Antisocial behaviour on buses: Have we given up?

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve found since Covid the 45-60 age group can be disproportionately obnoxious. I’ve put elements of this down to many spending a lot of time at home during Covid so become a bit too comfortable in their own little self-aggrandised bubble.

Even being within that age group (just) I'm inclined to agree. They seem to be the ones most likely to play rubbish out loud on their phones in particular, the second most likely being teens but they seem more likely to have (usually very large, seemingly as a fashion item too) headphones.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 10:32 ==

Rights but no responsibilities......

This.

I think the problem is that people are saying "if a person is thrown off a bus for misbehaviour then something happens the bus driver is at fault". I don't agree. The root cause was the misbehaviour.

If the law doesn't see it that way I'd be very strongly of the view it should be changed so it does. You have a responsibility to behave correctly on public transport. That responsibility must be carried out in order for you to benefit from the safety you gain by using public transport over walking.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 10:34 ==

And how do you fund this? A night in the cells for a homeless person might actually be an incentive TO steal.

I have always believed and still do, that we need to pay sufficient tax to ensure we have proper public services. That includes sufficient prison provision. You design the public services THEN set the tax rate to properly fund them, not the other way round as we seem to do now.

As for homeless people, we should be providing for them properly so this isn't necessary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 10:39 ==

And in a world where blame has to be attributed what happens if that long walk home is in the rain / cold conditions and the person wasn't dressed for such and becomes ill? Or what happens if what is decided by the driver as ASB was actually ADHD or Autism and dropping them a mile from home could be as bad as dropping them 12 miles from home as they don't have a clue to get back?

They should have thought of that before they decided to behave antisocially. Their fault, nobody else's.

If a child, that falls on their parents, not a bus driver.

In my view to benefit from the protection of society one must also accept one's duties as part of society.

Autism is a strawman, as generally autistic people are more compliant with rules, not less compliant. If the rules are clearly stated that you don't play your phone out loud, for example, it's not going to be an autistic person that breaches that rule.

And how is that fair to everyone else on the bus? What if there is no big scary bloke on the bus? What about the poor bus driver who will have to stay with the bus? Are the police likely to attend a bus that has been stopped because someone was vaping on the back seat? Or will they tell the driver to suck it up and just carry on driving?

This, again, has at its root the fact we've decided it isn't important to deal with small stuff, in order that we can cut funding and cut taxes. A well funded Police operation is essential to civilised society. And yes, it does mean them attending small stuff.

I've already stated that I believe theft, even petty theft, should guarantee a night in the cells.

Except said youth who is angry at being chucked off the bus suddenly becomes a menace in the area they've been dropped off.

If they do they should be arrested and charged appropriately.

We need to stop "diddumsing" miscreants and start punishing them harshly and immediately. It'll stop then. They aren't cherubs, they are people doing bad stuff who need to be dealt with in that way.

Look at the New York Subway and Merseyrail. It works and is proven to work. Stamp hard on minor ASB and major ASB stops too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 10:51 ==

The "RailUK Standard Minority" is a response that, quite frankly, is getting rather boring and it gets trotted out rather too often on the forum.

I usually bring them out when people start using the fallacious argument that you can't do X because it would be a problem to group Y. That isn't how discrimination law works, nor should it be. What you're required to do is make reasonable adjustments for those with the disabilities, not everyone, and those are targetted specifically at the way in which the person is disadvantaged.

An example of it is "you can't provide stairs because some people can't use them, you have to provide 30 lifts instead". No, what you do is you provide stairs and one lift for the small number of people who cannot use the stairs.

More relevant to this discussion is "you can't chuck people off the bus for misbehaving because they might have <X list of disabilities>". That's fallacious. You only have to make the adjustments for the person with the disabilities, not everyone.

It might be an idea (and cheaper) to spend money on things like youth clubs and sports facilities in order to prevent anti-social behaviour, rather than having to deal with the behaviour itself.

I think that's indeed a different type of ASB, though - this is more about ASB happening on buses that the miscreants are travelling on to go somewhere (possibly to a youth club indeed!), not the "kids hanging round the streets as they have nothing better to do" one - something that at least round here seems to have reduced markedly now kids are more likely to be sat at home with their head in a phone or tablet!

"Bus Bouncers" is certainly one idea but, again, who pays for it? Having one on every bus would be prohibitively expensive (you might as well bring back conductors) and only having a few would mean that they often won't be in the right place at the right time.

One answer could be technology. I don't know if existing ticket machines already have such a facility, but perhaps there should be an ASBO (Anti-social behaviour observation) button which, when pressed, would record the time, date and the location of the vehicle. These reports could then be analysed, along with CCTV from the time of the incident, to ascertain if there's a specific pattern of behaviour, particular individuals/groups or if there are certain geographic hotspots. Resources (police/security) could be targeted at those areas or routes accordingly.

Agree. I did have in mind that these would be targetted to times/places of known issues. While Merseyrail has guards (railway ones) they wouldn't generally intervene on ASB, the ASB squads do that, and where they show up is largely targetted.

One other solution is signage.

Absolutely. And that signage should be quite strongly worded. Not "Please use headphones" but rather "Do not play devices out loud". The ability to tap a clear, definitive sign is really quite useful!

Germany/the Netherlands like "house rules" in all settings, we should certainly follow.

 

[Open top 80]

Bring back The Birch and administer it in Public - soon expose how tough they really are.

This is a Bus forum not a very hard far right Forum.

 

[Butts]

This is a Bus forum not a very hard far right Forum.

I hardly think Corporal Punishment falls into a hard spectrum whether left or right ?

If all else is failing perhaps it's worth a try ?

 

[Deerfold]

I hardly think Corporal Punishment falls into a hard spectrum whether left or right ?

If all else is failing perhaps it's worth a try ?

It certainly seems most popular amongst right-wing politicians.

I can't think of any left-wingers advocating it.

I think pretty much all analysis shows corporal punishment is fairly ineffective comparing with other punishment systems.

 

[Hyebone]

Autism is a strawman, as generally autistic people are more compliant with rules, not less compliant. If the rules are clearly stated that you don't play your phone out loud, for example, it's not going to be an autistic person that breaches that rule.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Rail2002]

So on Sunday I was on the bus and some idiot was talking on his phone on loudspeaker. It was actually another driver (not driving this service but in uniform, presumably off duty or on some sort of positioning move). Currently I’m sat before some chavvy lumpen type who thinks it’s ok to vape on the bus. Twice in a week.
I’ve spoken to drivers about such behaviour before. They usually have a ‘quiet word’ only for such behaviour to continue. Honestly I can do that. What’s the point in having a conditions of travel if your own staff break it and you can’t be bothered to enforce it? #lazydrivers.

It’s not the only trouble I’ve had. When I’ve told such people what I think (the troublemakers, not the drivers that is) I’ve been told I’ve been abusive when in reality I believe my words fall under the category of ‘fair comment’. On one occasion the driver seemed to side with the antisocial passengers in such a case. So why the double standards?
It seems those who commit antisocial behaviour are encouraged , and those who confront them discouraged. Why is this?

It's not acceptable behaviour to play any audio on a speaker setting in a confined space. I have told people to put headphones on, on numerous occasions. The bus driver should have received a warning from his line manager about his conduct. Unfortunately, many staff don't lead by example.

The term "abusive" gets thrown about far too often and often incorrectly. People will use it when challenged and called out on poor behaviour when they know they are in the wrong. It's not abusive to tell people what their parents should have told them years ago - have respect for others. Society is in a state of delince, parenting and discipline seems to be none existant in some households and sadly, the travelling public suffer as a result.

 

[BanburyBlue]

That's great to hear and I wish more parents would do the same.
However many of the ones who don't would style themselves as "liberal" rather than neglectful. I would perhaps describe them as negligent, but I guess they wouldn't like that either!
It's not just asb of course; go to any supermarket near a university when the freshers are arriving and you will find parents hastily trying to explain to their 18-year-old what food to buy and how the items on the shelf transform into the meals they eat.
They've never taught their children to shop for food or to cook, so they probably haven't taught them how to behave on a bus either.

When my youngest went to uni, the lad in the room knocked on his door and asked him if he knew how to put a duvet cover on the duvet!!

 

[Butts]

It certainly seems most popular amongst right-wing politicians.

I can't think of any left-wingers advocating it.

I think pretty much all analysis shows corporal punishment is fairly ineffective comparing with other punishment systems.

What are the effective systems that have been applied to the current Bus problems then ?

 

[Deerfold]

What are the effective systems that have been applied to the current Bus problems then ?

Saying other things don't work isn't an argument for violence.

 

[GusB]

Culturally things have changed though. A few weeks ago I challenged a guy who had pushed in front of an elderly lady who was first in the queue trying to get on with a walking aid. I pointed out she was first and that out of respect the lady should always go first anyway - his reply quite rudely was ‘well she ain’t complaining is she’.

Saying that the lady should go first out of respect is outdated and sexist. I agree that she should have had priority if she was first in the queue, but not for simply being a woman.

It's not acceptable behaviour to play any audio on a speaker setting in a confined space. I have told people to put headphones on, on numerous occasions. The bus driver should have received a warning from his line manager about his conduct. Unfortunately, many staff don't lead by example.

Why should a driver receive a warning about their conduct (there are bus drivers of other genders)? What exactly would they have done wrong?

 

[Butts]

Saying other things don't work isn't an argument for violence.

You said it was ineffective compared to other systems I was just enquiring as to what these were ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

However many of the ones who don't would style themselves as "liberal" rather than neglectful.

I spent many years working at two Russell Group universities. The ones who couldn’t do anything for themselves usually didn’t come from “liberal” backgrounds, quite the opposite. Of course they don’t know how to cook or clean, even at the very expensive public school they went to they had staff to do it for them.

As for the other points made recently in this thread, teenage girls are undoubtedly as bad as teenage boys. But neither are as bad as white upper-middle class men in their 50s and 60s, the sense of entitlement from that cohort is off the charts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 12:35 ==

Bring back The Birch and administer it in Public - soon expose how tough they really are.

Previous generations had the birch- here in the Isle of Man it only went in the late 1980s- and previous generations weren’t any better behaved than the current one. No matter how much 50-70 cohort like to bang on about the youth of today, my experience is that they’re still the most obnoxious and self-entitled generation of the lot. Same people who were in their early 20s in the early 1980s still causing issues now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why should a driver receive a warning about their conduct (there are bus drivers of other genders)? What exactly would they have done wrong?

I think they were saying another driver was travelling as a passenger wearing company uniform and in doing so were playing stuff out loud on their phone. I'd certainly say even minor ASB while in company uniform should be treated very seriously, and I'd certainly were I their manager and found out about it issue a formal warning straight away. Staff should know this isn't acceptable conduct.

 

[Rail2002]

What exactly would they have done wrong?

Playing audio loudly, resulting in nuisance to customers.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I’ve found since Covid the 45-60 age group can be disproportionately obnoxious. I’ve put elements of this down to many spending a lot of time at home during Covid so become a bit too comfortable in their own little self-aggrandised bubble.

Actually I have wondered similar. When lockdowns were relaxed and the office staff were coming back into our factory site I noticed there seemed to be a lot more complaints and back stabbing. I personally had to provide information over some complete non-events. It really felt like you better accuse someone before they accuse you !. As many of those I worked with were agency it was often easier for the person manager to let them go regardless but that meant we lost some really quite good people. But I think for many office based staff it had been a revelation being in the sanctity of their own home and then coming back to the seeing the rough edged manual workers was a shock. Though some of them did admit they hated home working (too many people in a small house).

If we sit on our hands long enough over discipline on public transport then we will find more and more of the civilised users will go out in their car instead. I certainly wonder how fool hardy it is for me using buses late evening.

 

[Hyebone]

Saying that the lady should go first out of respect is outdated and sexist.

You what?

 

[mayneway]

Saying that the lady should go first out of respect is outdated and sexist. I agree that she should have had priority if she was first in the queue, but not for simply being a woman.

And you see, that’s half the problem. It’s not sexiest and outdated to simply be respectful to someone in the later years of life, struggling with mobility wanting to get to where she was going. Let’s not be sexiest, let’s push past her and nearly knock her over - simply not to be sexiest.

 

[GusB]

And you see, that’s half the problem. It’s not sexiest and outdated to simply be respectful to someone in the later years of life, struggling with mobility wanting to get to where she was going. Let’s not be sexiest, let’s push past her and nearly knock her over - simply not to be sexiest.

I wasn't approving of the behaviour of the person who pushed in; that's just plain rude and he should have waited his turn.

However, "ladies first" is still sexist because you're favouring someone because of their sex. Being a woman and/or elderly does not automatically mean that you deserve any more respect than anyone else. We should all be respectful when dealing with others; age, sex or any other characteristic shouldn't come into it.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I wasn't approving of the behaviour of the person who pushed in; that's just plain rude and he should have waited his turn.

However, "ladies first" is still sexist because you're favouring someone because of their sex. Being a woman and/or elderly does not automatically mean that you deserve any more respect than anyone else. We should all be respectful when dealing with others; age, sex or any other characteristic shouldn't come into it.

I know what you mean BUT elderly does mean best to be getting to a seat before the bus starts moving.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know what you mean BUT elderly does mean best to be getting to a seat before the bus starts moving.

Hopefully the driver will see that and not pull off until the elderly person is seated, even if they are queueing behind others to get to the seated area.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Hopefully the driver will see that and not pull off until the elderly person is seated, even if they are queueing behind others to get to the seated area.

Ideally yes. But then I was (able bodied but on an old wrinkly's pass) half way up the stairs and came back down very fast !.

I tend to want the elderly/disabled on first as then we do not have to wait for them to sit down (in the dedicated seats near the front). I mean we will still be getting on and seated while they settle.

 

[BuhSnarf]

I think the problem is that people are saying "if a person is thrown off a bus for misbehaviour then something happens the bus driver is at fault". I don't agree. The root cause was the misbehaviour.

If the law doesn't see it that way I'd be very strongly of the view it should be changed so it does. You have a responsibility to behave correctly on public transport. That responsibility must be carried out in order for you to benefit from the safety you gain by using public transport over walking.

Whilst the root cause may be their misbehaviour that does not absolve the responsible adult in the situation (the bus driver) from ensuring that they are following the relevant safeguarding measures. Safeguarding isn't based upon whether the teen is rude or not. Often the most vulnerable people will act out, because it's what they've been taught at home.

I have always believed and still do, that we need to pay sufficient tax to ensure we have proper public services. That includes sufficient prison provision. You design the public services THEN set the tax rate to properly fund them, not the other way round as we seem to do now.

As for homeless people, we should be providing for them properly so this isn't necessary.

Agree on both of those points and in an ideal world that would be the case, but we know that we're not living in an ideal world and therefore we have to work as best we can in the non-ideal world. Furthermore, any changes made now to redress these societal issues won't see meaningful change happen for 10+ years, more likely a full generation or two. Therefore solutions that are based in the world we live are what we need.

If a child, that falls on their parents, not a bus driver. In my view to benefit from the protection of society one must also accept one's duties as part of society.

Except it doesn't. As the responsible adult in the situation it falls on the bus driver. Again, safeguarding isn't dependent upon the behaviour of the person. Just because a teenager is playing music loudly or gives some cheek to the bus driver when they ask them to turn it off isn't sufficient reason for them to be dropped in the middle of nowhere without knowing they'll be safe. Sure, the driver could stop the bus and call their parents to come and pick them up - which would be fine - except I imagine all the other folks on the bus wouldn't be so thrilled with this.

If they do they should be arrested and charged appropriately.

We need to stop "diddumsing" miscreants and start punishing them harshly and immediately. It'll stop then. They aren't cherubs, they are people doing bad stuff who need to be dealt with in that way.

No one states they're cherubs, but they're also not adults with fully formed adult brains. There is a reason we don't legally charge kids in the same way we charge adults.

Look at the New York Subway and Merseyrail. It works and is proven to work. Stamp hard on minor ASB and major ASB stops too.

Agree, but you have to have funding to do that. Both of what you have quoted are train systems which are very different than bus services. Bearing in mind many companies can't even hire a cleaner or install legally required next stop announcements how do you expect them to pay to have sufficient roving patrols to deter this behaviour? An increase in fares? Council funding?

An example of it is "you can't provide stairs because some people can't use them, you have to provide 30 lifts instead". No, what you do is you provide stairs and one lift for the small number of people who cannot use the stairs.

Where has provided 30 lifts and no stairs? I'm fairly sure in law (unless you have specially designed (expensive) lifts because where you're building cannot accommodate stairs) you have to also provide stairs alongside lifts from a fire regulation point of view. So I'm unsure where you've got that argument from.

More relevant to this discussion is "you can't chuck people off the bus for misbehaving because they might have <X list of disabilities>". That's fallacious. You only have to make the adjustments for the person with the disabilities, not everyone.

And how does the drive accurately assess whether the person has a disability. Are drivers trained to assess whether a certain person would be vulnerable?

Absolutely. And that signage should be quite strongly worded. Not "Please use headphones" but rather "Do not play devices out loud". The ability to tap a clear, definitive sign is really quite useful!

Germany/the Netherlands like "house rules" in all settings, we should certainly follow.

I'm not sure what bus you last travelled on, but I've been on plenty and they nearly ALWAYS have a poster up providing said house rules. It doesn't stop it any more than having "CCTV is watching you" signs will stop someone who wants to shoplift.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst the root cause may be their misbehaviour that does not absolve the responsible adult in the situation (the bus driver) from ensuring that they are following the relevant safeguarding measures. Safeguarding isn't based upon whether the teen is rude or not. Often the most vulnerable people will act out, because it's what they've been taught at home.

Then they need to learn. That they did it themselves or that their parents failed to teach them is moot.

I think those of us with this view think the Safeguarding industry (as it now is) has gone way too far. Protecting children from sexual abuse from teachers, youth leaders, family and family friends (most of it is here!) absolutely, this is very important and tools like DBS checks are good progress (though, as an aside, I think the new Scottish PVG rules are gross overreach and just awkward for organisations with little actual benefit). But if a child misbehaves it should be legal to simply throw them off the bus, and it should not be part of a bus driver's Safeguarding duty not to do so. Just like it was in the 1980s, say, when if you took actions you got consequences, and those consequences taught you an immediate and harsh lesson, so you learnt it.

Your view is the modern one - I guess you must be younger Millennial, or GenZ (or if older politically very left wing perhaps?). Those of us who are older remember how things used to be, and in this specific regard consider that they were better, and we have not progressed - rather we have moved from defending the law-abiding public to worrying more about the Safeguarding of criminals*, and I consider that a backwards move myself, as do some others in this thread, probably principally at the older end of things.

It is frankly more important to me that old Granny Smith feels safe using the bus than that some marauding little chavs are "safeguarded" rather than being thrown off for intimidating her by playing their aggressively-lyric-ed gangland "music" out loud, swearing, shouting, fighting etc. That she behaves properly in my eyes gives her the priority, and I doubt I am the only one to think this.

(And yes, if she plays rubbish out loud on her phone, she should be thrown off, too).

* In a rail context at least the sort of ASB noted here is a crime, as is fare evasion, so I think using the term "criminals" is the right one. These are not cherubim, they are criminals and should be treated as such. Responsibilities before rights is key, and society appears to have forgotten it. You behave properly in society and you gain its protection, and any child that doesn't get that is simply too young to be out unsupervised.

Of course if the child is supervised and is doing it, the whole family should be thrown off.

Except it doesn't. As the responsible adult in the situation it falls on the bus driver.

It shouldn't. If, other than on a specific school service where supervision is advertised as provided, they cannot behave on the bus without an adult, they should be with one.

Again, safeguarding isn't dependent upon the behaviour of the person.

Disagree in this context.

Just because a teenager is playing music loudly or gives some cheek to the bus driver when they ask them to turn it off isn't sufficient reason for them to be dropped in the middle of nowhere without knowing they'll be safe.

Again, disagree.

Sure, the driver could stop the bus and call their parents to come and pick them up - which would be fine - except I imagine all the other folks on the bus wouldn't be so thrilled with this.

Their problem, not his. Best get walking!

No one states they're cherubs, but they're also not adults with fully formed adult brains.

If a child is old enough to travel by bus on their own, they're old enough to behave properly and to accept the consequences if they fail to do so.

There is a reason we don't legally charge kids in the same way we charge adults.

And not all of us agree with that. Children are not stupid, they know right from wrong.

Agree, but you have to have funding to do that. Both of what you have quoted are train systems which are very different than bus services. Bearing in mind many companies can't even hire a cleaner or install legally required next stop announcements how do you expect them to pay to have sufficient roving patrols to deter this behaviour? An increase in fares? Council funding?

While the £2/£3 scheme makes this difficult, I'd imagine a lot of users would pay extra on evening/night buses for security staff, yes.

I certainly know people who would be happy for Merseyrail to up fares rather than get rid of guards and booking office staff, because the presence of those people (whether they might happen to work the doors or sell tickets) provide a level of safety by their presence.

Where has provided 30 lifts and no stairs? I'm fairly sure in law (unless you have specially designed (expensive) lifts because where you're building cannot accommodate stairs) you have to also provide stairs alongside lifts from a fire regulation point of view. So I'm unsure where you've got that argument from.

I think you miss the point. My point is that it's OK in law to provide a non-accessible default as long as you make reasonable adjustments for those with disabilities.

And how does the drive accurately assess whether the person has a disability. Are drivers trained to assess whether a certain person would be vulnerable?

This is one of the many, many contexts where registered disability as other European countries have would be a very, very good idea indeed. It allows those who have disabilities to gain the adjustments they need, as diagnosed by a professional, without any need to worry about whether you may be denying them by accident when you deal with someone who does not seem to be disabled.

I'm not sure what bus you last travelled on, but I've been on plenty and they nearly ALWAYS have a poster up providing said house rules. It doesn't stop it any more than having "CCTV is watching you" signs will stop someone who wants to shoplift.

It makes a heck of a difference to be able to "tap the sign".

I have a feeling we aren't going to agree on this - and also that it's somewhat generational!

 

[Peter Sarf]

Then they need to learn. That they did it themselves or that their parents failed to teach them is moot.

I think those of us with this view think the Safeguarding industry (as it now is) has gone way too far. Protecting children from sexual abuse from teachers, youth leaders, family and family friends (most of it is here!) absolutely, this is very important and tools like DBS checks are good progress (though, as an aside, I think the new Scottish PVG rules are gross overreach and just awkward for organisations with little actual benefit). But if a child misbehaves it should be legal to simply throw them off the bus, and it should not be part of a bus driver's Safeguarding duty not to do so. Just like it was in the 1980s, say, when if you took actions you got consequences, and those consequences taught you an immediate and harsh lesson, so you learnt it.

Your view is the modern one - I guess you must be younger Millennial, or GenZ (or if older politically very left wing perhaps?). Those of us who are older remember how things used to be, and in this specific regard consider that they were better, and we have not progressed - rather we have moved from defending the law-abiding public to worrying more about the Safeguarding of criminals*, and I consider that a backwards move myself, as do some others in this thread, probably principally at the older end of things.

It is frankly more important to me that old Granny Smith feels safe using the bus than that some marauding little chavs are "safeguarded" rather than being thrown off for intimidating her by playing their aggressively-lyric-ed gangland "music" out loud, swearing, shouting, fighting etc. That she behaves properly in my eyes gives her the priority, and I doubt I am the only one to think this.

(And yes, if she plays rubbish out loud on her phone, she should be thrown off, too).

* In a rail context at least the sort of ASB noted here is a crime, as is fare evasion, so I think using the term "criminals" is the right one. These are not cherubim, they are criminals and should be treated as such. Responsibilities before rights is key, and society appears to have forgotten it. You behave properly in society and you gain its protection, and any child that doesn't get that is simply too young to be out unsupervised.

Of course if the child is supervised and is doing it, the whole family should be thrown off.



It shouldn't. If, other than on a specific school service where supervision is advertised as provided, they cannot behave on the bus without an adult, they should be with one.



Disagree in this context.



Again, disagree.



Their problem, not his. Best get walking!



If a child is old enough to travel by bus on their own, they're old enough to behave properly and to accept the consequences if they fail to do so.



And not all of us agree with that. Children are not stupid, they know right from wrong.



While the £2/£3 scheme makes this difficult, I'd imagine a lot of users would pay extra on evening/night buses for security staff, yes.

I certainly know people who would be happy for Merseyrail to up fares rather than get rid of guards and booking office staff, because the presence of those people (whether they might happen to work the doors or sell tickets) provide a level of safety by their presence.



I think you miss the point. My point is that it's OK in law to provide a non-accessible default as long as you make reasonable adjustments for those with disabilities.



This is one of the many, many contexts where registered disability as other European countries have would be a very, very good idea indeed. It allows those who have disabilities to gain the adjustments they need, as diagnosed by a professional, without any need to worry about whether you may be denying them by accident when you deal with someone who does not seem to be disabled.



It makes a heck of a difference to be able to "tap the sign".

I have a feeling we aren't going to agree on this - and also that it's somewhat generational!

To be honest any person being a bit anti-social needs it pointing out to them. They are not going to get thrown off if they try and behave.
BUT the threat of having to get off and walk needs to have some teeth otherwise the miss-behaving so and so has no reason to behave.

I have found that pointing out the error of their ways politely is almost always effective.
After all often it is just a bit of a mistake or lapse of self awareness.

It is the feral ones that need dealing with. The ones that do not want to behave in a manner less intimidating to others. I agree something has to be done and more importantly the perpetrator has to believe their behaviour has a price.

I also think that picking up on minor miss-behaviour prevents the inevitable slide into worse and worse behaviour. So preventing small stuff prevents progression to really bad stuff. People need boundaries (apparently males more than females but I think regardless).

Somewhere in amongst all that is judging peoples level of disability.
In most cases someone is not going to get thrown off and in London its not even in the middle of nowhere.

If they get on, do not pay or show a pass and then miss-behave I do not want them spoiling my journey.
I complied all these years - why can they not comply ?.

But we seem to be afraid of dealing with things that actually cause more distress to everyone. Doing nothing is not the answer.

 

[mayneway]

I wasn't approving of the behaviour of the person who pushed in; that's just plain rude and he should have waited his turn.

However, "ladies first" is still sexist because you're favouring someone because of their sex. Being a woman and/or elderly does not automatically mean that you deserve any more respect than anyone else. We should all be respectful when dealing with others; age, sex or any other characteristic shouldn't come into it.

Well I’ll be honest, in all the years I’ve held doors open or let someone go before me I’ve never never been told I’m sexist. It’s just a matter of respect.

 

[Deerfold]

Well I’ll be honest, in all the years I’ve held doors open or let someone go before me I’ve never never been told I’m sexist. It’s just a matter of respect.

There's nothing wrong with doing that. I do both, but don't let a door slam because it's a man following me.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Then they need to learn. That they did it themselves or that their parents failed to teach them is moot.

I think those of us with this view think the Safeguarding industry (as it now is) has gone way too far. Protecting children from sexual abuse from teachers, youth leaders, family and family friends (most of it is here!) absolutely, this is very important and tools like DBS checks are good progress (though, as an aside, I think the new Scottish PVG rules are gross overreach and just awkward for organisations with little actual benefit). But if a child misbehaves it should be legal to simply throw them off the bus, and it should not be part of a bus driver's Safeguarding duty not to do so. Just like it was in the 1980s, say, when if you took actions you got consequences, and those consequences taught you an immediate and harsh lesson, so you learnt it.

Vulnerability is not only about sexual abuse. I would agree that there is sometimes over reach, but I guess as a father and someone who has worked closely with kids in various roles (counselling etc.) whilst the red tape may seem "over the top" - I guess if it prevents just one child going through some of the awful things that I've sadly had to listen to then I think it's worth it. You hark back to the 80s as some sort of glory days and that being taught immediate consequences for your actions fixes things. Yet, I'm fairly sure it was only the other month that drivers on here were talking about not wanting to work various school buses because the children would run riot ripping up seats etc. I also recall that in the 80s travelling on public transport was a much less safe experience than it is now - muggings on the Tube were common place for example, exposures on trains and in parks. Not to mention all of the kids brought up damaged from parents who thought that teaching kids right and wrong was at the end of a belt buckle... I'm not sure I want to go back to them days.

Your view is the modern one - I guess you must be younger Millennial, or GenZ (or if older politically very left wing perhaps?). Those of us who are older remember how things used to be, and in this specific regard consider that they were better, and we have not progressed - rather we have moved from defending the law-abiding public to worrying more about the Safeguarding of criminals*, and I consider that a backwards move myself, as do some others in this thread, probably principally at the older end of things.

I would class myself as progressive, not left wing. Again, you hark back to a time through rose tinted glasses. There was just as much corruption and miscarriages of justice back in the day. Criminals should absolutely be punished - however, they are humans who also have rights which should be protected. Do we really want to go back to the days that a PC can crack a skull just because the criminal gave lip? Has it gone too far? Definitely in some cases, but yet there are still awful treatment of some criminals/or those we assume are criminals which has resulted in deaths etc. None of this, however, is relevant to this topic.

We're talking here about 14-18 year olds who are creating a nuisance on the bus - playing their music loud, talking loudly (?), vaping or smoking. None of which I think warrant leaving in the middle of nowhere, that's just not a proportionate risk to take. If they get aggressive with the driver or other passengers then absolutely I would advocate calling the police and getting them removed from the bus with the police taking them back home to be dealt with.

It is frankly more important to me that old Granny Smith feels safe using the bus than that some marauding little chavs are "safeguarded" rather than being thrown off for intimidating her by playing their aggressively-lyric-ed gangland "music" out loud, swearing, shouting, fighting etc. That she behaves properly in my eyes gives her the priority, and I doubt I am the only one to think this.

Sorry, but "aggressively lyriced gangland music" - seriously, come on... you can't get people kicked off because you don't like their music. I'd actually rather listen to some of that rather than someone blasting out the latest Ariana Grande tune. I remember back in the 80s/90s people blasting out rock/punk/nu metal on buses... were they aggressive or are you taking that connotation because of the type of music? Or maybe you'd only condone the playing of Bach as that isn't aggressive?

* In a rail context at least the sort of ASB noted here is a crime, as is fare evasion, so I think using the term "criminals" is the right one. These are not cherubim, they are criminals and should be treated as such. Responsibilities before rights is key, and society appears to have forgotten it. You behave properly in society and you gain its protection, and any child that doesn't get that is simply too young to be out unsupervised.

You keep mentioning them being Cherubs... But who has called them that?

Breaking general "conditions of carriage"—such as eating hot food, playing loud music, or bringing a prohibited animal—is not a criminal act. We're not talking about fare evasion here, we're talking ASB.

And not all of us agree with that. Children are not stupid, they know right from wrong.

In which case I assume you're happy with lowering the voting age from 18 to 14 as children know right from wrong and have the same capabilities as an adult to make responsible decisions?

While the £2/£3 scheme makes this difficult, I'd imagine a lot of users would pay extra on evening/night buses for security staff, yes.

I certainly know people who would be happy for Merseyrail to up fares rather than get rid of guards and booking office staff, because the presence of those people (whether they might happen to work the doors or sell tickets) provide a level of safety by their presence.

I actually don't think you'll find many people would opt to pay more for security staff. Those that would pay more won't be taking the bus, they'll be travelling by taxi to avoid any such issues. Many, many reports seem to suggest otherwise with customers tending to report that costs are too high for both bus and rail. Anecdotally knowing elderly people with money or rail/bus enthusiasts who of course would pay more isn't the main stream.

I think you miss the point. My point is that it's OK in law to provide a non-accessible default as long as you make reasonable adjustments for those with disabilities.

And no one has disputed this?

This is one of the many, many contexts where registered disability as other European countries have would be a very, very good idea indeed. It allows those who have disabilities to gain the adjustments they need, as diagnosed by a professional, without any need to worry about whether you may be denying them by accident when you deal with someone who does not seem to be disabled.

Agree, however, knowing how slow our national health service is at firstly recognising and then diagnosing conditions I am not sure how well that would work without huge investment. You have to remember that most disabilities actually can't be seen by an outsider and sometimes those with a disability are embarrassed to mention it.

I have a feeling we aren't going to agree on this - and also that it's somewhat generational!

I agree.

 

[Peter Sarf]

.........................

Sorry, but "aggressively lyriced gangland music" - seriously, come on... you can't get people kicked off because you don't like their music. I'd actually rather listen to some of that rather than someone blasting out the latest Ariana Grande tune. I remember back in the 80s/90s people blasting out rock/punk/nu metal on buses... were they aggressive or are you taking that connotation because of the type of music? Or maybe you'd only condone the playing of Bach as that isn't aggressive?

.........................

Some of the lyrics are a bit troubling.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Some of the lyrics are a bit troubling.

As are PLENTY of songs from the 70's/80's if you listen to them...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Vulnerability is not only about sexual abuse. I would agree that there is sometimes over reach, but I guess as a father and someone who has worked closely with kids in various roles (counselling etc.) whilst the red tape may seem "over the top" - I guess if it prevents just one child going through some of the awful things that I've sadly had to listen to then I think it's worth it.

I don't, I'm afraid. As a comparison, do you support a blanket say 40mph speed limit across the whole country, motorways included (except where lower), motorways included, because it undoubtedly would save the lives of countless children? It would certainly save more children than increasingly bureaucratic Safeguarding measures.

"Think of the children" is a slightly hackneyed argument. The adult world has to operate as an adult world, which means it contains some dangers so it can work in a practical way. It's on parents (and to a lesser extent the state) to teach children how to behave in it to remain as safe as feasible.

You hark back to the 80s as some sort of glory days and that being taught immediate consequences for your actions fixes things. Yet, I'm fairly sure it was only the other month that drivers on here were talking about not wanting to work various school buses because the children would run riot ripping up seats etc. I also recall that in the 80s travelling on public transport was a much less safe experience than it is now - muggings on the Tube were common place for example, exposures on trains and in parks. Not to mention all of the kids brought up damaged from parents who thought that teaching kids right and wrong was at the end of a belt buckle... I'm not sure I want to go back to them days.

Were you alive in the 80s?

I would class myself as progressive, not left wing.

They're the same thing, one of the terms is just to make it sound better rather than simply one political option.

FWIW my views are mixed left and right, I can be very left on some things - but I'm very right in terms of personal responsibility, responsibilities before rights and consequences for wilful misbehaviour, I'd say (apart from that I don't support violent punishment - but I do want to deliver a modern equivalent of the clip round the ear as it works - a long walk home or the faff/cost of arranging something else). I would argue that progressive towards a quality, high trust society where people know how to behave and actually do!

Again, you hark back to a time through rose tinted glasses. There was just as much corruption and miscarriages of justice back in the day. Criminals should absolutely be punished - however, they are humans who also have rights which should be protected. Do we really want to go back to the days that a PC can crack a skull just because the criminal gave lip?

No, but I'd certainly like to see harsher short term punishment for minor stuff to make it clear it's not OK. A night in the cells is a good option here.

We're talking here about 14-18 year olds who are creating a nuisance on the bus - playing their music loud, talking loudly (?), vaping or smoking. None of which I think warrant leaving in the middle of nowhere, that's just not a proportionate risk to take.

Disagree heartily. It's the perfect punishment and also associates a relevant consequence with the action. Misbehave on the bus and you don't get to go on the bus that day, best get walking. What's simpler?

If they get aggressive with the driver or other passengers then absolutely I would advocate calling the police and getting them removed from the bus with the police taking them back home to be dealt with.

Far more costly and delay for others than simply throwing them off.

Sorry, but "aggressively lyriced gangland music" - seriously, come on... you can't get people kicked off because you don't like their music.

No music should be played out loud, and the punishment for anyone who does should be being made to leave the bus and banned from future journeys that day.

However, aggressive gangland "music" is absolutely worse in terms of creating an unsafe feeling environment. How can a law abiding woman feel safe if music with themes of sexual assault etc is played out loud with a group of lads there?

Again, the law abiding should be favoured over those breaking it, the social over the antisocial. That woman's comfort is more important than those lads not having to walk home, I'm afraid, and if that's a risk to them they chose it by choosing to engage in ASB.

I'd actually rather listen to some of that rather than someone blasting out the latest Ariana Grande tune. I remember back in the 80s/90s people blasting out rock/punk/nu metal on buses... were they aggressive or are you taking that connotation because of the type of music? Or maybe you'd only condone the playing of Bach as that isn't aggressive?

Under no circumstances whatsoever should any sound of any kind ever be played out of an electronic device on public transport such that it is audible to anyone else on that vehicle, even quietly. Not Bach, not Ariana Grande, not Peppa Pig, not gangland rap. And anyone who does it accidentally should hit the volume down button as soon as they can and look sheepish and apologise to those around them, as I do if I do it by accident for a second.

However if you don't recognise that some types of music promote a far more threatening environment than others, then I'm flummoxed to be honest.

In which case I assume you're happy with lowering the voting age from 18 to 14 as children know right from wrong and have the same capabilities as an adult to make responsible decisions?

Knowing how to behave in public (particularly where signage makes this clear) and complex political decisions are not comparable. A ten year old knows you don't play your rubbish out loud in public.

I actually don't think you'll find many people would opt to pay more for security staff. Those that would pay more won't be taking the bus, they'll be travelling by taxi to avoid any such issues. Many, many reports seem to suggest otherwise with customers tending to report that costs are too high for both bus and rail. Anecdotally knowing elderly people with money or rail/bus enthusiasts who of course would pay more isn't the main stream.

The person who said this is neither a rail/bus enthusiast nor an elderly person with money. She is a married middle aged woman with children (who are brought up to behave properly) and like many women feels unsafe on public transport when teenage lads behave like little thugs.

I agree.

At least we agree on something

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 10:01 ==

Some of the lyrics are a bit troubling.

As are PLENTY of songs from the 70's/80's if you listen to them...

Absolutely, which is why nothing of any kind should be played out loud on a personal device ever, aside from in your own home or car. However if people don't recognise that gangland rap with themes like drugs, murder and sexual assault together with a group of aggressive looking teenage roadmen create fear in the way a mother playing Peppa Pig to her 5 year old doesn't (much as the latter is still really annoying and shouldn't be done either) then I find that very strange.