One of the questions that comes up from time to time, is whether it is safer to take the elevator, or use the stairs. Most people, when asking this question are looking for a simple, one-or-the-other answer, that applies to all situations i.e. a rule that can be universally applied. However, this isn’t possible, due to the contextual nature of violence e.g. it might be safer to take the elevator when staying at the Four Seasons Hotel in Manhattan, but safer to take the stairs when using a parking lot in the south side of Chicago, or vice versa, etc. It should also be noted that the types of threats you may face are not universal either; you may be more likely to be targeted for a robbery in the stairwell of the Chicago parking lot, but have the greater probability of having to deal with an entitled, drunken business man pressuring you for sex during your elevator ride at the Manhattan Four Seasons, etc. It is too simplistic to make a general statement as to whether taking the stairs or using the elevator is your safest option. In this article, I want to take an evidential approach, that raises potential issues concerning both modes of transport, so that as an individual you can hopefully make a more accurate risk-assessment when faced with the decision on which to take.

A Boston study indicated, based on victimization surveys, that 30% of all robberies in a certain housing project took place on the stairs and in stairwells. However, it is important to note that the design of the housing estate had the entrances to stairwells, recessed and free from natural surveillance i.e. their entrances were so positioned that they couldn’t be seen from the street, or from the windows of houses within the scheme. It is also worth recognizing that in many housing schemes, the elevators are often not operational, forcing people to use the stairs; something that may displace crime from one location to another, and skew whatever statistics are available. In such schemes, rather than attracting crime, stairwells may generate crime; in many housing complexes, stairwells may act as places where people socially congregate to drink, smoke and generally hang-out. A certain group may not be actively looking to engage in criminal activities but, should an opportunity present itself, they may decide to take it – they weren’t attracted to the location for its criminal opportunities, however the foot-traffic that the location enjoys, generates the opportunity for crime. In the same way, homeless people may congregate in a stairwell to avoid snow and bad weather, and if criminally inclined, take advantage of the opportunities that the location may generate.

A criminal working in a location needs to be able to claim “legitimacy” i.e. they need to be able to present a legitimate reason for being in that location – if they can’t do this, they run the risk of somebody in the environment reporting their presence to law enforcement. This is one of the reasons why many burglars will commit crimes in same-race neighborhoods, as they believe that they are less likely to stand-out when they are trawling for potential properties to break in to; this is not universal and others have found different methods to claim legitimacy, such as pretending to be delivering packages, etc. With the advent of the “gig” and “delivery” economy, it is much easier for criminals now to blend in. A person waiting outside an elevator, and not getting in, will find it difficult to claim legitimacy; somebody standing in a stairwell pretending to be on the phone, or texting doesn’t have that same problem e.g. it is understandable that someone for safety reasons might stop and interrupt their journey when taking a call, or replying to a text, etc. It may be that the layout of an elevator lobby, affords a criminal a position where they can wait unobserved and/or claim legitimacy, and this should factor into our risk-assessment of whether in a certain instance it is better to take the stairs than the elevator, especially if the stairs enjoy good natural surveillance e.g. they are on the corner of the building, and any activity that goes on in them can be seen from the street, etc.         

 

 

When criminals commit their offenses, they often do so in spaces that they are familiar with, or aware of e.g. when a mugger or street robber moves to another town or city, and starts operating there, they will tend to pick locations that are similar, to the ones they used to use in their previous locale – if they used to commit their robberies in supermarket parking lots in their old location, they are likely to continue to do the same in their new location. In U.S. prisons, around 30% of violent assaults occur on the stairs or stairwells, often when there is direct staff supervision; in many cases these involve a degree of planning and orchestration with weapons if used, passed to accomplices and then disposed of. etc. Other prisoners may position themselves to obscure a guard’s sightlines, so the assault can be over before any corrections officer(s) is fully aware of what is going on. Whilst it would be too simplistic to suggest that offenders directly replicate these tactics and methods when they are released, it would also be naïve to suggest that what is observed and learnt inside is not translated to some degree when committing offenses on the outside. A prisoner who witnesses – or takes part in - a violent assault on the stairs in prison is going to immediately understand how vulnerable a person is when walking up or down a staircase and recognize how a stairwell can be a good place to wait unobserved; UK studies have shown how CCTV cameras, when placed in stairwells, have the ability to both diffuse and displace crime, suggesting that before installation, these were preferred spots from which to wait and observe potential victims.       

Two factors that are considered when choosing crime locations are the presence of: promoters and preventers. A crime preventer, would be something such as CCTV cameras, which might deter a criminal from operating in a location, even if everything else about it was attractive to them e.g. there was a good supply of potential victims, they could easily claim legitimacy for being there, etc. A crime promoter is something that makes an attractive location, even more attractive. One significant promoter is the number of potential escape routes, and an offender’s ability to control these. This is one area where stairs and stairwells, have an advantage over elevators. A criminal doesn’t necessarily have complete control of an elevator’s movement – other people can call it to different floors, at any time. Whilst the elevator traps a potential victim in with an offender, the offender is also trapped to a certain degree, and they have only one exit by which they can leave, which they don’t know will not be blocked by other people, security personnel, or possibly maintenance staff. Whilst stairs may only have two directions in which to exit after committing a crime – up or down – it is fairly easy to work out when and where other people are on the stairs (you can hear the doors opening and closing, as well as footsteps), and plan/alter the escape route accordingly.

Unfortunately, there aren’t conclusive crime statistics that indicate when and where stairs are safer and preferable to elevators and vice versa, and so we are left to make our own risk-assessments based on our understanding of the situational components that affect criminal activity. Each situation we face is unique and different, so it would be wrong to state that one is always safer than the other. Whilst safety from criminal activity is one consideration when making our choice of which to take, we should also be aware that there are also other hazards to consider such as tripping and falling when on stairs, as well as which will give us the best fighting chances if we have to physically defend ourselves.