Should front line staff be issued with body worn video cameras?

[peteb]

If having a bodycam makes the job safer for rail staff then it's a no brainer. Imagine if it was a relative of yours being abused or worse......and if folks can't live with that then maybe taking public transport is something they should not do.

 

[syorksdeano]

Personally I don't have a problem getting recorded. After all trains and stations are covered with CCTV so why is one more camera going to bother anyone?

End of the day, if your doing nothing wrong then what do you have to worry about?

 

[All Line Rover]

End of the day, if your doing nothing wrong then what do you have to worry about?

If that's the case - which I would largely agree with - why are rail staff so cagey about themselves being filmed? Are they doing something wrong?

Not a particular criticism of rail staff. You could make a similar observation of police officers, although it is less pronounced.

 

[bramling]

We are recorded everywhere we go all day. It makes no difference if it is in your face or at the end of the street on a pole. Like I said, what are they going to do with a video of you having your ticket checked on a train?

I just find it rather unsettling, in fact I'd go a bit further than that - I find it quite provocative to be honest. From a practical point of view, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone could be goaded, at which point the recording conveniently starts ready to catch any reaction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2021 ==

Spoken like someone who hasn't been spat at for selling someone the exact ticket they asked for...

Which is why I did say that I (reluctantly) accept them for certain higher-risk roles, on-train revenue being something I'd include in that.

I do see it as rather treating the symptom not cause though.

 

[LowLevel]

If that's the case - which I would largely agree with - why are rail staff so cagey about themselves being filmed? Are they doing something wrong?

Not a particular criticism of rail staff. You could make a similar observation of police officers, although it is less pronounced.

Because firstly plenty of people aren't comfortable about performing on film, particularly when they're working. I let people get on with it but I throw discretion to the wind and work precisely to the letter of the rules if people do it to me, including on at least one occasion escalating a what would have been words of advice to police intervention.

Secondly, many of, albeit not all of, the people who pull a phone out to start filming are well up for starting a "let's make them famous" hate campaign on social media, rather than retaining their footage securely to be used in case of a dispute.

 

[PupCuff]

I used to use Body Worn Video back when I worked out on the trains. Overwhelmingly positive - at our depot there were nearly fist fights in the avantix lobby just amongst the staff as to who was going to take out the available cameras! Really beneficial for the police in gaining evidence to support conviction too. We didn't have them when I was assaulted at work unfortunately, but they certainly saved a lot of folks' bacon in due course once they got brought in.

 

[dk1]

Is the most important thing to make sure they are turned off when using the loo?

 

[paulmch]

I recently had a very unpleasant interaction with a customer whose demeanour changed instantly when they realised that I was wearing a badge cam - the evidence from trials is clear that they reduce assaults on staff to a significant degree. To be perfectly honest I'm happy to accept the occasional discomfort of a handful of passengers if it means I can be less likely to experience the extreme discomfort of getting my head kicked in for the sake a few quid of lost revenue!

 

[MDB1images]

I think they should be optional as in staff shouldn't be prevented from wearing one, I wear one when out in public.

It should be a choice and not something thats forced.
I've no desire to wear one as I'm happy with the CCTV footage on the train/stations for any rare altercations that may become problamatic.
Certainly no issue with any staff member who feels they help them doing the job as anything that helps is fine, but for me it has to be optional.

 

[robbeech]

If that's the case - which I would largely agree with - why are rail staff so cagey about themselves being filmed? Are they doing something wrong?

Yes, perhaps. But maybe not intentionally. If they haven’t received relevant training on an issue, and subsequently they get something wrong, this can be used against them should they footage be made available. Of course one of the key points raised in this thread is that video footage where the railway is in the wrong will almost certainly be ‘lost’ so this is an area that should be improved.

Secondly, many of, albeit not all of, the people who pull a phone out to start filming are well up for starting a "let's make them famous" hate campaign on social media, rather than retaining their footage securely to be used in case of a dispute.

This is an incredibly important point.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

as much as many front line staff would welcome having bodycams, many staff are also concerned that the footage would then be used against them for very minor misdemeanours while trying to do their jobs by managers justifying their jobs and ticking boxes, even tho they are investigating incidents the staff have reported and provided the footage for.

 

[matt_world2004]

More likely to use a bodyworn camera in meetings with management. Than in my public facing role

 

[mark-h]

What are the procedures for accessing the footage from the cameras if an incident occurs?

 

[al78]

I absolutely loathe the hours of dashcam footage we get forced down us on social media whereby the video is edited to show the other driver doing something, but you never get to see the 3 or 4 minutes before when the camera car cuts them up, and you never get to see the 2 minutes after when the camera car throws the drinks bottle at the other car from the window. Unless they're both recording of course.

You evidently must have seen this to make such a claim, which thus means your assertion that you never see it is false, unless it is a mere assumption that is what happens outside the camera field of view.

 

[robbeech]

You evidently must have seen this to make such a claim, which thus means your assertion that you never see it is false, unless it is a mere assumption that is what happens outside the camera field of view.

My point is that video evidence here is manipulated to bias the potential outcome. I have actually seen 2 sides to a vehicular dispute. Both on their own makes the other driver out to be the bad guy. When you’ve seen both you realise they’re both fools. Maybe “never see” was inaccurate. Perhaps “you are deliberately prevented from seeing the bigger picture where possible”.

 

[matt_world2004]

Selective and decontextualised editing can be a thing

 

[jon0844]

Selective and decontextualised editing can be a thing

The other day I was approaching a roundabout and slowed a bit more than necessary. As the roundabout was clear, I accelerated as I entered and when doing so, someone else who has presumably seen me slow then entered from the next road ahead of me.

There wasn't any incident and I simply slowed and that was it, but I have a dash cam and could easily have shown the video from the moment the car seemingly pulled out straight in front of me.

Play a bit further back and it would be clear I played a role in what happened (well, could have).

 

[al78]

If that's the case - which I would largely agree with - why are rail staff so cagey about themselves being filmed? Are they doing something wrong?

Possibly because someone who has got the hump with a member of staff might try to provoke a situation which risks incriminating that member of staff, with the aid of some video editing. One thing to be afraid of when it comes to surveillance is someone abusing that surveillance to your detriment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2021 ==

My point is that video evidence here is manipulated to bias the potential outcome. I have actually seen 2 sides to a vehicular dispute. Both on their own makes the other driver out to be the bad guy. When you’ve seen both you realise they’re both fools. Maybe “never see” was inaccurate. Perhaps “you are deliberately prevented from seeing the bigger picture where possible”.

Ok, what you are saying is that human bias will frequently kick in, which I can agree with. When it comes to "both being fools", that depends. I would not necessarily judge retaliation in the same way as provocation, even if the retaliation is unproductive or further inflaming the situation. Sometimes people need to be confronted if they have behaved out of order, otherwise we risk creating a bullies/antagonists utopia.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2021 ==

The other day I was approaching a roundabout and slowed a bit more than necessary. As the roundabout was clear, I accelerated as I entered and when doing so, someone else who has presumably seen me slow then entered from the next road ahead of me.

There wasn't any incident and I simply slowed and that was it, but I have a dash cam and could easily have shown the video from the moment the car seemingly pulled out straight in front of me.

Play a bit further back and it would be clear I played a role in what happened (well, could have).

It they pulled out in front of you and you hit them, it would depend on what the camera implies you could see at the point you started to accelerate onto the roundabout. The collision would be primarily the fault of the other driver as they should have given way to you, but if the footage suggested you could have anticipated the other driver was about to pull out and so you could have covered the brake and slowed down in time to avoid a collision, then you could be considered partly to blame.

I recall a comparable situation on a road when my father was driving and there were two side roads on the left close to each other, with a van waiting to turn right out of the nearest one. My father started signalling to turn left before we reached the first side road, but he was intending to turn into the second side road. The van driver assumed my father was turning into the road he was wanting to emerge from, and he pulled out in front of my father (getting a blast of the horn). I thought at the time my father should have waited until he was at least level with the first side road before signalling his intention to turn left into the second one.

Sorry, this is getting OT now.

 

[furnessvale]

The other day I was approaching a roundabout and slowed a bit more than necessary. As the roundabout was clear, I accelerated as I entered and when doing so, someone else who has presumably seen me slow then entered from the next road ahead of me.

There wasn't any incident and I simply slowed and that was it, but I have a dash cam and could easily have shown the video from the moment the car seemingly pulled out straight in front of me.

Play a bit further back and it would be clear I played a role in what happened (well, could have).

Which is why, if I was ever a defendant in such a situation, I would be asking for the "Unused material". An inability of the prosecution to produce those vital seconds of recording would have a significant affect on the outcome of the case.

 

[jon0844]

Which is why, if I was ever a defendant in such a situation, I would be asking for the "Unused material". An inability of the prosecution to produce those vital seconds of recording would have a significant affect on the outcome of the case.

This reminds me of a certain incident involving a wheelchair user and a station called Guide Bridge... it was very clear that there was far more to the story than shown on the video at the time.

I suspect a modest percentage of YouTube videos are 'set up' so as to trigger an incident/argument that can then be filmed to add to a specific channel that is then heavily monetised. It becomes very hard to tell what's real and what isn't, and the newspapers that often trawl these services for stories will not really care as they'll just embed the content and add some opinion, then let people argue it out in the comments.

 

[PupCuff]

What are the procedures for accessing the footage from the cameras if an incident occurs?

It will vary between companies, but typically the camera will be 'docked' to a computer when not in use from which the relevant data from the incident can be extracted by whoever looks after the cameras and uploaded to a secure server to ensure it's protected before it gets overwritten. Then when someone wants to access the footage (eg the police) they'll make a request in line with the standard CCTV procedures in the same way they would for any other footage and this will then be provided in some suitable medium.

 

[323235]

We are recorded everywhere we go all day. It makes no difference if it is in your face or at the end of the street on a pole. Like I said, what are they going to do with a video of you having your ticket checked on a train?

BTW - can you explain why such an approach would be "questionable"? It seems entirely reasonable for someone wearing such equipment to use it in a situation where they feel there may be confrontation. As I say I am sure you were an example of good behaviour and positive attitude, however the guard might not know that and going on past experience might have expected a less than positive response to his/her challenge.

There is a difference between passive CCTV which is only pulled when a serious crime is committed and someone getting in your face with a bodycam. Whilst I don't support any attacks against rail staff, I do have my concerns that there are a subset of over-zealous staff who like laying the law down and who are likely to weaponise it against passengers. As experience goes when the passenger is in the right, the footage will naturely go missing.

Sadly the railway is at times rather hellbent on extracting every last penny out of passengers without thinking about the bigger picture.

 

[Aictos]

Yes they should be used by staff who deal with revenue in any shape or form but also they should be worn by staff who deal with station issues especially on Friday nights where there is a history of anti social behaviour there.

If you've done nothing wrong then you have no reason to fear them however if you commit a crime or cause anti social behaviour then it's a good resource to be using.

 

[DarloRich]

Sadly the railway is at times rather hellbent on extracting every last penny out of passengers without thinking about the bigger picture.

Imagine a company trying to get people to, you know, pay to use their service. The beasts.

I don't understand why I have never had the bad experiences many posters here report. Maybe I am lucky and know how to deal with conflict situations better than most. I simply would never get into a position where an "over zealous" staff member was causing me an issue.

the footage will naturely go missing.

I have known that happen many times with the police. It is amazing. But such is life. Don't let yourself get in a position where you are relying on this footage.

 

[zwk500]

I simply would never get into a position where an "over zealous" staff member was causing me an issue.

That's not always as easy as you make it sound.

 

[DarloRich]

That's not always as easy as you make it sound.

Like I said - I have never had an issue. Perhaps I have been lucky.

 

[ic31420]

I work in an industry where bodycams became the norm. I was initially very much against them however I have completely changed my mind.

They are a great behaviour moderator though you do get the occasion Berk playing up to them. But that is usually sillyness as opposed to aggressive or harmful. The mere presence of the device stops a situation getting to the point it is needed.

The greatest benefit and somewhat unexpected was the reduction in complaints about staff. The reduction of people claiming I didn't say or do that and spurious complaints / claims. Complaints that do some in are ultimately quickly dismissed and those.that arnt are always where a genuine issue exists.

The footage has been useful In all sorts of ways.

Ours have three modes hard off, standby and recording. On standby mode they camera is recording but only keeps 30seconds so when the on button is pressed you have 30 seconds prior to the the activation.

Activation is a button press but other external things can also switch it on. I bit awkward when that happens when you are pointing Percy.

The cost is not the camera, but the docking stations, which each require a LAN connection, the data transfer and storage. You also need a pretty robust data protection plan and also some way for staff who may not be tech savvy to review their footage and save the segments that may need to be kept for longer.

Of course the devices suffer from the same problem of any other CCTV. That is the issue of ID. You can have the best images of the worst offender in the world, but if you don't know who they are you still need someone to be prepared to ID that person. And by IDing that person I mean be prepared and be able to give a statement to say who that person is, why they recognised them (what features and characteristics) and how they know them, and then be prepared to stand up in court and defend that if the case stands and falls on the ID, which many will.

I've been there won cases and also incredibly lost them.

 

[Journeyman]

End of the day, if your doing nothing wrong then what do you have to worry about?

This statement is used to justify so many things that are very wrong indeed.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Has anyone ever done a study to find out if stopping people getting on a train in the first place without a ticket is cost effective?

I guess the answer is the cost "saved" by having open platforms outweighs the lost revenue, but that doesn't help the guard when a scumbag assaults them.

The Dutch railways system stops you getting platform access without a valid barcode.

 

[wobman]

The abuse the front line staff receive every day needs to be addressed & I for one totally agree with the wearing of bodycams by conductors. We live in a very different world now & it's a symptom of the place we live in now that they are required by front line staff.