Security for women and nonsense statistics

A recent interview I watched pitted a male presenter against a feminist activist over the question of whether women-only train carriages are an appropriate response to the disturbingly common sexual assault reported on the London Underground. The activist opened poorly by citing a familiar but often misused statistic: that over 95% of sexual assaults on trains are committed by men. From this she implied that all men are potential perpetrators. The presenter, understandably indignant, countered with the standard defence: “surely not all men are perpetrators”.

What followed was the usual unproductive back-and-forth about statistics: a conversation that clarified nothing and prevented a deeper engagement with the real issues.

The statistics generally quoted (using UK-based figures) go something like this: yes, sexual assault offenders are almost always male, and yes, roughly one-quarter of men report having committed some form of sexual misconduct when asked in anonymous surveys. On the surface, then, a carriage of 50 people, 25 men and 25 women, might contain around eight “perpetrators”. That framing leads to the alarming claim that any woman is almost certainly sitting or standing beside a perpetrator.

But despite sounding mathematically plausible, this is nonsense.

The “one-quarter of men” figure is derived from surveys asking men whether they have ever behaved inappropriately; questions equivalent to: “Have you ever groped someone without clear consent?” A young man might answer “yes”, but add crucial context: “I was 18, drunk at a party, and at the time didn’t understand consent properly. As an older adult I now see that behaviour as unacceptable.” In other words, the statistic counts past, often adolescent behaviour that many men outgrow as their brains, judgement, and attitudes mature.

Brain development matters here. Men’s brains do not fully mature until around age 25, and anti-social or sexually inappropriate behaviour is disproportionately concentrated in younger males. All credible studies show that nearly nine in ten sexual offences are committed by men under 25.

Now return to our hypothetical train carriage. In a typical Western age distribution, only around one man in the carriage would be under 25 (roughly: 1 aged under 25, 4 in their 20s–30s, 8 in their 40s–50s, and 13 in their 60s–70s). Statistically, therefore, a woman’s chance of standing next to a likely offender is closer to 8%; still not zero, but nothing like the “one in four men next to you” claim.

If we overlay actual assault frequencies, the picture becomes even clearer. Transport Victoria recorded around 3,000 reported sexual offences over two years out of 1.2 billion passenger trips. Even if we assume ten times that number (30,000 actual incidents), the probability of an assault per trip is around 0.0025%.

To put this into perspective, a person is statistically more likely to die in a car accident, an aircraft accident, a fire, be struck by lightning, be hit by a falling tree limb, or drown. By comparison, travelling by train is extraordinarily safe.

And yet this is exactly where statistics fail us.

Those 30,000 assaults, reported or unreported, are not abstractions. They are human traumas. So, the question is not, “How unlikely is an assault?”, but rather, “How do we design environments that materially reduce risk and meaningfully improve women’s sense of safety?”

Here, design, not statistical argument, actually saves lives.

Design Principles That Reduce Sexual Offending

1. Visibility and sightlines

Sexual offenders rely on low visibility: shadows, blind corners, obscured approaches, and areas where others cannot see victims. Safety improves dramatically with:

bright, even lighting (no dark pockets or strong contrasts)
transparent materials (glass instead of opaque panels)
open sightlines; elimination of alcoves and blind spots
mirrors around corners and in vestibules

2. Passenger density and flow

Harassment increases in crowded, static, or bottlenecked spaces. Mitigation requires:

open standing spaces near doors
wide, unobstructed aisles
seating aligned inward rather than face-to-face
distributed grab-rails and handholds
design that reduces clustering and forced bodily proximity

3. Visible surveillance

Most offenders are not shadowy strangers but ordinary men relying on low detection probability. Effective deterrence includes:

highly visible cameras
live CCTV screens (“You are being monitored right now”)
full-carriage camera coverage
high-quality low-light video

4. Avoiding constrained spaces

Offenders exploit spaces where victims cannot easily exit. Good design requires:

multiple platform exits
open concourses
avoidance of single narrow stairwells
long corridor sightlines

5. Human guardianship

Perceived monitoring reduces offending. Effective measures include:

predictable staff presence on platforms and trains
visible uniforms
designated “staff zone” carriages at night
simple reporting mechanisms (QR codes, SMS lines)

These principles can be integrated into broader station and carriage design in powerful ways.