London Tube safety under scrutiny as assaults and graffiti rise

Violent attacks, theft, harassment and sexual incidents on London’s Underground have sparked renewed criticism of Transport for London and the mayor, with passengers reporting a rise in danger on the network. A wave of graffiti and litter has compounded concerns that staff presence and policing are not keeping pace with the transit system’s needs. The criticism comes as a 2023 bystander-intervention policy promoted by TfL and the police remains in place, prompting debate over whether passengers should be asked to step in when a crime is unfolding.

The debate centers on a three-step bystander strategy introduced in January 2023 in partnership with British Transport Police and the Metropolitan Police. The plan urges would-be witnesses to distract a perpetrator, record details about the incident, and offer support to the victim. Critics say the approach places vulnerable riders at risk and relies on shoulder-to-shoulder vigilance rather than visible policing or staff presence. In the meantime, posters reproducing the slogan “See it. Say it. Sorted” have been rolled out again, with a text number—61016—provided for reports of unusual behavior. Critics contend that the phrase has become a hollow reassurance amid persistent incidents on the network.

The broader context cited by critics includes a series of high-profile incidents and a broader air of menace on the Tube. In August, the killing of Samuel Winter, a 28-year-old AI engineer who authorities say was struck by a single punch after brushing past a passerby at Southwark station, underscored the stakes of safety for riders. The assailant, Rakeem Miles, was sentenced to eight years in prison. Although authorities emphasized that the case was complex, supporters of a tougher approach argue that such violence illustrates the consequences of lax enforcement and the gaps in routine policing on the network.

Singapore, by contrast, is offered as a benchmark. In that city-state, authorities maintain a tight timetable of enforcement and swift consequences for assault, with explicit messaging that sexual offences will be punished. Advocates argue this contrast shows a different balance between deterrence and bystander intervention, suggesting that London could pursue a more assertive approach to deterring violent behavior on public transit.

The op-ed notes that, despite these incidents, bystander interventions have faced questions about safety and practicality. If a passenger intervenes—whether by blocking a suspect, drawing attention, or assisting a victim—they risk becoming a target themselves or misreading a situation. The piece also highlights the perception that police would disrupt a commotion rather than resolve it, and that reporting incidents can be tedious with uncertain outcomes.

In personal testimony tied to the piece, the author recounts an assault outside a Tube station earlier this year and notes that he did not file a police report. He describes a lack of faith in the system’s ability to address the damage or pursue accountability, and he describes an attempt to channel frustration into action by joining a grassroots effort to clean graffiti from carriages. The group—associated with a campaign for reduced crime and improved safety—carried out a targeted cleanup, filming a video urging TfL to provide support for community-led improvements rather than policing-by-absence.

TfL’s response to such efforts has stirred controversy. During a London Assembly session, TfL Commissioner Andy Lord urged residents not to take matters into their own hands, a stance the author characterized as an abdication of responsibility. A subsequent Freedom of Information request reportedly found no recorded evidence supporting assertions that volunteers had vandalized trains, though the initial claim by TfL officials intensified the disagreement over who bears responsibility for the state of the system and the safety of its riders.

Beyond the immediate incidents, critics argue that the Tube’s environment—graffiti-covered carriages and a sense of disorder—contributes to a climate of fear, particularly among women and other vulnerable riders. While many cases go unreported, social media has amplified attention to episodes that appear to illustrate broader patterns of harassment and inappropriate behavior. The author cautions against turning a blind eye to violence and advocates for a more proactive, holistic approach to safety that combines visible policing, staff presence, and supported community-led initiatives to restore a sense of security.

The piece also places London’s current safety challenges in a longer arc of structural change within TfL and the city’s governance. The 2016 launch of the Night Tube and the subsequent expansion of the network’s slogan have become symbols in a broader conversation about how best to balance customer experience, crime deterrence and the operational realities of running one of the world’s largest metropolitan transit systems. The author calls for clearer accountability, sustained funding for transit policing, and a faster, more transparent mechanism for reporting and resolving safety incidents.

As riders continue to use the Underground, advocates say safety must become more than a slogan. They argue that restoring confidence will require consistent staffing, stronger policing presence, and a public safety culture that does not rely on passengers to police each other. In the wake of fatal incidents and ongoing reports of harassment and vandalism, the conversation is likely to intensify in the weeks ahead as policymakers weigh how to balance civil liberties with the need to protect riders and workers alike.