Antisocial behaviour on buses: Have we given up?

[BuhSnarf]

It's not either/or. If you have people like Merseyrail's enforcement officers, they can and should enforce against ALL antisocial behaviour. Nothing is gained by having them limited to a subset of it.

You're going to struggle to get the same level of enforcement on buses as you will on Merseyrail. You don't even get the no feet enforcement on buses in the Mersey area. Plus, to many (especially younger) feet on seats isn't anti social as it's not affecting anyone else like vaping/smoking is or loud music being played.

 

[DunsBus]

Can’t help but feel this is all being somewhat overplayed. Yes feet on the seats should certainly be discouraged, but frankly it is nowhere near top of my list of nuisance behaviours which I’d be keen to see tackled. If you sit on a transport seat then you are essentially accepting that it could well probably have been completely trashed the previous evening with people throwing up all over it and other unmentionable things.

Far more of a priority for me is people playing stuff out loud on devices, which has reached endemic levels.

We've gone from discussing antisocial behaviour on public transport, to talking crap. I'll get my coat.

 

[KHCT]

Hull Bus Station is under the same roof as the Railway Station and is patrolled by Council staff, Transpennine Express security staff and has a British Transport Police station on site. Despite this, nobody does anything to challenge smoking and vaping which is rife. I was waiting there for a bus for 15 minutes yesterday and stopped counting vapers when I got to 50. If such behaviour isn't challenged in the station, it sure as hell won't be challenged once on the bus.

I've taken to logging a crime incident with Humberside Police every time I see someone vaping on a bus in the desperate hope that one day the stats will get bad enough for them to actually do something. However, I fully expect that I'm wasting my time.

To be clear I don't expect drivers to risk themselves and tackle these criminals; in many ways the driver's best option is to get them where they are going ASAP so they can get rid of them.

 

[Cdd89]

I always assumed the argument against shoes on seats is that they may prematurely damage the seats, hence the companies' interest in enforcing against it. I had not even considered a cleanliness angle given that transport seats are dirty anyway.

Then again, I've learned that when it comes to hygiene people have unusually (maybe irrationally!) strong opinions. Reminds me of people against ever sharing headphones, against using airplane bathrooms without wearing shoes, or opposed to hotels with toiletries on the walls for fear of malicious contamination; all views I've seen held with equal conviction. (If that isn't thread derailment bait, I don't know what is )

 

[Polarbear]

Just to focus on one aspect-vaping.

Vaping is a relatively recent phenomenon. The original purpose of E-cigarettes was, as I understand, to provide a less damaging alternative to smokers.

However, vaping has been popularised, with E-cigarettes/vapes being used by many people who have never previously smoked. An article I read a few days ago suggested that in the UK, there were around 1 million people who vape, having never smoked.

This popularisation/glamorisation of vaping is key to why people like me (61 years old & never smoked) perceive an increasingly anti-social attitude around vaping.

I’m old enough to remember smoking being allowed on buses & trains. When the ban first came in, it was difficult to implement, but nowadays, it’s rare I see anyone smoking on public transport.

The large surge in people vaping seems to have caught transport companies out. There seems to have been a presumption that because “regular” smoking is not permitted, that those vaping will fall into line. My experience is that they definitely do not, and are often quite arrogant/aggressive when challenged.

As to a solution, I fear the horse has well & truly bolted. Some operators are only now putting up better signs to confirm vaping is not permitted, but as it is such an ingrained habit (the nicotine makes it highly addictive), it will be almost impossible to stop unless operators take a much more robust stance.

 

[M60lad]

From what I can gather it's due to Anti-Social-Behaviour in the past why most if not all buses now have hopper windows fitted instead of sliding windows, as when sliding windows were fitted kids used to either throw stuff out of them or hang out the windows themselves, some drivers didn't them hanging out the windows though and were of the opinion that as long as they weren't damaging the vehicle they weren't bothered.

I might be wrong here but it might be one of the reasons why the rear back emergency exit upstairs now on modern vehicles is now fixed glass, as in the past it wasn't unheard of for kids play around and keep opening it, and in fact some kids even managed to find where the sensor for the alarm was and cut the wire so it was disabled so the driver wouldn't know it was open.

 

[BuhSnarf]

However, vaping has been popularised, with E-cigarettes/vapes being used by many people who have never previously smoked. An article I read a few days ago suggested that in the UK, there were around 1 million people who vape, having never smoked.

Yep, my eldest rather ridiculously took up vaping at 19 - because her friends do it, of course - which then actually transitioned IN TO smoking. When I found out it honestly boggled my mind.

The large surge in people vaping seems to have caught transport companies out. There seems to have been a presumption that because “regular” smoking is not permitted, that those vaping will fall into line. My experience is that they definitely do not, and are often quite arrogant/aggressive when challenged.

As to a solution, I fear the horse has well & truly bolted. Some operators are only now putting up better signs to confirm vaping is not permitted, but as it is such an ingrained habit (the nicotine makes it highly addictive), it will be almost impossible to stop unless operators take a much more robust stance.

I think the other problem with vaping is that unlike smoking it's quite easy to do fairly secretively - I work in an office and you will regularly get people sneaking a sneaky puff and unless you're sitting next to them it's hard to tell they're doing it because they let the vapour out slowly. Also, whilst when they do it A LOT you can smell it strongly, if they're only doing it for short bursts it can have a similar smell to someone just opening a bag of Haribo. You also can keep a vape up your sleeve so it looks like you're just bringing your hand to your mouth, where you can't obviously do that with a burning cigarette.

Therefore I'd imagine it's quite hard for a driver to spot these things whereas with cigarettes it was usually very obvious that it was being done on the bus.

 

[Polarbear]

I think the other problem with vaping is that unlike smoking it's quite easy to do fairly secretively - I work in an office and you will regularly get people sneaking a sneaky puff and unless you're sitting next to them it's hard to tell they're doing it because they let the vapour out slowly. Also, whilst when they do it A LOT you can smell it strongly, if they're only doing it for short bursts it can have a similar smell to someone just opening a bag of Haribo. You also can keep a vape up your sleeve so it looks like you're just bringing your hand to your mouth, where you can't obviously do that with a burning cigarette.

Therefore I'd imagine it's quite hard for a driver to spot these things whereas with cigarettes it was usually very obvious that it was being done on the bus.

Yep, I agree. They can also smell like some energy drinks too.

Very difficult for drivers to enforce unfortunately. That said, I was quite impressed with an Arriva Yorkshire driver a week or two back, who did challenge a vaper on the upper deck. After a few polite but firm requests being shouted up the stairs to stop vaping didn't work, he stopped the bus & asked everyone sitting upstairs to sit downstairs, or get off! Surprisingly, that worked - there were only 2 people upstairs.

 

[scarby]

There’s nothing new about anti social behaviour. I don’t even think it is getting worse. I remember the glue sniffers on Bradford’s buses back in the early 90s, I remember the gangs of kids hanging round the old Bradford Interchange bus station. I remember the North London Line and the Watford DC line in the early 00s.

Undoubtedly, and a huge amount of it has been vastly reduced.

These include:

- smoking: was once commonplace, and was accepted in the past, but it is anti-social.

- drunkeness: still exists as a problem but was without much more commonplace in public in past times, and of course drunkeness can lead to aggression.

- indecent/lewd behaviour: without doubt was much more commonplace. I don't doubt that for women being groped and/or propositioned on crowded transport was once an almost daily hazard. Also various indecent acts - I experienced an old woman exposing herself on the Northern Line in the late 1980s, and read Robert Elms' account of what a passenger got up to on the tube in his book 'London Made Us.'

- violence: still a problem, but it's not that long ago in history that almost everyone experienced physical violence at first hand at some point or other - in the home, school, at work, as well as pubs, etc. Given that, it's hard to believe that the atmosphere on buses wasn't tainted by this.

None of this excuses current issues, absolutely not, but these can only be truly solved by improved economic conditions, improved education and home life and better treatment for people with issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

None of this excuses current issues, absolutely not, but these can only be truly solved by improved economic conditions, improved education and home life and better treatment for people with issues.

This implies that people play music out loud, vape, put their feet on seats etc because they are somehow disadvantaged, and not just because they're selfish and unthinking.

Given that people from all socioeconomic classes do these things I think you're way wide of the mark here. What's changed is a lack of enforcement because organisations have become risk averse and would rather accept these behaviours than risk assault by enforcing them. We need to return to enforcement, e.g. chucking people off in the middle of nowhere if they do them, physically if necessary. Drivers aren't going to do that like they used to, so this necessitates roving security staff.

We also need to stop treating 14+ year old lads as vulnerable and be willing to apply that same enforcement to them as adults. They are vulnerable in some ways in society, sure (e.g. to inappropriate sexual advances by people known to them), but largely not in a physical sense, so I see no reason we should persist in this context in seeing them as vulnerable cherubs, because more than likely they are the threat to others, not the vulnerable ones. But the likes of "roadmen" misbehaving on the back row need to experience real consequences, such as being forced to walk home as a direct consequence of their actions. Give real consequences like this and make the risk of them being applied very high, and things will start to change.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Why are 14+ lads any less vulnerable than a 14+ girl?

Not every 14 year old lad is physically "built."

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why are 14+ lads any less vulnerable than a 14+ girl?

Not every 14 year old lad is physically "built."

Whether they are "built" or not isn't really relevant to whether they need to experience real, tangible consequences to their actions, e.g. a long walk home as they've been thrown off and banned for the day.

Why lads? Because almost all ASB is committed by males, in all age groups. Screaming "hen do" participants might be a bit annoying, but by and large they aren't the ones behaving properly antisocially, with the exception of the playing out loud of rubbish from phones which appears to occur across all demographics.

And it's fairly obvious that there's a way in which women are far more vulnerable, even ignoring that they are usually more slightly built. It's sad and wrong that it's the case, but a lot of women live in permanent fear, most men (including teens) don't.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Whether they are "built" or not isn't really relevant to whether they need to experience real, tangible consequences to their actions, e.g. a long walk home as they've been thrown off and banned for the day.

Why lads? Because almost all ASB is committed by males, in all age groups. Screaming "hen do" participants might be a bit annoying, but by and large they aren't the ones behaving properly antisocially, with the exception of the playing out loud of rubbish from phones which appears to occur across all demographics.

And it's fairly obvious that there's a way in which women are far more vulnerable, even ignoring that they are usually more slightly built. It's sad and wrong that it's the case, but a lot of women live in permanent fear, most men (including teens) don't.

Can you cite references for any of these claims?

This is an incredibly sexist and incorrect post. There is plenty of ASB carried out by teenage girls, it is not "almost all" males. Why would a 14-18 year old girl be on a hen do?

It's also incredibly sad that you don't think 14 year old boys also can't be vulnerable and live in fear.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

This implies that people play music out loud, vape, put their feet on seats etc because they are somehow disadvantaged, and not just because they're selfish and unthinking.

Often they are not any of these things, it's simply that the rise of "liberal" parenting means they've never been told that any of these actions are wrong.

 

[BuhSnarf]

I would substitute liberal parenting, with neglectful parenting. I would class myself as liberal but brought all of my children up to be respectful of others, the law and to be responsible members of society.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

I would substitute liberal parenting, with neglectful parenting. I would class myself as liberal but brought all of my children up to be respectful of others, the law and to be responsible members of society.

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.

 

[bramling]

Whether they are "built" or not isn't really relevant to whether they need to experience real, tangible consequences to their actions, e.g. a long walk home as they've been thrown off and banned for the day.

Why lads? Because almost all ASB is committed by males, in all age groups. Screaming "hen do" participants might be a bit annoying, but by and large they aren't the ones behaving properly antisocially, with the exception of the playing out loud of rubbish from phones which appears to occur across all demographics.

And it's fairly obvious that there's a way in which women are far more vulnerable, even ignoring that they are usually more slightly built. It's sad and wrong that it's the case, but a lot of women live in permanent fear, most men (including teens) don't.

I get what you’re saying, however teenage girls absolutely aren’t immune from anti-social behaviour. Feet on seats, playing music out loud and this sort of stuff is just as likely if not more.

 

[BuhSnarf]

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.

Not wanting to go too off-topic... but I see this on a daily basis as my daughter's friend is always at our house and we're friends with their parents -- she's an only child and they basically let her do what she likes meaning they think she will only eat certain foods, that she can't do basic tasks etc. etc. but the only reason she's this way is because they let her do that, they don't push her or teach her any differently. I guess they're not neglectful as they're good parents and good (upper class) people on the whole but they're certainly not helping her in later life.

We've been slowly introducing her to vegetables, how to cook and also some light chores when she's over at our house

 

[Kaliwax]

Why are 14+ lads any less vulnerable than a 14+ girl?

Not every 14 year old lad is physically "built."

Exactly and those 14 year old lads with disabilities as well like Autism or anything else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly and those 14 year old lads with disabilities as well like Autism or anything else.

Is that the sound of the squeaking of the wheel of the RailUK Forums Standard Minority* I hear? It is never a good argument. Those with disabilities need reasonable adjustments, but those without need to learn how to behave and be meaningfully and tangibly punished if they do not.

The argument is as weak as it would be to say we must all use lifts because some can't use stairs. Logic is that you provide stairs for the majority and lifts for those who for whatever reason cannot use the stairs.

* The theoretical but mercifully rare person with all 9 protected characteristics at once.

 

[8ace]

Any bus bouncers would need to quite careful manhandling someone deemed by law to be a child. How would they even know if someone's 14+ if that's the new cutoff?

 

[bramling]

Any bus bouncers would need to quite careful manhandling someone deemed by law to be a child. How would they even know if someone's 14+ if that's the new cutoff?

Makes me laugh, when I was young it wasn’t uncommon for misbehaving kids on contracted school coach services to be manhandled off the coach by the driver and left at the roadside. That was in the days before mobile phones. The kid would either have to walk somewhere or find a payphone to call their parents. I never recall anything coming of it, and it seemed to prove effective.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Is that the sound of the squeaking of the wheel of the RailUK Forums Standard Minority* I hear? It is never a good argument. Those with disabilities need reasonable adjustments, but those without need to learn how to behave and be meaningfully and tangibly punished if they do not.

I don't think it's the RailUK Forum Standards Minority, it's just called equality - you can't single out boys over 14 as being able to be punished whilst not punishing the girls, that is sexism.

The argument is as weak as it would be to say we must all use lifts because some can't use stairs. Logic is that you provide stairs for the majority and lifts for those who for whatever reason cannot use the stairs.

That's not really a great analogy - you're not talking about providing reasonable adjustments for people. You're talking about punishing one group of society (males aged 14-18) in a different way that you would punish the female equivalent because *you* deem that 14 year old boys aren't vulnerable.

 

[Butts]

Not wanting to go too off-topic... but I see this on a daily basis as my daughter's friend is always at our house and we're friends with their parents -- she's an only child and they basically let her do what she likes meaning they think she will only eat certain foods, that she can't do basic tasks etc. etc. but the only reason she's this way is because they let her do that, they don't push her or teach her any differently. I guess they're not neglectful as they're good parents and good (upper class) people on the whole but they're certainly not helping her in later life.

We've been slowly introducing her to vegetables, how to cook and also some light chores when she's over at our house

Are you referring to those that emanate from the soil or people from the lower reaches of society more likely to be encountered on Public Transport ?

 

[Kaliwax]

Both boys and girls should receive the same punishment for the same crimes. Not sure a long walk home would be a suitable punishment for any teen, considering they could get raped, kidnapped, or murdered by anyone.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don't think it's the RailUK Forum Standards Minority, it's just called equality - you can't single out boys over 14 as being able to be punished whilst not punishing the girls, that is sexism.



That's not really a great analogy - you're not talking about providing reasonable adjustments for people. You're talking about punishing one group of society (males aged 14-18) in a different way that you would punish the female equivalent because *you* deem that 14 year old boys aren't vulnerable.

I think the problem is females are generally (rightly or wrongly) viewed as more vulnerable than the equivalent male of the same age / size.

Throwing a 14 year old lad off a bus is not going to cause as much disquiet as throwing a female off a bus.

But I can remember, in my youth, girls could be particularly nasty.
So I am of the view that if someone is prepared to miss behave then getting thrown off the bus is their problem that they created for themselves.
We all have to learn that there are consequences for our actions.

But we have to be careful what the bad behaviour is :-
Being autistic is not bad behaviour for instance.
Being diabetic and slipping into the stage where someone looks drunk is another (I have had to defend someone on a bus getting aggro from fellow passenger when I suspected they were not really drunk).

For feet on seats it is unhygienic - excrement (even traces), urine, vomit and just the grime you see on pavements are all harbouring germs etc.
If feet on seats is OK then that means anyoine who cares has to change out of their trousers/skirt before they sit down in their own home or workplace.
The hygiene barrier needs to be easier to maintain - so feet off seats.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 15:34 ==

Just to focus on one aspect-vaping.

Vaping is a relatively recent phenomenon. The original purpose of E-cigarettes was, as I understand, to provide a less damaging alternative to smokers.

However, vaping has been popularised, with E-cigarettes/vapes being used by many people who have never previously smoked. An article I read a few days ago suggested that in the UK, there were around 1 million people who vape, having never smoked.

This popularisation/glamorisation of vaping is key to why people like me (61 years old & never smoked) perceive an increasingly anti-social attitude around vaping.

I’m old enough to remember smoking being allowed on buses & trains. When the ban first came in, it was difficult to implement, but nowadays, it’s rare I see anyone smoking on public transport.

The large surge in people vaping seems to have caught transport companies out. There seems to have been a presumption that because “regular” smoking is not permitted, that those vaping will fall into line. My experience is that they definitely do not, and are often quite arrogant/aggressive when challenged.

As to a solution, I fear the horse has well & truly bolted. Some operators are only now putting up better signs to confirm vaping is not permitted, but as it is such an ingrained habit (the nicotine makes it highly addictive), it will be almost impossible to stop unless operators take a much more robust stance.

Vaping has been made too attractive for the younger generation. I sometimes wonder if there are more young people vaping now than there were young people smoking back when I was their age.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Both boys and girls should receive the same punishment for the same crimes. Not sure a long walk home would be a suitable punishment for any teen, considering they could get raped, kidnapped, or murdered by anyone.

Overall this is not very likely, and the cause is their own behaviour. Particularly not for a strapping 16 year old rugby lad, say.

Chucking people off definitely is proportionate and effective, and we need to start doing it again. It's more immediate than faffing about dragging people through Courts, easier and arguably more effective.

If drivers can't physically intervene, the "newspaper method" is known to be effective - this bus is cancelled unless you get off, newspaper out and wait. Operators need to support drivers in doing this. Unlike rail, with bus it only delays that bus.

 

[Kaliwax]

Still other ways to punish people without putting them in danger, especially at night. I'd rather see them do community service supervised by someone, and to work their debt off they made.


No one deserves to be murdered or raped because they caused anti social behaviour. Police could take them to the police station and get the parents to pick up from there

 

[Bletchleyite]

Still other ways to punish people without putting them in danger, especially at night. I'd rather see them do community service supervised by someone, and to work their debt off they made.

I'd not have a problem with this, but without national ID cards it's going to be hard to find out who people are to do it.

No one deserves to be murdered or raped because they caused anti social behaviour. Police could take them to the police station and get the parents to pick up from there

While there are places it may not be appropriate to put someone off at midnight, most of the country isn't like that and most of it is during the day. As I said about the Standard Minority, exceptions need not define the rule.

Of course I am totally happy with the idea of throwing a miscreant adult off anywhere at all at any time at all. Adults must take responsibility for their own safety which includes behaving properly, and any and all consequences of this are theirs. Without misbehaving they would have travelled without incident, and adults are legally old enough to understand consequences and act accordingly.

 

[BuhSnarf]

Overall this is not very likely, and the cause is their own behaviour. Particularly not for a strapping 16 year old rugby lad, say.

Again, you are letting your prejudice lead you. A 16 year old strapping lad is just as able to be set upon by a group of thugs. You also don't know whether that 16 year old is able to navigate themselves home, maybe doesn't have parents who will come and pick them up.

Chucking people off definitely is proportionate and effective, and we need to start doing it again. It's more immediate than faffing about dragging people through Courts, easier and arguably more effective.

Is it, though? Chucking someone off doesn't fix the problem, it pushes the problem to elsewhere.

If drivers can't physically intervene, the "newspaper method" is known to be effective - this bus is cancelled unless you get off, newspaper out and wait. Operators need to support drivers in doing this. Unlike rail, with bus it only delays that bus.

I do agree on this one, hopefully in that circumstance hopefully the teens then get the message and behave. However, what happens if the kids don't stop. Do they sit there all night? Does the bus driver want to, maybe it's their shift before clock off?