Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Approximately 30% of Swedish urban bus drivers report having been exposed to threats or violence. As 50% of drivers have voiced concerns about the occurrences, threats and violence also represent contributing factors to driver stress and fatigue.
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this study was to explore bus drivers’ experience of threats and violence; how threats and violence manifests and how the problem is handled by drivers. Gaining understanding of the circumstances is important to reduce the number of threats and violent incidents to provide healthy and attractive working conditions for drivers.
METHODS:
This study is based on in-depth interviews with 12 urban bus drivers in the City of Malmö in Sweden.
RESULTS:
Urban bus drivers experience threats daily from passengers, although physical violence occurs less often. The most common situations resulting in threats involve asking passengers to show valid tickets, denying child carriages onboard and running late to a bus stop. The drivers have not received clear guidelines as to strategic handling of the invalid ticket situation.
CONCLUSIONS:
Recommendations include a clear policy and consensus with regard to handling invalid tickets, providing drivers with guidelines for appropriate procedures for passengers refusing to pay, improving reporting routines and establishing a strategy for the Public Transportation provider and operator to follow with regard to reports, in-vehicle surveillance cameras including informing passengers that they are being video recorded as well as harmonizing the location of alarm buttons on buses.
Introduction
During 2014 a total of 26,934 persons were working as bus drivers in Sweden. About 85% were men at an average age of 48 years old [1]. A study carried out by the Swedish Union of bus drivers, claims that 30% of its 1,500 members had experienced threats, 10% violence and 20% had been exposed to attempted robbery or robbery. In total 50% claimed to be concerned about threat and violence at work and 33% on their way home [2]. In Sweden, all severe work-related accidents leading to Sick Absence (SA) in excess of 30 days or to medical impairment, must be reported to an insurance organization (AFA). However, in the statistics there is no single group for bus drivers, but one for tram and bus drivers. Between 2010–2014 in total 154 reports were related to threats and violence, out of which 144 involved drivers being exposed to threats and violence by passengers [3].
The details of the reports are not very clear although it would suggest that violence was involved in 70% of cases, occurring both when the vehicle was stationary (36%) and moving (34%) while the circumstances for 30% of cases are not clear. In 70% of cases physical violence had been involved and threats had been issued in 30% of cases. That the offending passenger was under the influence of alcohol or drugs was evident in 6% of the reports. In a Swedish study, data collected at a company level from one operator employing 926 drivers were analysed for the period of January 2015 to April 2016 [3]. In total 132 reports of violence and threats were found in which threat toward, or assault of the driver occurred 37 times (28%), objects thrown at the bus 36 times (27%) and payment refusal 22 times (17%).
Urban bus driving is the type of work involving a variation of high and low cognitive loads, and hence also demanding due to high physical demands such as sitting for long times, steering related demands and vibration [4]. Depending on the city and the context, both fixed night shifts, and shifts including early mornings and split shifts, are common. Split shifts are particular demanding and a contributing factor to fatigue [5], even though there are reasons to believe that fatigue is worst for those who perceive working split shifts a problem [6]. Among urban bus drivers, health problems are more prevalent than average, being at a higher risk of obesity, sleep disorders and cardiovascular problems [4, 7], all diseases that are known risk factors for driver fatigue. For urban bus drivers 20% report that they have to fight fatigue to keep awake while in charge of driving a bus at least 2–3 time each week, while 36% of London bus drivers report that they have had a “close call” due to driver fatigue at least once the past 12 months [8, 9]. In general, driver fatigue is a contributing factor to road crashes and the vast majority of studies estimate fatigue as a factor in around 20% of all fatal road crashes [10, 11] and that drivers reporting fatigue at the wheel increases the risk of crashing by more than two fold [12]. Furthermore, the development of fatigue is also known to be due to a variety of inherent individual differences [13, 14].
Several work-related reasons may be behind driver fatigue, such as resistance to stress. Stress has been proven to represent one of the main factors predicting who will be susceptible to struggling to stay awake while driving a bus [15]. To date, the full picture for drivers experiencing stress is not fully known, however one contributing factor involves passenger threats and violence [16–18].
A study from Australia analysed the tasks bus drivers are responsible for at work [19]. Besides driving the bus, the 44 drivers included were assigned a lot of different tasks to perform. One major group of tasks is connected to the interaction with passengers, having to adjust to the different personalities and wishes of passengers, for which outcome each driver’s competence and skill in communicating and interacting is important. The frequency of failed communication and how it contributes to threats and violence is not known. There is reason to believe that the social status of bus drivers has been reduced in the recent decades, resulting in the interaction between bus drivers and passengers being different today compared to before [20].
Since there is an expected relationship between fatigue caused by stress and threats and violence being a major influencing factor for stress, it is essential to gain an understanding of what instigates threats and violence and the circumstances exposing city bus drivers to threats and violence. It is also crucial to understand how the interaction between drivers and passengers is experienced by the drivers and why and how this might be a contributing factor to threats and violence towards bus drivers. Combined, this knowledge is important for identifying mitigation strategies to make sure the working conditions will not be overwhelming for the drivers in this case.
The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of threats and violence by urban bus drivers in Sweden, how threats and violence manifest and how the incidents are handled by the drivers. This knowledge is important to reduce the number of threats and violent incidents and to safeguard healthy and attractive working conditions for bus drivers.
Method
This study has been based on a qualitative research approach with data collected through in-depth interviews with urban bus drivers. The purpose of in-depth interviews is generally to generate deep knowledge of a phenomenon in order to enable the researcher to capture complexities and context-dependent aspects of a phenomenon [21]. Our aim for the in-depth interviews was to explore aspects such as how threats and violence are experienced by bus drivers, what situations are perceived as sources of conflict and what strategies drivers use to handle such situations.
Study context
This study was conducted in Malmö, Sweden. Malmö is by population Sweden’s third largest city, located in the south west of the country, in the region of Skåne. Historically, Malmö has been an industrial city. Today the city is multi-cultural, incorporating many different ethnicities. The city’s culture is diverse, however socio-economic segregation is prominent, where certain areas have been exposed to problems involving different forms of criminality in recent decades. The city connects with Copenhagen in Denmark via the bridge Öresundsbron over which many people commute on a regular basis.
Recruitment and procedure
The bus drivers were recruited via the placement of adverts on several bus depots belonging to one major bus operator in Malmö. The focus was on recruiting drivers with personal experience of threats and/or violence, although drivers who had not been exposed were also welcomed. The advert was displayed during three weeks in the autumn 2016. Interested participants were scheduled for an interview, conducted during the winter 2016–2017. The recruitment process was supported by representatives at the bus operator company.
Participants
In total, 12 drivers participated in the study, of which four were women. The average age of the drivers was 49 years with 15 years working experience. Out of 27,000 bus drivers in Sweden, 85% are male, at an average age of 48 years [1], which means that the study group represents the Swedish bus driver population fairly well. The participants were all given a sum of SEK 700 (approximately EUR 60) (gross) for participation in the study. The study was approved by the regional ethics committee at Linköping University in Sweden (EPN: 2016/397-31). The participants signed an informed consent form before the interview started.
The interviews
The interviews were semi-structured and conducted at the premises of Malmö University. They all lasted 40 –90 minutes and circulated around an interview guide comprising four main themes: (1) background; (2) working conditions; (3) experience with threats and violence, and; (4) incident reporting. Each theme had sub-questions which were used directly, or as a checklist of topics wished to be discussed. Beside the interview guide, the participants were provided time to express their own story, and the interviewer also paid attention to topics emerging spontaneously resulting in follow-up questions. All interviews were transcribed in-verbatim. During the last interviews, the same themes and discussions were coming back that was a clear sign of saturation.
Analysis
The analysis was based on an inductive content analysis approach consisting of three main phases [22]. In the first phase, the verbatim-transcribed interview material was read through several times to become familiar with the data. In this phase, some initial coding was also carried out, bearing in mind the aim and research questions of the study. In the second phase, the coding process continued, and more codes were created, merged, or removed. In the third phase, similar codes were grouped into categories and themes were created. The final themes have been presented in the result chapter.
Results
Experiences of threats and violence in daily work
Few bus drives had experienced situations involving physical violence, generally a relatively long time ago, in their early career. At that time, bus drivers carried a reasonable amount of cash, as cash payment for tickets was common, unlike today when drivers no longer handle cash. The bus drivers in this study recognize removing the handling of cash aspect as a considerably positive change in reducing the risk of being exposed to violence. Below, one respondent reflects on the difference between now and then:
It’s a big difference. When we had cash, one day there were two threats of violence and robbery attempts, in one night. And within a week at least seven times. //…// But now [they know] it, they know we have no money.
The driver pointed out that people have learnt that it is pointless attempting to rob a bus driver today since he or she no longer carries any cash. Currently, drivers find verbal aggressiveness, arguments, harassment and threats the main problem. Furthermore, such elements are perceived as common ingredients in the daily work of bus drivers. The respondents below describe their perception of how often this occurs today:
“It’s very common. If not every day, every other day. Could be someone that runs after the bus and …they don’t make it, and then it’s kicking and showing a finger.
It happens. Perhaps not such serious things now after they have removed cash payment. But it happens. From small stuff to …It can deteriorate. //…//. It drains you.”
Both respondents describe that interactions of various kinds involving threatening behavior arise in everyday work, and that certain situations can escalate. The last quote is also illustrating that the handling of such situations is mentally “draining”.
Low social status
How participants perceived their occupational status as bus drivers was also discussed in the interviews. The drivers expressed that they are working in a profession that have low social status in society, a status that has been declining in recent decades. Reflecting on the change, drivers perceive that previously, the bus driver occupation was a respectable job with a uniform, responsibility, and authority. Today, this social status has declined and the feeling of being more of a customer satisfier has arisen. The drivers also spoke about the relationship with passengers as having become more customer-oriented of late. The customer is regarded as being in the center, and the one that should be satisfied. Below, one respondent reflects on the social status:
“It’s crappy. The passengers they think I am just a robot who should drive them from point A to point B. Some passengers actually have objections when I ask to see their tickets, it’s in my professional description that I should check proof of travel, but some passengers don’t like it.”
The feeling of being seen “as a robot” with low authority in the driver-passenger relationship serves as illustrative examples of how social status manifests to the drivers through everyday social interaction.
Tickets and payment –the primary source of conflicts
The drivers participating in the study unanimously expressed the primary source of the rise in conflicts, namely the process relating to payment of tickets for the journey. Passengers not in possession of a valid ticket or unwilling to pay are perceived as the main source of conflict situations arising.
“Usually it’s when people want to get on the bus even though you have denied them and said no you are not allowed to come along. And then they still want to get on.”
The respondents expressed that conflict initiates when the bus driver denies a passenger from travelling on the bus, reflecting the interactional element of conflicts arising.
Two other sources of conflicts relate to child carriages and the bus arriving late. The first involves situations whereby passengers can become angry and frustrated when denied bringing their prams/pushchairs onboard. Such incidents can occur when the maximum limit of carriages has already been reached, and the driver refuses to let another one onboard. Managing these types of incidents is perceived by the respondents as demanding since disputes and sometimes even harassment may ensue. The other situation perceived as a potential conflict situation is when the bus arrives late. In such situations passengers may take their frustration out on the driver regardless of the reason for the late arrival.
Different interpretations of the process of handling missing or invalid tickets
A diverse understanding of bus operator policies and instructions in force regarding managing circumstances involving passengers without valid tickets, or not wanting to pay the bus fare, was expressed by the drivers during the interviews. The drivers described that this type of situation essentially arises daily. Nonetheless, the drivers’ perceptions of strategies for handling such incidents varied. Below, one driver is asked by the interviewer if he is aware of company policies on how to handle such situations:
“Driver: No, they say that we should handle it in the best way.
Interviewer: Okay, they don’t say what’s the best way or so?
Driver: Best way [is to], to be quiet, let it go for this time. But not every time or every day.”
Here, the driver expresses a notion that a formal policy is not in force, only a general instruction to handle situations in the best way, which involves balancing between passively letting some passengers on the bus on the one hand, and actively refusing some on the other hand. The instructions and this driver’s interpretation thereof thus appear unclear to him.
In the interviews, three different perceptions of operator policy on how a bus driver should handle passengers without a valid ticket came forward: (1) There exist no such policy, or knowledge of an existing policy is missing; (2) Bus drivers should make sure that passengers do not travel without a valid ticket; (3) Bus drivers should make sure that passengers do not travel without a valid ticket but should also avoid interactions risking progressing into conflicts. Number (3) was also by some combined with a view that the Regional Transport Authority’s (hence not the operator) view is that all passengers shall have a valid ticket to be allowed on the bus. As shown here, there exist a variety of interpretations how to act as a driver when tickets are missing. The variant of number (3) also reflects a perception of conflicting views between what the driver believes is the operator view and the regional Transport Authority’s policy.
Alcohol and drugs in relation to threats and violence
The role of alcohol and drugs in relation to threats and violence was also discussed with the bus drivers during the interviews. The picture that emerged is that alcohol is not a major issue, and most of the drivers expressed that alcohol does not constitute a problem for them to handle. On the contrary, some drivers even expressed that intoxicated people were sometimes easier to handle than other people. Intoxicated people are often regarded as being in a good mood and not as stressed as other people can be, and therefore easier to deal with. One driver described that the way she acted strongly influences how situations evolve:
“When I open the doors, I have two options. I can say; ‘okay so you are out partying tonight, how nice, have you had a good time, seen anything fun?’, or I can say ‘I don’t want you to be drunk and puke all over the place’, and so on. It’s, you know, if I meet them positively or negatively.”
Her strategy is to meet intoxicated passengers in a friendly and respectful manner while simultaneously being clear that alcohol cannot be consumed on the bus. By applying this strategy, she claimed to avoid potentially threatening situations arising that may evolve into threats, harassment, and violence in order to keep the environment safe. She continued to elaborate on the strategy to handle violent passengers:
“It is always about how you greet a person. Because I have had many groups of people that have been drunk and loud and acting around, and I have had someone puking on the bus also, and it’s like . . . I have never had any problems with them. Because it’s a ‘hi and welcome, are you out partying tonight’ and stuff like that . . . // . . . They are often ordinary so when you greet them like that ‘hi we have a party. Yes that’s good but don’t party on the bus, keep it at a nice level’ and they reply ‘Yeah, yeah sure’ and then they enter the bus, and then they sit and talk in a corner, and they can get loud and so on but it doesn’t give them the chance of being aggressive.”
Even though describing that she has had encounters with passengers that have caused trouble onboard, e.g., vomiting, she claims none has resulted in any serious problems such as major arguments or violence. Instead, by establishing the rules on the bus in a ‘friendly’ way, she states that even though passengers can become loud, they do not get to the point where they become aggressive. This example can also serve as an illustration of the development of individual strategies for handling situations that arise every day at work for bus drivers.
Problematic incident reporting
With regard to reporting violence, threats and harassment, most drivers stated that they are aware of an incident reporting system, and that in their capacity as drivers, they are obliged to report any incidents. However, not everyone is aware of this system. The interviews also revealed that the level of actual reporting fluctuates. Some expressed that they report to traffic management, group managers and also issue written reports. Some participants stated that they report to the group manager, and others said that they do not report at all. Two different reasons were disclosed when asking those not reporting, despite being familiar with the reporting system, why this is not done. One reason is associated with the feeling of having to do the reporting in their leisure time, i.e., after the end of the working day, and uncertainty around whether they will get paid for the time spent writing the report. Infringement on one’s leisure time is perceived as unattractive. The second reason has to do with lack of motivation. It is rooted in uncertainty about what the reporting ultimately leads to, hence these drivers do not see the point of reporting.
The vehicles’ role in relation to threats and violence
In the interviews, aspects relating to the buses in relation to threats and violence was also discussed. Three topics were particularly highlighted by the drivers. One revolved around alarm buttons, for drivers to press if a threatening situation arises, installed on the buses. The alarm goes directly to traffic control who in turn calls the police if needed. The location of the alarm buttons within the driver compartment was one topic in focus:
“They [the alarm buttons] are in different places on different busses. That day when my life is threatened, where should I start to look for the button? Is it there, there or there? How would I know? It should be in the same place regardless of what bus I am driving!”
As illustrated here, alarm buttons have been located differently within the compartment on different buses, which is distressing for the driver. According to this driver, the location should be standardized so that the alarm button can be found immediately in case of emergency. Different locations create anxiety among drivers.
The second topic brought up by the drivers is the design of driver compartments, specifically in relation to whether it should be shielded from passengers or not. The notion among the drivers whether this is a good idea or not is mixed. Roughly half of the drivers interviewed in this study thought shielding is a good idea, and they also valued the feeling of privacy and not having to interact with passengers at all. The other half did not like the idea of ‘being caged in’ at all, and think it is an unsuitable measure to tackle the problem of threats and violence. These drivers also value the daily social interaction with passengers and regard it as one of the key benefits of the job.
A third topic mentioned by the drivers in relation to vehicles was surveillance cameras. Currently, buses are equipped with surveillance cameras continuously recording what is happening onboard. The data is only saved for a limited time (72 hours most often). However, in Sweden the material can only be used in legal processes (investigations, trials, etc.) and a warrant must have been issued by an authority in order to access the recordings. Hence, footage from the surveillance cameras is not accessible to the drivers nor the bus operator. Nevertheless, some bus drivers believe that signage informing passengers that camera surveillance is installed on the bus should be more visible. Regarding other cameras, they are usually mounted by the doors with a monitor for the driver located in the driver compartment. However, according to the drivers these cameras do not allow for surveilling the overall picture of what is happening on the bus (as they only monitor the doors). Some drivers mentioned that they would like more cameras, directed towards the passenger compartment, which would help them gain a better view of the bus.
Discussion
Urban bus drivers report that they receive daily threats from passengers, although physical violence occurs less often. One major reason for threats according to the drivers involve asking passengers for valid tickets, denying child carriages onboard and arriving late at a bus stop. The drivers experience that there is no clear strategy communicated to them about desired ways of handling invalid ticket situations.
The results show that it is less common for bus drivers to experience physical violence today, as a result of discontinuing cash payments. Still, drivers frequently receive verbal threats causing them problems and an extra workload. Most conflicts involve ticket inspection and payments. The starting point for incidents escalating to conflicts is the driver requesting a valid ticket from a passenger. The drivers expressed different strategies for managing ticket inspection situations, and what they do if passengers do not have a valid ticket. From the driver’s point of view, the bus operator and the Public Transportation Authority has not issued any clear instructions for how they should act. Some even perceive that the view of different stakeholders differ on this matter. Harmonizing guidelines to safeguard drivers not being exposed to extra demanding situations would therefore be recommended. Although the operating company might have a strategy in place, it is not cohesively communicated to the drivers, hence, to have an impact it is also necessary to communicate any strategies to the drivers.
Closely related to the ticketing issue is the drivers’ experience of not being respectfully treated by passengers. With regard to occupational social status, being a bus driver is rated 86 out of the 100 most common occupations in Sweden [20]. A bus driver’s low social status is reflected in how they are viewed and treated by passengers. The bus driver's argument behind this is that they are ‘performing a job they are paid for and passengers ‘benefit from their service and should also pay for it’. This means that even though there might be recommendations for how to manage ticket inspections and what action to take, working towards increasing the status for bus drivers in society at large would still be required. One solution for reducing the risk of threats and violence towards bus drivers is to completely release them from the task of controlling ticketing and instead rely on random controls by staff not employed to drive the bus, similar to the system operated on trains and trams. However, as it has not been established what the consequences would be, this change may simply result in moving the problem to a different group of employees [3].
Earlier research has found that persons scoring high on the extroversion scale were associated with significant risk for work related threats, and that supervisors violence prevention behavior were of significant importance [23]. For bus drivers this might be valuable to take advantage of and carefully select supervisors for extrovert bus drivers in order to reduce the risk of aggressive interaction strategies facing passengers without a valid ticket. In addition, it might be good to also have a deeper look at the bus driver work in general. A study on work related threats and violence in human service domain showed that quantitative demands, high emotional demands, low level of influence over own work-situation, low predictability, low rewards at work, low role clarity, many role conflicts, many work-family conflicts and low organizational justice had statistically significant associations with high levels of work-related threats [24]. For city bus drivers, stress and cognitive overload is demanding [8]. From the results achieved in this study also the role conflicts in terms of driving the bus and control of valid tickets support a risk for increased risk of threats.
In a review by Shreeavtar [25] it was summarized that preventative strategies for minimizing the risk of workplace violence include, cash-handling policies, physical separation of workers from customers, environmental modifications; good lighting, security devices, escort services, and employee training. For the bus drivers several of these factors are relevant to consider; especially those related to cash (or ticketing) handling policies and employee training.
The fact that drivers experience daily threats illuminates that the risk of this type of behaviour is becoming more and more normalized. Thus it is seen as a common part of the job, which also has an impact on the underreporting of such situations [26]. Underreporting of threats and violence against bus drivers is a known phenomenon in previous studies, reporting that only 10% of the events are reported [18]. This is problematic in general, and more so when acknowledging the prevalence of violence and threats. In this study underreporting is also evident among drivers. The main reasons for not reporting include the notion that reporting would have to be done during unpaid time after work, without seeing that reporting results in something useful and valuable over time, i.e., new routines. The incident reporting process could be more efficient and generate better material to understand the process behind the incident, therefore it is vital to address these driver-related issues.
Installing technical solutions onboard would be one way of supporting bus drivers during critical situations, e.g., cameras, alarm buttons, mirrors, fences, etc. For the procured traffic in Sweden in 2014, approximately 61% of buses were equipped with safety belts, 93% with Breath Alcohol Control systems and 59% were equipped with cameras to track passengers [1]. Apart from cameras fitted by the doors, the police can only use installed surveillance cameras in cases of crime investigation, hence drivers are not authorized to use the surveillance cameras to monitor what is happening onboard. However, the bus drivers in this study did express that they thought it should be communicated clearer, through signage for instance, that surveillance cameras had been installed as a preventative measure. Some drivers would also like more cameras to gain a better view of what is happening on the bus, thus complementing the door-mounted cameras. It should be highlighted that cameras fitted to support bus drivers in monitoring the passenger compartment must be mounted such that they do not distract the driver, since the cognitive load of driving a city bus is high [4].
Bus drivers are exposed to driving several different brands of buses equipped with alarm buttons onboard. However, they are difficult to find since the location differ on different buses, hence harmonizing the position of alarm buttons is recommended.
Methodological notes
This study has been based on in-depth interviews of bus drivers working in Malmö, Sweden. The study contributes valuable knowledge concerning how threats and violence are experienced by drivers in their everyday work as well as other related aspects. The study was carried out in Malmö, Sweden, however the results should also be transferrable to other contexts which are similar to Malmö, such as other Swedish cities [18]. However, the transferability of the results is not unlikely to stretch beyond a Swedish context, as similar conditions also could prevail elsewhere. Given the methodological approach, the study cannot answer statistical questions such as how often threats and violence occur. Other methods should be used for those types of questions, which is also recommended for any future studies.
Conclusion
The following recommendations are made based on the findings in this study: Clear policies and consensus between stakeholders with regard to the question of handling invalid/lacking tickets and refusal to pay the fare. Guidelines and communication initiatives to drivers about the procedure for handling passengers without a valid ticket, to avoid negative interaction strategies. It is important to establish a clear strategy for bus drivers with regard to reporting threats and violence, including how to issue reports as well as how the reports will be used. Installing cameras that beside supporting the police would also be available to support drivers. Since the time frame for extracting data is limited and only the police are authorized to access footage, the time frame should be expanded and access should also be given to the operator. Informing passengers that surveillance cameras are operating onboard. Harmonizing the location of the alarm button on all buses.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
This study was made possible thanks to funding from AFA Insurance, an organization owned by the Swedish labor market parties. We would also like to acknowledge the participating bus drivers and the operator that shared their time and views on threats and violence as well as Christina Scholten at Malmö University for all her valuable input.
Conflict of interest
There are no potential conflicts of interest that could influence the authors’ interpretation of the data.