Should noisy phone calls on public transport be illegal?

In the UK, the Liberal Democrats have proposed a nationwide ban on the behaviour. Those playing music or videos from their phones on public transport, or while waiting at bus or train stations, face a maximum fine of £1,000 (AU$2000) under an amendment to the bus services bill, which is currently going through parliament.

If the amendment was accepted, the ban would be accompanied by a publicity campaign to ensure public transport users are fully aware of the consequences of not using headphones in regulated areas. The UK is not the first nation to introduce bans on particular antisocial behaviours. If the laws are amended to reflect a greater government intervention on such behaviours, it’s likely other countries will pursue similar revenue-raising bans.

In France, a man – “David”, 54 years old, according to French broadcaster BFM TV – at Nantes station was fined €200 ($AU356) in February this year for making a call on loudspeaker to his sister while in a designated quiet area of the station. A railway employee from SNCF approached David and warned him that he would be fined €150 ($AU267) if he did not take his call off loudspeaker.

When David defied the request, he was fined the higher amount as a result of not paying on the spot. He is disputing the fine via a lawyer. In this case, the fine was issued by a security staff member under noise control regulations rather than national laws banning the use of mobile phones on loudspeaker in public places. The French Transport Code provides for imposition of fines if individuals use “sound devices or instruments” or “disturb the peace of others by noise” in areas used for public transport.

In late April this year, Portugal’s Transport and Mobility Authority (AMT) launched a campaign to monitor and control the inappropriate use of mobile phone volume on public transport. Excessive mobile phone noise will result in individuals receiving a fine of between 50 euros ($AU89) and 250 euros ($AU443), as this will be considered an offence of lack of civility.

In Finland, the Helsinki Regional Transport Authority (HSL) launched a “peaceful journeys” campaign to address public frustration at loud phone use on public transport. A message is delivered on transport advising people to avoid speakerphone use or loud playing of videos or audio. There isn’t a specific law prohibiting loud phone use, however.

Public appetite for bans

Last year, a polling survey by YouGov in the UK found that 86 per cent of 2,005 adults in Great Britain felt the use of speakerphone in a shared environment was unacceptable, while 88 per cent felt the same for speaking loudly.

Presently, the UK’s railway by-laws state that the use of any equipment to produce sound which annoys another person is not allowed, unless there is written permission, and a fine may be issued. In “quiet zones” or “quiet carriages”, which operate in London, and parts of France and Italy, there is a particular emphasis on observing the by-laws. Is this a cultural concern that some countries don’t experience? Perhaps. In Japan and South Korea, such behaviour is considered offensive and there are notifications on the website for the Japanese national transport operator that advises passengers to conduct calls quietly or via earbuds and headphones. In South Korea, signage on public transport advises for phones to be in vibrate mode.

The Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson for home affairs, Lisa Smart, told the Guardian that “far too many people dread their daily commute because of the blight of antisocial behaviour – and headphone dodgers playing loud music on buses and trains are some of the worst offenders.

“Whether you’re heading to work, taking your kids to school or simply trying to enjoy a moment of peace, everyone deserves to feel safe and respected on public transport.

“Time and time again, I hear from people who say they feel too intimidated to speak up when someone is blasting music or other content from a phone or speaker. It’s time to take a stand for the quiet majority who just want to get from A to B in peace.”

The proposed ban has been embraced by the Conservatives on the basis that it is properly enforced. The Conservatives’ transport secretary, Gareth Bacon, said, “Everyone deserves to travel in peace. Playing loud music on public transport may seem like a small thing, but it speaks towards a growing tolerance of antisocial behaviour that chips away at public civility.”

Australian public transport users face diverse landscape of bylaws

In Australia, noise regulations are the prerogative of state and local governments, and noise pollution and disturbances are managed differently in each state and territory. Presently, loud phone calls are not specifically prohibited anywhere in Australia. The local Sydney authorities can issue two kinds of noise orders, however, which are typically related to pets, power drills and construction noise, and loud music in residential areas:

Noise control orders limit allowable noise at specific times and places, such as districts. Noise abatement orders may be issued to individuals to enforce noise restrictions. On intercity Sydney trains, many services have ‘quiet carriages’ where commuters are advised to keep their phone on silent, not hold conversations with others, and use headphones.

In NSW, fines can be issued for antisocial behaviour under the Passenger Transport (General) Regulation 2017 (NSW).

Some of the offences include using offensive language (penalty of $400 or a maximum fine of $1,100), and “disrupting the comfort of others”.

Lydia Shelly, Vice President of NSWCCL (the NSW Council for Civil Liberties), says, “A large fine can be life-destroying for people, especially those on low incomes. There is a risk that in Australia such laws would target those who already face disproportionate levels of policing like young people, people with a disability, and those who face homelessness.”

In February this year, the ABC published results of an investigation which found that First Nations and diverse communities – including African, Pasifika and Middle Eastern communities – were disproportionately represented in NSW police searches between 2020 and 2023. They also claimed that despite representing about 3.4 per cent of NSW’s population, Indigenous people were about 5.6 times more likely to be stopped and searched than Caucasian people.

The ABC obtained the data from police records under the Government Information Public Access Act.

The data also showed that NSW police conducted 87,705 searches of children between 2020 and 2023 where racial appearance was recorded. Caucasians represented the highest number of searches with 54,197, followed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders with 10,643, and Middle Eastern with 7,237.

The Racial Profiling Data Monitoring Project has recently analysed data on police stops and searches in Victoria.

Dr Tamar Hopkins led the analysis of the data, comparing the rate of searches with the size of the population in question. Their analysis showed that Aboriginal people were 11 times more likely to be searched by Victoria police than Caucasian people in 2023.

People of African appearance were eight times more likely to be searched, people of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean appearance were five times more likely, and people perceived to be Pacific Islander were four times more likely to be searched than Caucasian people.

Dr Hopkins told the ABC: “So each of these groups are facing far more searches than you would expect based on their size of the population compared with white people.”

Balancing Big Brother with preventing antisocial behaviour

Shelly, of NSWCCL, says, “While it may be that a significant portion of people in our community have a view about the use of speaker phones and loud conversations in a shared environment and do not feel comfortable asking someone to turn them down, it does not mean that we should create laws that empower the state to enforce their expectations or make up for the their reticence about politely asking someone to “turn that down please”.

Shelly acknowledges the laws are a UK proposition at this point, with no indication that Australia will follow suit, but the conversation is an important one to broach.

“While a hypothetical exercise at this point, there is something particularly chilling about the idea of a government using legislation to silence communication in public spaces. Reasonable minds should not differ on the principle that the timely ‘shhh’ of a librarian is often well founded,” she says.

“However, things take an Orwellian turn if in the future the librarian is able to follow this up with a fine or call some special constable from the newly formed Library Police. While an absurd example, I am not sure that the enforcement of fines on the quiet carriage differs enough to warrant consideration.”

She adds, “You cannot legislate your way to social cohesion. Policy makers should respond to issues like noisy phone conversations through non-punitive measures, such as education campaigns, reminders on the platform, staff offering assistance to people to put their phones to silent and the expansion of quiet carriages. These sorts of measures will do much more to cater for the complex needs of our community than some blanket ban that does not adequately respond to needs like those of people with hearing difficulties who may from time to time need to conduct their calls with the aid of a loudspeaker. These issues should be responded to with care and support, not a punitive state.”

And, ultimately, Shelly says, “For those extreme examples, NSW already has public nuisance laws, where behaviours that unreasonably and substantially interfere with the public’s right to use and enjoy shared space are criminalised. This bar must remain high.”