New legal requirements are changing how bus operators need to prepare drivers and other passenger-facing staff to recognise and respond to crime and anti-social behaviour.

The change comes against a concerning backdrop of violence and aggression towards people working across public transport.

Crucially, however, the new requirement does not simply ask employees to intervene.

The legislation says staff should be trained to identify and respond appropriately to relevant incidents and, “where safe to do so”, prevent them.

That distinction matters.

Violence and aggression towards transport workers

Recent figures published by the London Assembly provide an indication of the scale of violence and aggression being experienced by frontline transport workers.

In February 2026, the London Assembly reported that there were 10,493 reports of work-related violence and aggression towards transport workers in London during 2023/24.

That equates to approximately 200 reported incidents every week.

Bus drivers have been particularly affected. Incidents involving bus drivers increased from 3,734 in 2020/21 to 4,428 in 2023/24 — an increase of 18.5%.

More recent figures also show substantial numbers of incidents across bus operations. For Q3 2025/26, 1,324 incidents of work-related violence and aggression were reported across bus operations, compared with 434 during Q3 2024/25.

These are reported incidents, and there is reason to believe they may not represent the full extent of the problem.

Following an investigation into violence against transport workers, the London Assembly Transport Committee stated in March 2026 that TfL’s official figures “almost certainly underreport the true scale” because many incidents of work-related violence and aggression go unreported.

The Committee subsequently asked TfL for further information about encouraging reporting, addressing organisational cultures that may normalise assaults, and improving post-incident support and communication for workers affected by violence.

Against this backdrop, new statutory training requirements for the bus industry have now come into force.

What has changed?

Section 34 of the Bus Services Act 2025 introduces a specific training requirement relating to crime and anti-social behaviour.

The provision amends the Transport Act 2000 and requires the holder of a Public Service Vehicle operator’s licence to ensure that the training requirement is fulfilled for relevant personnel.

This includes people who:

• drive a public service vehicle being used to provide a local service; or
• on behalf of the licence holder, deal directly with passengers travelling on local services or with issues relating to those passengers.

The legislation states that training must aim to assist those staff to identify and respond appropriately to:

• criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim to fear for their personal safety; and
• anti-social behaviour as defined within the legislation.

It also requires training to help staff prevent such incidents where safe to do so.

Under the underlying requirement, relevant personnel must have completed the training within the previous five years.

When did the requirement come into force?

The Bus Services Act 2025 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 brought Section 34 fully into force on 5 August 2026.

There are transitional arrangements to give operators time to meet the new requirement.

For someone employed into a relevant role before 5 August 2026, the legislation temporarily substitutes the normal five-year requirement with a deadline of 31 December 2029.

For someone employed into a relevant role on or after 5 August 2026, during the transitional period the corresponding deadline is 31 December 2028.

Operators therefore have time to implement the requirement across their workforce, but the statutory framework itself is now in force.

Further government guidance is expected

The Department for Transport confirmed in its April 2026 policy paper, The Government’s Vision for Buses and Approach to Delivery, that specific guidance on training bus industry staff about crime and anti-social behaviour is due to be published during 2026.

The DfT has indicated that this will address how staff identify crime and anti-social behaviour, respond appropriately and, where safe, help prevent crime, anti-social behaviour and violence against women and girls.

Until that guidance is published, operators should be cautious about assuming exactly what detailed training content or delivery requirements the Government will specify.

However, the legislation and Parliamentary debate already provide some important direction about the intended approach.

How does this relate to Driver CPC?

Although Section 34 introduces a new statutory training requirement, preparing bus drivers for aggression and difficult passenger interactions is not entirely new.

Professional bus and coach drivers generally need 35 hours of periodic Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (Driver CPC) training every five years.

The official Driver CPC syllabus already includes several relevant areas.

Under passenger comfort and safety, it covers managing conflicts between safe driving and other roles as a driver and interacting with passengers. Under emergency situations, it includes assessing the situation, summoning assistance, ensuring passenger safety and reacting in the event of aggression.

That creates an important implementation question for operators: will the new Section 34 requirement sit alongside existing Driver CPC arrangements, or might some or all of it be addressed through suitably designed CPC periodic training?

Until the Department for Transport publishes its detailed guidance, operators should avoid assuming either position.

What organisations can do now is review existing Driver CPC, conflict-management and safety training against the outcomes already stated in Section 34, identify any gaps and be ready to adapt once detailed guidance is available.

What does “where safe to do so” mean in practice?

During Parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation, MPs raised concerns about whether the requirement could result in bus drivers being expected to physically intervene in potentially violent situations.

The Government addressed this directly.

On 3 July 2025, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport Simon Lightwood told the Public Bill Committee that:

“staff will not be expected to put themselves at risk or in danger at any stage.”

He also explained that training on crime and anti-social behaviour would help staff understand ways to “de-escalate and defuse situations” occurring on the bus network.

This provides important context for interpreting the legislation.

An appropriate response does not automatically mean confronting someone or physically intervening.

During the Parliamentary debate, Siân Berry MP gave examples of other possible responses, including calling the police, reporting an incident internally or requesting a review of CCTV.

What is appropriate will depend on the circumstances and the employee’s role.

A driver responsible for a moving vehicle and its passengers may have very different options from somebody working at a bus station or within a larger operational team.

The key question is therefore not simply:

Should this person intervene?

It is:

What is the safest and most appropriate response available in these circumstances?

The bus environment changes the risk

The physical environment matters when making that judgement.

A bus is a confined and mobile workplace. Staff cannot always create distance, move to a safer position or disengage in the same way they might in a station, retail setting or other public-facing environment.

For drivers, the challenge is greater because they may be fixed at the controls while simultaneously responsible for the safe movement of the vehicle and everyone on board.

On double-deck buses, incidents may also develop away from the driver’s immediate line of sight, including on the upper deck, further limiting the options for direct intervention.

The longstanding use of driver assault screens illustrates this point. TfL has described them as a control intended to reduce the consequences of attacks on drivers in an environment where the driver is necessarily static and more vulnerable.

Training therefore needs to sit alongside physical and operational controls, rather than substitute for them.

Preparing staff to de-escalate and make safer decisions

The Government’s specific reference to helping staff de-escalate and defuse situations creates an important consideration for operators preparing for the new requirement.

De-escalation is not simply about trying to make an angry person calm down.

It involves recognising changes in behaviour and risk, communicating in ways that avoid unnecessary escalation and selecting responses appropriate to the circumstances.

Organisations may therefore want to consider whether their current arrangements prepare employees to:

• recognise early indicators of escalation;
• understand how their own communication may influence an interaction;
• maintain appropriate distance and positioning where possible;
• avoid unnecessary confrontation;
• identify when support should be requested; and
• recognise when disengagement is the safer option.

These are not presented as prescribed elements of the forthcoming DfT guidance. They are practical considerations for organisations reviewing how well existing conflict-management arrangements prepare staff for the situations contemplated by the legislation.

This is particularly important because crime and anti-social behaviour do not always develop predictably.

An incident that initially appears relatively minor can change quickly. Other passengers may become involved. Someone may become increasingly aggressive. Intoxication or vulnerability may affect behaviour. The environment or availability of support may change.

Training therefore needs to do more than give staff a fixed instruction for a particular type of incident.

It should help them exercise judgement as circumstances develop.

One practical approach is to help employees continually consider:

• What is happening now?
• Who may be at risk?
• Is the behaviour escalating or reducing?
• What support is available?
• What might happen if I intervene directly?
• Is there a safer alternative?

Dynamic risk assessment is not specified by those words within Section 34 itself, but it is one practical way of supporting the judgement inherent in concepts such as “respond appropriately” and “where safe to do so”.

Training is only one part of staff safety

The scale of violence and aggression towards transport workers also demonstrates why training should not be considered in isolation.

The London Assembly Transport Committee’s March 2026 investigation raised broader concerns around reporting, organisational culture and post-incident support.

Operators may therefore also want to consider:

• Do staff know how and when to report incidents?
• Is reporting actively encouraged?
• Do employees believe reports will be taken seriously?
• Can staff easily summon assistance?
• Are patterns in violence and aggression reviewed?
• Are employees supported following frightening or violent incidents?
• Is learning from incidents used to inform risk controls and future training?

These are organisational considerations rather than additional requirements created by Section 34.

However, they are relevant when considering whether training forms part of an effective wider approach to workplace safety.

Eight questions operators can consider now

Detailed DfT guidance is still expected, but operators do not necessarily need to wait before reviewing their current arrangements.

1. Which employees fall within the new requirement?

Section 34 is not restricted to drivers. Operators should identify other relevant personnel who deal directly with passengers or passenger-related issues.

2. When will relevant staff need to complete training?

Organisations should understand the transitional deadlines and how the subsequent five-year training requirement will apply to their workforce.

3. Does existing training address crime and anti-social behaviour?

Current programmes can be reviewed against the outcomes already explicitly contained within the legislation.

4. How does this relate to existing Driver CPC training?

Operators can identify relevant content already covered through CPC while remaining ready to respond to further DfT guidance about how the statutory requirement should be implemented.

5. Are staff clear about the range of responses available to them?

Employees should understand that the safest and most appropriate response will depend on the circumstances and will not always involve direct intervention.

6. Does training prepare employees to recognise and manage escalation?

This includes recognising changes in risk, adapting communication and knowing when to seek support or disengage.

7. Can employees make dynamic safety decisions?

Training should support staff to assess what is happening, who may be at risk and whether a safer alternative to direct intervention is available.

8. Do organisational arrangements support the training?

Effective reporting, access to assistance, post-incident support and learning from incidents can help ensure training sits within a wider approach to staff safety.

From compliance to safer decision-making

The Bus Services Act 2025 creates a significant new training requirement for the bus industry.

It also arrives against a backdrop of substantial reported violence and aggression towards transport workers, making the issue relevant both to regulatory compliance and wider workforce safety.

For operators, the challenge is therefore not simply to provide another piece of mandatory training.

It is to consider whether frontline employees have the knowledge, judgement and practical skills they need to recognise risk and choose an appropriate response when confronted by crime, aggression or anti-social behaviour — while understanding that their own safety remains a critical consideration.

Supporting safer passenger transport

Maybo has worked with passenger transport organisations for decades to help prevent and manage workplace conflict and violence.

Our approach focuses on understanding behaviour and risk, developing practical communication and de-escalation skills, and helping employees make safer decisions during potentially challenging interactions.

As operators prepare for the new requirements, Maybo can support organisations in reviewing existing Driver CPC and conflict-management training, identifying gaps against Section 34 and considering how training fits alongside physical, operational and post-incident safety controls as further DfT guidance is published.