• Messages should be simple, consistent, and written in plain language so that bystanders can easily understand them.
• To specifically address those at risk for suicide, information can be given to recognize warning signs and behaviors [4]. For example, the “Small Talk Saves Lives” campaign aims to empower the public to engage in small talk if they see someone who may be at risk (see Additional Resources for more information).
• Messaging can be displayed at stations to encourage passengers to download dedicated apps to report trespassing or suspicious activity [6], or to easily access emergency, mental health, and other services.
• Messaging can include contact information for rail staff, rail police, or helplines. A call button for rail police may also provide quicker access for the public when faced with time-critical situations.
• Alongside messaging, a simple gesture of distraction can be included in non-verbal interactions of bystanders, such as eye contact or smiling at someone. This can be a useful type of intervention if the individual does not appear to be in direct danger and can be used to engage with that individual to see if further help is needed [7].

• This measure can enhance public awareness about rail safety and the dangers of trespassing.
• This measure can raise public awareness about the warning signs of a variety of risks, including suicide, trespass, human trafficking, domestic violence, and other situations, which can also be beneficial outside of the rail environment.
• Passenger engagement can give riders a feeling of community and the confidence to recognize and act to intervene when others are at risk.
• Many communication mediums can be used to convey information to the public at a relatively low cost, such as posters or social media.
• These campaigns can be implemented in both manned and unmanned stations as well as platforms along the right-of-way.

• Messaging materials will need periodic updating to keep the content current, maintain passenger attention, and update the physical condition of the material.
• Individuals intervening may place themselves in danger and could also suffer psychological trauma from the event if the intervention is not successful [5].

[1] Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215–221. [PubMed link]

Abstract: Male undergraduates found themselves in a smoke-filled room either alone, with 2 nonreacting others, or in groups of 3. As predicted, Ss were less likely to report the smoke when in the presence of passive others (10%) or in groups of 3 (38% of groups) than when alone (75%). This result seemed to have been mediated by the way Ss interpreted the ambiguous situation; seeing other people remain passive led Ss to decide the smoke was not dangerous.

[2] Faul, M., Aikman, S. N., & Sasser, S. M. (2016). Bystander intervention prior to the arrival of emergency medical services: comparing assistance across types of medical emergencies. Prehospital Emergency Care, 20(3), 317-323. [PubMed link]

Abstract: To determine the situational circumstances associated with bystander interventions to render aid during a medical emergency.  This study examined 16.2 million Emergency Medical Service (EMS) events contained within the National Emergency Medical Services Information System. The records of patients following a 9-1-1 call for emergency medical assistance were analyzed using logistic regression to determine what factors influenced bystander interventions. The dependent variable of the model was whether a bystander intervened. EMS providers recorded bystander assistance 11% of the time. The logistic regression model correctly predicted bystander intervention occurrence 71.4% of the time. Bystanders were more likely to intervene when the patient was male (aOR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.12-1.3) and if the patient was older (progressive aOR = 1.10, 1.46 age group 20-29 through age group 60-99). Bystanders were less likely to intervene in rural areas compared to urban areas (aOR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.58-0.59). The highest likelihood of bystander intervention occurred in a residential institution (aOR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.85-1.86) and the lowest occurred on a street or a highway (aOR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96). Using death as a reference group, bystanders were most likely to intervene when the patient had cardiac distress/chest pain (aOR = 11.38, 95% CI = 10.93-11.86), followed by allergic reaction (aOR = 7.63, 95% CI = 7.30-7.99), smoke inhalation (aOR = 6.65, 95% CI = 5.98-7.39), and respiration arrest/distress (aOR = 6.43, 95% CI = 6.17-6.70). A traumatic injury was the most commonly recorded known event, and it was also associated with a relatively high level of bystander intervention (aOR = 5.81, 95% CI = 5.58-6.05). The type of injury/illness that prompted the lowest likelihood of bystander assistance was Sexual Assault/Rape (aOR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.32-1.84) followed by behavioral/psychiatric disorder (aOR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.57-1.71). Bystander intervention varies greatly on situational factors and the type of medical emergency. A higher risk of patient death is likely to prompt bystander action. These novel study results can lead to more effective first aid training programs.

[3] Potts, J., & Lynch, B. (2010). Stepping forward or shrinking back: Psychological factors in bystanders’ decisions to act (or not). Resuscitation, 81(2), S47.

Abstract: Purpose: Bystander CPR is a strong predictor of survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), but the incidence of bystander CPR is low, even among those who have been trained. Until the mid-80s most of the research literature on bystander response in emergencies was not in the realm of OHCA; however, more recently, studies of OHCA have begun to generate significant observational data related to bystander response. This literature review incorporates both the cognitive and social psychological research and the research specific to OHCA, to elucidate the factors that appear to be at work in bystander intervention decisions.

Materials and methods: The following criteria were developed for initial inclusion of research literature in the review: published in English between 1964 and 2010; keywords bystander, bystander intervention, bystander effect, helping behavior, bystander CPR, unresponsive bystander, and helping in an emergency. Databases included: MEDLINE, Psychological & Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Education and ERIC. Experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies were all included if they met the other criteria. The initial search produced 59 seed articles. The references of these articles were examined to secure additional relevant articles.

Results: The extant research clearly shows that decisions about whether to act in an emergency is a complex process that can be mediated by many factors: characteristics of the rescuer and of the victim, knowledge and experience of the rescuer, dynamics of the social group and of the situation, and social and cultural norms that define and reinforce helping behavior.

Conclusions: Public education efforts to increase the incidence of bystander CPR should address the problem at all of the identified levels. Suggestions for tailoring prospective educational programs, media messages and “just-in-time” training (such as dispatcher instructions or cell phone prompting) to improve the odds of bystander response will be presented.

[4] Mackenzie J, Borrill J, Hawkins E, Fields, B., Kruger, I., Noonan, I., & Marzano, L. (2018).  Behaviours preceding suicides at railway and underground locations: a multimethodological qualitative approach. BMJ Open 8(4), e021076. [PubMed link]

Abstract: Suicides by train have devastating consequences for families, the rail industry, staff dealing with the aftermath of such incidents and potential witnesses. To reduce suicides and suicide attempts by rail, it is important to learn how safe interventions can be made. However, very little is known about how to identify someone who may be about to make a suicide attempt at a railway location (including underground/subways). The current research employed a novel way of understanding what behaviours might immediately precede a suicide or suicide attempt at these locations. A qualitative thematic approach was used for three parallel studies. Data were gathered from several sources, including interviews with individuals who survived a rail suicide attempt (n=9), CCTV footage of individuals who died by rail suicide (n=16) and qualitative survey data providing views from rail staff (n=79). Our research suggests that there are several behaviours that people may carry out before a suicide or suicide attempt at a rail location, including station hopping and platform switching, limiting contact with others, positioning themselves at the end of the track where the train/tube approaches, allowing trains to pass by and carrying out repetitive behaviours. There are several behaviours that may be identifiable in the moments leading up to a suicide or suicide attempt on the railways which may present opportunities for intervention. These findings have implications for several stakeholders, including rail providers, transport police and other organisations focused on suicide prevention.

[5] Ngo, N. V., Gregor, S. D., Beavan, G., & Riley, B. (2022). The role of bystanders in the prevention of railway suicides in New South Wales, Australia. Crisis, 43(5).

Abstract: Bystanders can play a key role in preventing railway suicides by taking direct action or by raising an alarm. Aims: The study investigated in this context: (1) the prevalence of preventative actions by bystanders; (2) the relationship, if any, between first-hand preventions by bystanders and the degree of ambiguity around the imminence of danger; and (3) the nature of first-hand preventions by bystanders. Method: Data were obtained from a security reporting database at Sydney Trains for 2011–2019 for accident and suicide-related incidents (N = 1,278). Results: In 635 cases of suicide prevention, bystanders were identified as first responders in 11% of cases and as raising the alarm in 11% of cases. Bystanders as first responders intervened proportionally more where the ambiguity of danger is low (jumping) compared with high (sitting, standing, wandering). Of the 69 cases of bystander preventions, 77% involved physical interaction (e.g., holding back) and 49% involved more than one bystander. Limitations: The data source could be biased because of incompleteness or nonstandard reporting. Conclusion: Rail policy-makers should consider education and support for bystanders and staff: for example, by making known the prevalence of helping, the importance of intervening, and what types of intervention are most helpful.

[6] Lin, P.-S., Kourtellis, A., Islam, M., Menon, N., Godfrey, J., & Keita, Y. (2022). FTA standards development program:  Mitigations for trespasser and suicide fatalities and injuries. (FTA No. 0227). Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration. 

Abstract: This research focused on mitigation strategies and countermeasures that may be used by rail transit agencies (RTAs) to reduce trespasser and suicide fatalities and injuries, including RTA practices and practical and promising strategies and countermeasures. This report can serve as a toolbox for RTAs to provide mitigation strategies identified from a literature review and employed by RTAs, including 11 case studies; promising existing and emerging technology applications to detect and/or prevent rail transit trespassing and suicides; and key research findings for mitigating injuries and fatalities associated with trespassing and suicide events.

[7] Katsampa, D., Mackenzie, J. M., Crivatu, I., & Marzano, L. (2022). Intervening to prevent suicide at railway locations: findings from a qualitative study with front-line staff and rail commuters. BJPsych Open, 8(2). [PubMed Link]

Background: For every suicide on the British railway network, at least six potential attempts are interrupted by front-line staff or rail commuters. However, the factors that maximise or hinder the likelihood and effectiveness of such interventions are poorly understood.

Additional Resources

Pearce, J. M., Parker, D., Lindekilde, L., Bouhana, N., & Rogers, M. B. (2019). Encouraging public reporting of suspicious behaviour on rail networks. Policing and Society, 1-19.

Abstract: Ongoing targeting of mass transit networks and the challenges associated with policing these large open systems means that encouraging public vigilance and reporting on railways is a counter-terrorism priority. There is, however, surprisingly little research on motivations and barriers to cooperating with the police in this context. This paper contributes to this under-researched field by presenting the findings of a survey experiment which examined (1) the role of uncertainty as a barrier for reporting suspicious behaviour on rail networks, (2) whether drivers for cooperation established in the context of traditional crime hold for reporting suspicious behaviour at train stations, and (3) whether the UK ‘See it. Say it. Sorted’ campaign is effective in encouraging reporting. Data was collected in the UK and Denmark, national contexts with differing baseline attitudes towards the police and experiences of transit terrorist attacks, to assess the extent to which public vigilance campaigns need to be adapted to address local concerns. Results suggest that future public vigilance campaigns should address differences in lay and official definitions of suspicious behaviour to reduce uncertainty as a barrier to reporting. They also demonstrate that the influence of procedural justice on cooperation via its influence on social identification with the police holds beyond the context of community policing and reporting of traditional crime. However, other drivers are likely to be more important for determining reporting suspicious behaviour on rail networks, including perceived benefits of reporting. Theoretical and practical implications of cross-national differences and similarities in responses are discussed.

Collaboration with local government and communities

Collaboration with suicide prevention groups

Identify funding opportunities

Incident cost estimation

Public messaging to prevent suicide

Public messaging to prevent trespassing

Social atmosphere in stations

Training to identify and assist those at risk for suicide and trespassing