Scottish Government

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ON BUSES

CHAPTER 4: ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ON BUSES

In dealing with issues connected with anti-social behaviour, it is important to recognise that the issue is multi-faceted with views formed both by perceptions and actual experience.

The following section will examine what respondents perceive as being anti-social behaviour on buses and then looks at their actual experience of anti-social behaviour on buses. This approach recognises that not only is actual experience important, but that respondents' perceptions are valuable in ascertaining what aspects are "top-of-mind" when thinking about the issue.

4.1 PERCEPTIONS OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

All those participating in the representative and additional surveys were asked to state the types of behaviour that they could experience when on a bus or waiting at a bus stop that would be described as "anti-social". The question was asked spontaneously without any prompting, so the results very much reflect the issues that respondents automatically associate with anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops.

Across both surveys, the findings are broadly similar, with rudeness or verbal abuse being cited by the greatest proportions of respondents on a 'top-of-mind' basis (cited by 66% of the representative sample and 72% of the additional sample). Around two in five referred to drunken behaviour (mentioned by 45% of the representative survey and 40% of the additional survey). Other types of anti-social behaviour referred to spontaneously by around one in four or more respondents were smoking cigarettes on buses, physical assault of drivers, threatening behaviour in large groups at bus stops, dumpling litter or rubbish, physical assault of passengers, throwing objects at a bus and deliberate damage to buses (not graffiti).

Table 4.1
Types of behaviour seen as "anti-social" that could be experienced on buses or at bus stops (unprompted responses)

4.2 EXPERIENCES OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

4.2.1 Passengers' Experiences

Respondents participating in the household survey were then read a definition of anti-social behaviour ( see annex 1), shown a list of different types of anti-social behaviour and asked, if they had ever travelled by bus, to state which ones they had ever experienced and, if they had travelled by bus in the last 4 weeks, which they had experienced in the last 4 weeks.

Across both surveys, a majority of the sample had ever experienced some form of anti-social behaviour (70% of those participating in the representative survey and 78% in the additional survey). The higher experience of anti-social behaviour by the additional sample is in-line with the higher regular and frequent usage of public buses by this group compared to the representative sample.

The types of anti-social behaviour actually experienced did, to an extent, mirror the perceptions of anti-social behaviour detailed previously, with the highest proportions of respondents referring to having experienced rudeness/verbal abuse, drunken behaviour, dumping litter or rubbish and smoking cigarettes on buses. There was little by way of differences across both surveys, although higher proportions of respondents in the additional survey (38%) claimed to have ever experienced objects being thrown at buses than their counterparts in the representative survey (mentioned by 28% of respondents).

The least mentioned types of anti-social behaviour ever experienced were:

• physical assault of passengers (9% of the representative survey and 12% of the additional survey),
• taking illegal drugs (8% of the representative survey and 9% of the additional survey) and
• physical assault of drivers (mentioned by 3% of the representative survey and 8% of the additional survey).

Greater proportions of those aged 12-18 (76%), 19-24 (76%) and 25-39 (77%) years claimed to have ever experienced at least one type of anti-social behaviour on a bus and a low proportion of those aged 60 or over (59%) said likewise. Experience of anti-social behaviour was also higher among those in urban areas and among males as opposed to females. This would be expected given that these groups are more likely to be at risk of anti-social behaviour.

When we examine experience of anti-social behaviour in the last four weeks (among those using a bus in that period), a majority in both surveys had not experienced any form of anti-social behaviour (cited by 74% of the representative survey and 67% of the additional survey). Across each of the types of anti-social behaviour under consideration, no more than around one in seven had experienced any type of anti-social behaviour and this figure is considerably lower for most forms of anti-social behaviour.

The only types of anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops experienced within the last four weeks by more than 5% of the representative sample was rudeness/verbal abuse (9%), drunken behaviour (9%), dumping litter/rubbish (9%) and smoking cigarettes on buses (8%). Among the additional sample, the highest levels of mention are for rudeness / verbal abuse (14%), smoking cigarettes on buses (12%) and objects being thrown at bus (11%).

Similar levels of anti-social behaviour on buses were seen in urban (26%) and in rural (also 26%, although based solely on 32 respondents) areas when the last 4 weeks were examined, although rural respondents (62%) were less likely to have ever experienced anti-social behaviour on buses than their urban counterparts (71%).

Table 4.2
Types of anti-social behaviour experienced (in-home survey)

4.2.2 Drivers and Company Experiences

Having examined the general public's experience of anti-social behaviour, it is useful to look at the data from the bus drivers survey. All bus drivers were also asked to indicate, from the same list of anti-social behaviour as that used in the household survey, which forms of anti-social behaviour they had ever experienced and which they had experienced in the previous 3 months.

Managers within bus companies were also asked to indicate which, using the same list of types of anti-social behaviour, they thought their drivers experienced regularly while driving a bus.

Overall, when we examine data in relation to the anti-social behaviour ever experienced by bus drivers, there are relatively high levels for each of these types of anti-social behaviour, with over one in two referring to ever having experienced most types of anti-social behaviour (see table 3.7). The exceptions to this were physical assault of passengers, taking illegal drugs and physical assault of drivers, each of which was mentioned by less than one in two bus drivers. However, in setting this data in context, it needs to be borne in mind that some bus drivers had over 10 years experience and it might be expected that they would have experienced a variety of different types of anti-social behaviour during this time period.

The data from the household and bus drivers' surveys suggest that bus drivers and their passengers tend to notice different types of behaviour, with objects being thrown at the bus particularly noted by drivers and litter or rubbish being slightly more likely to be noted by passengers.

There were some similarities in terms of the results from the bus drivers' survey when we compare this with the findings from the household survey in terms of direct experience of anti-social behaviour. Over eight in ten bus drivers claimed to have ever experienced drunken behaviour (89%), rudeness / verbal abuse (87%) and passengers smoking cigarettes (84%).

However, there were some differences between the data from the household survey and the bus drivers in terms of the overall ranking of individual types of anti-social behaviour. In particular, drivers mentioned objects being thrown at their bus as one of the two types of behaviour they were most likely to have ever experienced (89%) although this was only the fifth most mentioned type (28%) of anti-social behaviour when passengers were asked to detail which forms they had ever experienced. Dumping litter/rubbish tended to be less highly ranked by drivers (75%) than passengers (39%) with this perhaps reflecting that drivers are less likely to frequently notice this behaviour due to their physical position at the front of the bus.

Bus drivers' experience of anti-social behaviour in the last three months reflected the levels of anti-social behaviour ever experienced by them, suggesting that the problem is certainly not diminishing. High proportions of bus drivers had recently experienced drunken behaviour, people throwing objects at buses, passengers being rude / verbally abusive or smoking cigarettes on buses and dumping litter or rubbish (each experienced in the last 3 months by one in two or more respondents).

When we examine the views of bus company managers in terms of the anti-social behaviour they perceive drivers to experience regularly while driving a bus, they are broadly in line with the data from the bus drivers themselves. Over one in two bus company managers considered that bus drivers regularly experience passengers being rude or verbally abusive (89%), throwing objects at buses (67%), dumping litter or rubbish (67%), drunken behaviour, smoking cigarettes on buses, graffiti (all 56%) or deliberate damage to the bus (52%).

The types of anti-social behaviour that are perceived to occur least often by bus company managers are physical assault of drivers (19%), threatening behaviour in large groups at bus stops (11%) and physical assault of passengers (11%)

Where there were differences in the views of bus company managers and bus drivers, it may be that they have a different perspective on certain issues. For example, over one in two bus company managers (56%) referred to graffiti, in comparison with only around one in four (27%) bus drivers having experienced this in the last 3 months. It is possible that this is attributable to bus company managers being involved in budgeting for the costs of cleaning for example.

Table 4.3
Types of anti-social behaviour experienced (bus drivers / bus company managers)

Bus drivers who had been driving a bus for 10 or more years were less likely to report experiencing certain types of anti-social behaviour in the last 3 months, notably rudeness/verbal abuse (58%), drunken behaviour (57%) and dumping litter or rubbish (48%) ⁶⁵. However, this could in part be due to a greater built in tolerance over time towards non violent anti-social behaviour or it may reflect other variables such as company worked for and routes driven.

The findings from the qualitative research bear out the quantitative data, with certain types of anti-social behaviour being more frequently experienced by drivers. This tended to be rudeness or verbal abuse, drunken behaviour, smoking cigarettes, graffiti on buses and the dumping of litter on buses. Physical assault of bus drivers or their passengers and threatening behaviour in large groups at bus stops was reported as relatively infrequent. Indeed, some bus drivers appeared to categorise anti-social behaviour into those types of behaviour(s) that would be considered unimportant and those which were a serious issue that needed to be dealt with. The former generally included verbal abuse, smoking or littering on buses and non violent behaviour, while the latter included all forms of violence against bus drivers themselves or their passengers.

As such, while physical assault of passengers and drivers may happen relatively infrequently, when it does happen, it can have much more serious implications for the general public and bus companies. For example, a bus driver who had been assaulted, had had over three months off work sick. This same incident had also served to demoralise and frighten colleagues.

Furthermore, on occasions where there are repeated acts of anti-social behaviour, some bus companies may see a withdrawal of services as the only safe option and this then has ramifications in terms of social exclusion. The literature review shows that those most likely to suffer from the impact of anti-social behaviour are more likely to live in socially deprived areas where there are no alternative forms of public transport if bus services are rerouted or withdrawn.

It is also worth bearing in mind that most bus drivers claimed that there were certain bus routes, or parts of routes, where anti-social behaviour was more prevalent, so it is possible that some bus drivers may experience very little anti-social behaviour. There was also a view expressed by most bus drivers that anti-social behaviour is most likely to occur in built up socially deprived urban areas. One bus driver in Aberdeen who had previously worked in London commented that:

"I mean the guys up here don't know they are living, they want to go down south and try working down there, it is worse down there".

While it was generally considered that certain bus routes will experience certain types of anti-social behaviour, there was one universal exception to this. This exception was in relation to school runs where all bus drivers who had been involved in school runs claimed that many pupils on the bus will carry out acts of anti-social behaviour, although these were generally considered to be of a more minor nature.

4.3 TRENDS IN ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND ACCURACY OF REPORTING INCIDENTS

Having ascertained experience of anti-social behaviour by bus drivers, it is important to set this into context. Both bus drivers and bus companies were asked to state how they felt anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops had changed in the last 5 years.

The vast majority of bus drivers felt that anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops had increased over the last 5 years, with 65% stating it had increased substantially and 16% that it had increased slightly. Only 5% felt it had stayed at the same level and only 2% considered it had decreased slightly.

Overall, bus company staff also agreed that anti-social behaviour had increased, although to a lesser extent. Equal proportions of company staff (33%) stated that it had increased substantially or slightly. About a tenth (11%) said it had stayed at the same level, with only 7% stating it had decreased slightly.

However, a different perspective was provided by one stakeholder who said:

"I pulled out the [local] Annual Reports of 1904 to 1905 and I looked to see what problems they had then and, to be honest, I mean they were just the same problems 100 years ago as we have now; drunkenness, refusing to pay. Just the same".

(Key stakeholder)

Chart 4.1
Perceived change in anti-social behaviour in last 5 years (bus drivers and bus company managers)

Again, the findings from the qualitative data backs this up with all bus drivers and bus company managers commenting that acts of anti-social behaviour were becoming more prevalent. Furthermore, there were concerns from many that there is an increasing tendency towards more violent acts of anti-social behaviour these days. There were also some comments that there is a growing acceptance of anti-social behaviour on buses and a greater likelihood of passengers becoming more involved in incidents involving anti-social behaviour.

A further issue is the attitude of the bus driver towards those who are committing anti-social behaviour. A number of key stakeholders and some bus drivers stated concerns that some bus drivers will aggravate a situation by taking an aggressive stance. There are also concerns across all audiences participating in the qualitative research that there is a lack of training offered to bus drivers on how to deal with anti-social behaviour and a suggestion that anti-social behaviour impacts upon recruitment and retention of bus drivers. These issues will be covered in a later chapter.

Finally, it is worth considering how bus drivers and bus operators report incidents of anti-social behaviour.

Most bus drivers and bus company managers participating in the qualitative research acknowledged they had internal systems for dealing with the reporting of incidents of anti-social behaviour. However, most bus drivers participating in this study commented that there were not enough hours in a day to be able to note all incidents of anti-social behaviour that they come across during the course of a normal working day. The incidents that do tend to be reported are those considered to be of a more serious nature or those where a passenger threatens to report a driver to their employer. In these latter instances, bus drivers generally considered they needed to report incidents to cover their own backs, particularly in instances where a schoolchild had threatened to report a driver for abuse of some sort.

While the previous questions examined information on the prevalence of anti-social behaviour, it is necessary to provide further information on the exact nature of these occurrences and, primarily, the impact that it has upon an individual's propensity to travel. This information is valuable as it helps to establish whether there are any patterns in terms of when anti-social behaviour occurs or who commits it or the effect it has on individuals.

A range of questions were asked of those who had experienced at least one form of anti-social behaviour within a specified time period (the last 4 weeks for those participating in the household survey and the last 3 months for bus drivers). Each respondent provided details for each type of anti-social behaviour they had experienced within that time frame, regardless of whether they had experienced it only once or more often.

In total, there were 214 different types (e.g. drunken behaviour, being rude/verbal abuse etc) of anti-social behaviour experienced by respondents in the representative survey within the 4 weeks prior to the interview, 203 types of anti-social behaviour experienced by additional survey respondents in the same period, and 767 instances of anti-social behaviour noted by bus drivers in the last 3 months.

This methodology means that results must be read carefully as results refer (in the main) to the proportion of types of anti-social behaviour experienced rather than a proportion of actual instances of anti-social behaviour. For example, table 3.8 shows that 71% of the types of anti-social behaviour experienced by bus drivers in the last 3 months had happened at least once in the period from 9:01pm to 12:00pm. It does not mean that 71% of instances of anti-social behaviour that drivers experienced occurred between 9.01pm and 12.00pm.

Information on each individual type of behaviour as experienced by bus drivers (the only group with a large enough sample size of types of behaviour experienced to make this analysis possible) is attached within annex 4.

4.4 WHEN ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR OCCURS

Table 3.8 shows the proportion of different types of anti-social behaviour experienced in specific time periods throughout the day. Across all of the different groups of respondents, the greatest proportions of anti-social incidents were perceived to be committed between midday and midnight. In line with actual experience of anti-social behaviour, these levels were lower among respondents participating in the household survey.

Overall, among the representative and additional surveys, the peak times for experiencing any type of anti-social behaviour appeared to be between 2:01 and 4:00pm, 4:01 and 6:30pm and 6.31pm-9pm, coinciding with post-school and work travel times and increased passenger numbers. Among individuals participating in the additional survey, figures were generally higher (particularly from 4:01pm to 12:00pm) and these reflect the increased usage of buses for this group as well as their higher frequency of experiencing anti-social behaviour.

The experience of bus drivers was different in emphasis to that of the general public, with this being unsurprising given that bus drivers were more likely to come across greater amounts of anti-social behaviour than individuals in the general public and to have their opportunity to experience anti-social behaviour spread across a wider timeframe. Whereas the general public may only have experienced a certain type of anti-social behaviour once, hence being able to pinpoint an exact time when they experienced it, many drivers experienced each type of anti-social behaviour a large number of times across the day.

However, the general pattern of results showed that drivers experienced anti-social behaviour most between 9:01pm and 12:00pm (71%), with endorsements rising gradually to this level from the 9:31am to 12:00am period (41%) onwards. This "peak time" of 9:01pm to 12:00pm therefore was later than the peak time seen for in-home surveys (between 2:01pm and 9:00pm).

Table 4.4
Time anti-social behaviour experienced *

* (Note that as one type of anti-social behaviour may have been experienced in the last 4 weeks by a respondent at more than one time the total of each column would add to more than 100%)

In terms of sub-group analysis among the general public, as would be expected, different groups of individuals tended to experience anti-social behaviour at different times with their time of travel being a key element behind this. For example, those aged 12-14 years were most likely to experience anti-social behaviour between 2:01pm and 4:00pm (the time they would be leaving school), with 25-39 year olds having higher than average mentions of incidents occurring between 4:01pm and 6:00pm (the time they would be leaving work).

This data is endorsed by the findings of the qualitative research, where bus drivers commented that their frequency of experiencing anti-social behaviour generally coincided with peak hours of travel, although there were some comments of an increase in the overall amounts of anti-social behaviour activities throughout the day. We noted earlier that, without exception, bus drivers commented on experiencing anti-social behaviour on school runs. However, there were also comments from bus drivers that there are relatively high levels of anti-social behaviour - in comparison to the numbers of passengers - on late night runs where a relatively high proportion of bus passengers may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

4.5 WHO ARE PERCEIVED TO BE THE PERPETRATORS OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR?

For each type of anti-social behaviour they had experienced within the last four weeks (in-home interviewees) or three months (bus drivers), respondents were to state the age of those who committed the anti-social behaviour.

Among the general public, the vast majority of anti-social behaviour is perceived to be committed by those aged between 13-24. Across the household survey and bus drivers, around half or more of all individual types of anti-social behaviour at buses or bus stops in the representative sample were perceived to have been committed by 13-15 year olds. This was cited by 49% of respondents in the representative survey, 59% of respondents in the additional survey and 67% of bus drivers. The 16-18 year age group is also perceived to be responsible for committing significant levels of anti-social behaviour by those in the household survey (cited by 35% of the representative survey and 37% of the additional survey). However, 19-24 year olds were also held to be responsible for one in five or more types of anti-social behaviour (cited by 21% of the representative survey and 27% of the additional survey).

Bus drivers placed a slightly different emphasis on the ages of those committing anti-social behaviour, albeit that the age groups perceived to be committing the highest levels of anti-social behaviour were the same as those identified by the general public. The highest level of mentions (73%) was for the 16 to 18 age group, with the next highest being for 13 to 15 year olds (67%) and 19 to 24 year olds (58%). This, therefore, shows a different emphasis to the representative and additional respondents who tended to identify 13 to 15 year olds as more likely to commit acts of anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops than those aged 16 to 18. It is also noticeable that, while still mentioned at considerably lower levels than for other groups, about a quarter of all types of anti-social behaviour that drivers had experienced in the last 3 months were thought to be caused by those aged 70 to 79 years (24%) or those aged 80 or over (23%).

Table 4.5
Perceived age of those committing anti-social behaviour (in-home and bus drivers survey)*

* (Note that as one type of anti-social behaviour may have been experienced in the last 4 weeks by a respondent on more than one occasion, the total of each column may add to more than 100%).

Interestingly, when we carry out sub-group analysis, each age group tends to be blamed for committing anti-social acts most by individuals of the same age group. This may be explained by the fact that each age group tends to travel on buses at the same time as other individuals of the same broad age range (e.g. school runs or after work).

Bus company managers were asked a similar question, although they were asked to comment on anti-social behaviour on buses in general rather than giving details of the ages of those committing specific types of anti-social behaviour that had been experienced (as drivers and in-home respondents had to do).

Bus company respondents tended to follow the rough pattern of drivers and in-home respondents, with large proportions perceiving anti-social behaviour to be committed by 12-15 year olds (81%) or those aged 16-18 (63%). While smaller percentages mentioned 19-24 year olds (30%) and 25-39 year olds (19%) and no-one endorsed 40-49s or 50-59s, 11% of those responding highlighted anti-social behaviour as being committed by those aged 60 or over and almost a quarter (22%) said they were committed by the under 12s.

Table 4.6
Perceived age of those committing anti-social behaviour (bus company managers survey)

Respondents were also asked to provide details of the gender of those involved in each type of anti-social behaviour they had experienced.

As shown in chart 3.2, across all the different groups surveyed, the largest proportion of anti-social behaviour was attributed equally to males and females (cited by two in five or more across each respondent type). Around one quarter of those participating in the household survey perceived anti-social behaviour to be committed by males only (cited by 25% of the representative survey and 22% of the additional survey).

There was disagreement between all respondent types in terms of the levels of anti-social behaviour being committed mainly by males. This was perceived to be the case for 19% of those in the representative survey, 27% of those in the additional survey, 36% of bus drivers and 52% of bus company managers.

Very small percentages of any respondents who were surveyed perceived anti-social behaviour to be committed mainly or solely by females. As such, for around half those interviewed, males are regarded as key perpetrators while for the remaining half, opinion suggests that males and females are equally responsible.

Chart 4.2
Perceived gender of those involved in anti-social behaviour

In line with a perception of increasing levels of anti-social behaviour, there was a perception from the qualitative research that the type of people committing anti-social behaviour has increased in recent years. Most drivers claimed that, up until a few years ago, anti-social behaviour would have been associated mainly with young men aged between 12 and 16 years; the exception being on late night buses where, traditionally, it might be expected that drivers would receive verbal abuse and rudeness largely from individuals of all ages under the influence of alcohol. However, there was a perception that this has been broadening out in recent years in terms of the age and gender of those committing anti-social behaviour.

Despite the low levels of anti-social behaviour being committed by females in the quantitative data, there were some concerns from small numbers of drivers participating in the qualitative research that this is on the increase. The majority of bus drivers are male and they claim it is harder to stop females behaving in an anti-social manner.