headline. I am trying to look beyond and consider the issue. You and others seem hung up on methodology and seem unwilling to do the same. Park the dull discussion about statistics and consider the issue.
I’m saying let’s have a grown up, rational discussion that acknowledges the issue but also does so proportionately. I don’t see how you’re managing to find an issue with that.
I think wider discussion of sexual assault beyond this dramatic, distorted headline is probably better continued in General Discussion.
I’m saying let’s have a grown up, rational discussion that acknowledges the issue but also does so proportionately. I don’t see how you’re managing to find an issue with that.
my issue is that focusing on the statistical method is both boring and minimizing of the problem. We should be discussing why people FEEL they are more likely to be attacked on trains not worry about how the numbers are collected or compared!
The problem in my view is that violence is presented as entertainment in television dramas which often portray dreadful attacks and murders as part of police-procedural storylines. Audiences are enthralled as actors graphically recreate the grisly scenes and are engrossed watching detectives diligently solving the case. (Here in Oxford we used to have a "murder" every week, always resolved within the hour by dear old Inspector Morse.)
Then at 22:00 the entertainment is over and the Ten O'Clock News comes on. There's been a dreadful murder and we're all shocked and appalled at the gratuitous violence, not quite linking it to the normalisation of such behaviour we witnessed in the preceding hour.
The problem in my view is that violence is presented as entertainment in television dramas which often portray dreadful attacks and murders as part of police-procedural storylines. Audiences are enthralled as actors graphically recreate the grisly scenes and are engrossed watching detectives diligently solving the case.
I am going to disagree. Television does very little to cover, in any way, the sort of every harassment and sexual crime that women are victims of and even less to suggest that there is any real chance of the perpetrator being caught and prosecuted.
There's tik toks now glorifying fare evasion, others glorify breaking into train cabs and playing with the controls. It's all a big joke in a country where rules are popularly eschewed.
I'm sorry, but the harsh, hard truth is that people voted for this. They voted for politicians to liberalise every aspect of our society. Welcome to the offspring of that ideology; anarchy.
There's tik toks now glorifying fare evasion, others glorify breaking into train cabs and playing with the controls. It's all a big joke in a country where rules are popularly eschewed.
I'm sorry, but the harsh, hard truth is that people voted for this. They voted for politicians to liberalise every aspect of our society. Welcome to the offspring of that ideology; anarchy.
There is something wrong with the country where there are parts where you feel you cannot visit, which are no go areas. This wasn't the case 40 years ago or at least there were far, far fewer places where you felt unsafe. Unfortunately people need to be "advised" that their behaviour is unacceptable but unfortunately that loses votes and so politicians do not address the issue. Furthermore, lack of resources and of course money means that anti-social behaviour is not cracked down upon and it is this which also creates a sense of not wishing to visit an area. No-one feels free to challenge unpleasant behaviour for fear of abuse / attack and there is no point in reporting it because you know nothing will be done.
I hope that more is done to help women without neglecting the other people who travel by rail but we need to do more. Our culture is wrong. Sorry I am not allowed to criticise culture am I? The Romans were arguably the most diverse cultural society in but overarching it all was Roman Culture. We need a British culture, where respect and consideration for everyone is paramount, where it is not all about the individual (which I suspect schools encourage at the expense of team work and consideration of others). There is too much selfishness, the gang or group mentality. And IMHO, the law puts too much emphasis on personal freedoms while ignoring the fact that this may subordinate other legitimate freedoms and arguably more important ones. An example, why should anyone fear surveillance cameras if they are going about legitimate activity? As for social media.....
Perhaps regular surveys by TOCs of how women feel would help to establish the extent of the problem and how TOCs are managing and improving the situation.
my issue is that focusing on the statistical method is both boring and minimizing of the problem. We should be discussing why people FEEL they are more likely to be attacked on trains not worry about how the numbers are collected or compared!
In many cases, though, it will be those headlines that make people FEEL unsafe. Fortunately, most people will not experience a situation where they are in danger either directly or indirectly -so for them, it’s perception.
my issue is that focusing on the statistical method is both boring and minimizing of the problem. We should be discussing why people FEEL they are more likely to be attacked on trains not worry about how the numbers are collected or compared!
What do you actually suggest the railway do about it? Saying "how terrible!" isn't going to do anything . We could spend half the countries budget putting a BTP on every train , but that wouldn't be proportionate, which is why keeping the actual context behind the statistics in mind.
Out of context statistics is also why we don't have bendy busses anymore
