Страница 3: ДСТУ CEN/TR 14383-7:2014. Prevention of crime - Urban planning and building design - Part 7: Design and management of public transport facilities (62094)

Over and above the rules on general location running, which are implemented by the location controllers (passenger carrier, location manager), quality of life in public transport spaces hinges on the way the public actually takes ownership of the location and its functions. This positive ownership includes informal surveillance (by passengers), occupancy rates, individual empowerment and the information control of incidents, natural respect for the spaces themselves and the functions offered by the location.

Key points to hone in on include how lively the spaces are, where they are positioned, whether they are relatively isolated from the rest, making it equally important to check whether they are exposed to safety problems (repeated vandalism, perceived insecurity, etc.) and to look into the options for physically or visually drawing the public spaces together in order to improve the potential for informal surveillance.

1. Are there any specific actions planned to provide safety during downtime in location occupancy?

2. Are there specific activities which can be introduced/relocated to improve the time-span of natural surveillance?

3. Do specific spaces need activity and lighting during nighttime?

1. Does the location operations plan include drafting and publishing a clear code of conduct governing the public spaces?

2. Has it been made easy for users to clearly understand the rules defined by location managers?

3. Do these rules increase the sense of responsibility towards the public space?

4. Do managers and surveillance officers check that these rules are applied, and do they issue timely reminders?

5. Is it necessary to plan communication initiatives between managers, surveillance officers and users of the space?

6. Is it necessary to issue a document (personnel regulations policy) to clarify the rules in terms of controlling conduct, maintenance, and crime prevention?

7. Does the project plan to issue guidance documents explaining the rules to users of public transport- dedicated spaces?

8. Will users be able to easily get information and to ask managers for help or assistance?

9. In order to enhance the feeling of security for users and reduce the risk of crime, is it necessary to communicate on prevention measures?

10. What public awareness-raising initiatives targeting potential users will be implemented to increase the sense of responsibility towards the public transport-dedicated spaces?

11. How will current users from the local neighbourhood be integrated into the project so that they are encouraged to use the location without vandalizing it or committing violence?

1. Does the project take into account the whole population, both on location and those likely to come on location (homeless, drug-dependents)?

2. Does the project include assistance for the disabled and for socially vulnerable groups?

3. Have plans been made to create an effective partnership between welfare workers and location managers?

Legibility, here, is defined as logical consistency between the status, function, use patterns and management approaches of the spaces and sub-spaces making up the location. It implies that the roles of these spaces are instantly understandable with clearly ranked levels of importance. Legibility translates as a kind of implicit communication that encourages passengers and location users to feel ownership of the premises, and to instantly understand where they need to go, despite the complexity of the location. This legibility instils a certain familiarity with the premises, even for first-time users, thus reducing any feeling of insecurity or having to be on the lookout.

1. Does the design of the space clearly signpost its purpose (waiting rooms, sales, boarding)? In particular, is there explicit differentiation between free access and conditional access (e.g. holding a valid travel ticket) areas?

2. Is the signposting system regularly reviewed, and if necessary updated, to give users an immediate and reassuring understanding of where they need to go?

3. Has the lighting system been designed in such a way as to provide location users with a reassuring level of visibility? Are the visual design criteria applied to the lighting system compatible with the level of lighting needed to reassure the various publics using the spaces?

1. Does the project or the space itself help the surveillance and intervention missions of officers and agents tasked with maintaining law and order? Are the spaces accessible and visible to patrols, or is the location configuration geared to islanding?

2. Are security and safety services (public and private intervention services: police, firefighters, emergency ambulance services) guaranteed good accessibility? Have fast, efficient communication channel been provided? Are they regularly tested?

3. Can the location be quickly and safely evacuated (assembly areas, broad access ways, liaison with public highways)? Have evacuation procedures been drafted and issued? Have public awareness initiatives and (or) drills been scheduled?

Have crime prevention initiatives been factored into location or project design: if so, has equipment been planned for social education, outreach programs or community services, or on a broader scale, has the location perimeter been designed to blend in with the local environment or does it mark a clear boundary?Annex A
(informative)
Types of crime against people (including staff) and buildings

A.1 Offence against person

A.1.1 Assault with physical violence (without theft)

A.1.2 Assault without physical violence (without theft)

1. Threat, threatening behaviour

2. Term of abuse, insulting behaviour

3. Spittle

4. 1.3 Sexual assault

1. Rape

2. Attempted rape and/or fondle

3. Exhibitionism

A.1.4 Theft against person

1. Robbery with violence

2. Robbery with threat

3. Picking pockets

A.2 Assault against companies, properties and plants

4. 2.1 Assault against properties and plants by damage and /or destruction

1. Projectile throw

2. Tag, graffiti

3. engraving

4. Arson

5. Other vandalism

6. 2.2 Theft against companies

1. Theft

2. Robbery with violence and /or threat

3. Burglary

4. Swindle

5. Other theft

A.2.3 Threat

1. Alarm ( neutralized or hoax offences )

2. Unattended object ( neutralized or false alert)

A.2.4 Trespass

A.3 Other offence relative to public transport rules and antisocial behaviour

A.3.1 Behavioural offence

1. Teargas jet without victim

2. Crossing railway

3. Crossing ticket barrier

4. Other behavioural offence

5. Introducing pets

6. Resonant devices or instruments uses

7. Street hawking

8. Drug consumption

9. Smoking inside prohibited areas

10. Drunkenness

11. Begging

12. Other

A.3.2 Traffic offence

1. Hindrance to vehicles traffic with people

2. Hindrance to vehicles traffic with object

3. Security system handling

4. Alarm handling

5. Drain the hydraulic system of bus doors

Other handling

Annex В

(informative)
Summary of the process

1 For example, the SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunities, threats) or PESTELGO methods can be used.