How Laser Technology Could Help Keep Women Safe in Public Spaces

Laser technology could give transport staff an earlier warning when a person appears to be following, circling or repeatedly approaching someone in a station. Instead of asking women to carry keys between their fingers, change routes or call a friend while walking alone, the idea is to make the people responsible for public spaces notice risk sooner and respond before threatening behaviour becomes an assault.

The system at the centre of the project is called Situate. Developed by Cockermouth-based technology company Createc, it combines artificial intelligence with lidar sensors to map movement through stations, airports and other busy spaces. People do not appear as recognisable faces. On an operator’s screen, each person is represented as a moving dot with a short movement trail.

Createc is now developing laser technology to recognise patterns that may deserve a closer look, including loitering in unusual places or following another person into a quieter area. The system does not declare that someone is a predator, identify a suspect or automatically call police. It produces an alert so trained staff can examine the situation, check the relevant CCTV view and decide whether anybody needs help.

This laser technology cannot read criminal intent. It is an early-warning tool for unusual movement, with value depending on accurate alerts, strong oversight and proportionate human response.

What the Laser Technology Actually Sees

Lidar is short for light detection and ranging. A sensor sends out rapid light pulses and measures how long they take to return after reflecting from objects. Those measurements create a three-dimensional picture of distances and movement without producing an ordinary photographic image.

Createc says one Situate sensor can cover roughly 30 to 100 metres and track movement to a precision of less than five centimetres. The system can calculate location, direction, speed, dwell time and crowd density. It can then compare those patterns with rules or models designed for a particular environment.

The company’s Situate system is described as anonymous crowd monitoring for public spaces. Its current functions include detecting crowding, running, restricted-area entry and people moving too close to a platform edge.

The system can process	The system is not designed to provide
A moving point representing a person	A facial image
Direction and speed	A person’s name
Time spent in one location	Audio from conversations
The distance between moving points	Automatic proof of criminal intent
Crowd flow and density	A final decision to stop or arrest someone
An alert about unusual movement	A guarantee that an assault will be prevented

Laser technology is therefore different from facial recognition. It follows movement rather than trying to match a face against a watchlist. That reduces some privacy risks, but it does not make the data legally or ethically irrelevant.

From Crowd Management to Women’s Safety

Situate was not originally built only to detect predatory behaviour. Its roots are in crowd safety and anomaly detection.

Connected Places Catapult reported that the technology received early Ministry of Defence support following the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. Createc later trialled Situate at Bristol Temple Meads in 2023 through a Network Rail and Innovate UK programme. The trial focused on passengers running on a platform or crossing the yellow safety line before a train arrived.

The Bristol trial showed how an alert could trigger a direct warning to passengers without requiring a member of staff to reach them first. Createc has also installed the system at Luton Airport, and Connected Places Catapult reported in October 2025 that anonymous movement monitoring was operating at King’s Cross.

The new women’s safety work extends that foundation. Instead of asking only whether someone is running, crowding an exit or entering a prohibited zone, developers are exploring whether laser technology can identify movement associated with stalking, harassment or opportunistic assault.

For example, one person may leave a crowded concourse for a quiet corridor. Another point may separate from the crowd, follow at a fixed distance and repeatedly change direction when the first person changes direction. That pattern could justify an alert even though the system cannot know why the second person is following.

Rosie Richardson, Createc’s product and strategy director, has stressed that the alert is only an invitation to check. A member of staff might discover friends trying to find each other, a passenger following a family member or someone simply walking towards the same platform. The goal is not to punish unusual movement. It is to prevent warning signs from passing unnoticed.

The Personal Experience Behind the Project

Richardson’s work is shaped by an assault she experienced when she was 12. She has waived her anonymity and told ITV News that a man moved through a crowd at the Tour de France in Paris while sexually assaulting people, including her.

She recalled that other people appeared to see what was happening but did not intervene. Richardson believes a movement-based system could have shown that people were repeatedly moving away from the same individual and could have given security staff a trail to examine.

Her argument is wider than one incident. Women and girls are often told to manage danger themselves: avoid dark routes, change clothing, share live locations, hold keys as improvised weapons and stay on a phone call. Richardson wants laser technology to move some responsibility towards station operators, venue owners, transport authorities and police.

That principle is important. A safety product should not become another instruction women must remember to activate. The strongest laser technology works in the background, is governed transparently and prompts responsible organisations to act.

The scale of the problem supports the need for better prevention. The UK National Audit Office reported in 2025 that violence against women and girls affects an estimated one in 12 women and that government efforts had not yet improved outcomes or women’s safety more broadly. Its VAWG review called for better evidence, evaluation and coordination.

Seven Ways Laser Technology Could Improve Public Safety

Laser technology could add value in several practical situations, provided the system is accurate and staff respond appropriately.

1. Detecting Persistent Following

A single person walking behind another is normal in a station. Concern rises when the same person copies several route changes, maintains a deliberate distance and follows into a low-traffic area. The laser technology can compare movement tracks and flag a pattern for review.

2. Identifying Unusual Loitering

Waiting is ordinary near a platform, ticket barrier or information board. Repeatedly hovering in a corridor, near a stairwell or beside an isolated passenger may be less typical. Situate can use location-specific rules so the same dwell time is treated differently in a queue and a passageway.

3. Showing Crowd Reactions That One Operator May Miss

A person behaving aggressively in a crowd may cause several others to change direction or create space. On dozens of CCTV screens, that pattern may be difficult to see. Laser technology can display the wider movement response and point an operator towards the relevant camera.

4. Directing Staff to the Right Place Faster

Control-room workers may monitor 50 or 100 camera feeds. An alert can identify the exact zone requiring attention instead of expecting one person to watch every screen continuously. Faster awareness could mean a welfare check begins before conduct escalates.

5. Protecting Quieter or Partly Unmanned Stations

Many smaller stations have limited staff and older CCTV. Createc has explored alerts linked to public-address warnings for platform dangers. A women’s safety version could notify a remote control room or mobile response team, although an alert is useful only if somebody is available to act.

6. Building Evidence About Unsafe Design

Aggregated movement data may reveal where passengers repeatedly avoid poorly lit corners, become trapped in crowd bottlenecks or hesitate near exits. Operators could use those patterns to improve lighting, sightlines, staffing and waiting areas rather than relying only on incident reports.

7. Creating a Visible Deterrent

Clear signage explaining that anonymous movement monitoring can detect following or loitering may discourage some opportunistic behaviour. Deterrence should not be assumed, however. It must be measured, and signage must also explain how data is used.

These benefits show why laser technology is attracting interest. None proves that the system can reliably predict an assault. Public reporting has not provided validated accuracy rates for the new predatory-behaviour functions, and the women’s safety capability was still described as being trialled in May 2026.

Suspicious Is Not the Same as Dangerous

Movement is ambiguous.

A person may pace because of anxiety, wait in a corridor because a platform is crowded or follow somebody because both are heading to the same train. A visually impaired passenger may move differently from the expected flow. A neurodivergent person may repeat a route. A tourist may wander while checking signs. A homeless person may remain in a station because it is warm and safe.

Laser technology can identify deviation from a pattern, but deviation is not guilt. If staff treat every alert as proof of threatening intent, the system could produce unnecessary confrontations and disproportionately affect people whose behaviour falls outside a narrow definition of “normal.”

Createc says it uses a high alert threshold to avoid constant warnings. Richardson has explained that somebody stopping to search frantically for a ticket should not automatically trigger intervention. That is a useful design principle, but independent testing is needed to show how it works across different stations and populations.

The safest response to an alert from laser technology may be a neutral welfare check rather than an accusation. Staff could ask whether passengers need assistance, increase their visible presence or observe briefly before taking stronger action.

Privacy Is Better Than Facial Recognition, but Not Risk-Free

The laser technology’s privacy claim needs precise wording.

Createc says Situate does not capture faces or audio, does not attempt to identify individuals and represents people as dots. Raw sensor measurements are processed at the edge and overwritten rather than retained for routine access.

However, Createc’s own Situate privacy notice says the movement tracks are pseudonymised personal data under the UK GDPR, not data that can simply be treated as outside privacy law. Tracks may include location, speed, direction and dwell time. Processed outputs may be sent to cloud or on-site systems, and retention periods depend on the organisation controlling each deployment.

That distinction matters. Laser technology may be substantially less intrusive than facial recognition, yet a detailed path through a public space can still relate to a person. Operators must explain who controls the data, how long it is kept, who can access it and whether it is shared after an incident.

The Information Commissioner’s Office says large-scale monitoring of public spaces should be necessary, proportionate and transparent. Organisations may need a Data Protection Impact Assessment, clear signage, documented retention rules and evidence that less intrusive alternatives were considered. The ICO’s surveillance guidance also stresses meaningful human oversight.

Createc says Situate generates alerts but does not make decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects. A human operator is expected to assess the situation. That safeguard should remain central if the system expands.

What a Responsible Trial Must Measure

A successful demonstration cannot be judged only by whether laser technology produces an alert on cue.

Public-space trials should publish evidence on accuracy, response and real-world benefit. Useful measures include:

• the number of true and false alerts;
• missed incidents and false reassurance;
• how long it takes staff to review an alert;
• how often intervention is actually required;
• whether response times improve;
• whether different groups are flagged at unequal rates;
• how passengers understand the signage;
• whether women report feeling safer;
• whether harassment moves to an unmonitored location;
• whether the system changes recorded incidents over time.

Testing should include women’s organisations, disabled passengers, privacy specialists, transport workers and people from communities likely to experience disproportionate policing. Developers and buyers should publish limitations rather than presenting the system as a finished predator detector.

This is particularly important because the training data may define which movement is considered ordinary. A model built mainly from busy London stations may perform differently at a rural platform, a festival, an airport or a late-night bus interchange.

Laser technology should also be tested in difficult conditions such as luggage congestion, mobility aids, children moving unpredictably and groups splitting and rejoining. A system that works in a controlled demonstration may behave differently during disruption.

Technology Is Useless Without a Response Plan

Laser technology cannot protect anybody by itself.

Before deployment, an operator needs clear answers. Who receives the warning? How quickly must it be reviewed? When should CCTV be checked? When should staff approach? When should police be contacted? What happens at an unmanned station? How is an intervention recorded and audited?

Poor response could create new danger. An aggressive confrontation may escalate a harmless situation or alert a genuine stalker that the person has sought help. Staff need training in safeguarding, de-escalation, disability awareness and trauma-informed communication.

Operators also need enough people to respond. Laser technology should not become an excuse to remove station staff and replace them with remote monitoring. Richardson’s goal is to help humans notice more, not to pretend sensors can provide care, judgement or physical assistance.

This lesson also applies to other safety tools. The News Ink’s analysis of Uber’s women-driver preference found that extra choice can improve comfort but cannot replace identity checks, reporting systems and accountable human support.

It Must Complement Better Public-Space Design

Women’s safety cannot be solved by surveillance alone.

Reliable staffing, better lighting, open sightlines, frequent transport, working help points, safe waiting zones and clear reporting channels can reduce risk without analysing everybody’s movement. The ICO advises organisations to consider less intrusive measures before installing surveillance systems.

Laser technology may be most useful where it strengthens those measures. Movement data could identify a corridor that passengers avoid, while staff and designers fix the underlying problem. Alerts could direct a patrol to an isolated platform while a long-term plan improves lighting and service frequency.

Laser technology must not shift the conversation from offender behaviour to how efficiently women are monitored. The desired outcome is not a station where every unusual movement triggers suspicion. It is a public space where threatening conduct is less likely, warning signs receive attention and people can travel without carrying the full burden of self-protection.

The News Ink’s report on AI supporting child-abuse investigations makes a related point: artificial intelligence can help specialists process signals, but trained professionals remain responsible for context, evidence and decisions.

Could Laser Technology Really Prevent an Assault?

The honest answer is that it might help in some circumstances, but the evidence is not yet strong enough to promise prevention.

Laser technology could reduce the time between suspicious behaviour beginning and staff noticing it. It could provide a movement trail that helps operators understand what happened. It could guide CCTV attention and create an opportunity for early intervention.

It will not detect every threat. Some assaults happen without prolonged following or obvious loitering. A person may approach somebody they know, behave normally until the moment of harm or act in a place outside sensor coverage. An alert may also arrive when no trained responder is nearby.

Richardson believes the pattern of movement during the assault she experienced could have been recognised. That is a powerful motivation for the project, but a retrospective scenario is not proof of effectiveness. The next stage must be independent evaluation using realistic simulations and carefully governed live trials.

As of May 2026, ITV described the predatory-behaviour capability as being trialled, with Createc hoping it would be adopted more widely. Existing Situate deployments demonstrate that lidar can track crowds and support safety operations. They do not yet establish how reliably the new model identifies harassment or prevents violence.

The Bottom Line

Laser technology could help public-space operators identify movement patterns associated with following, loitering, crowd distress and unsafe platform behaviour. Createc’s Situate system uses lidar and AI to represent people as dots, calculate movement patterns and alert staff when activity deserves attention.

The approach offers advantages over facial recognition. It does not capture facial images or audio and is not designed to identify people. It can direct overwhelmed control-room operators towards the right location and may give staff an earlier opportunity to intervene.

But laser technology is not a predator detector. It cannot know intent, prove wrongdoing or guarantee that an assault will be prevented. Ordinary behaviour can look unusual, and poor implementation could cause false alarms, intrusive monitoring or unfair interventions.

Privacy requires more than saying the dots are anonymous. Createc treats movement tracks as personal data, so each operator needs a lawful basis, clear signage, retention controls, security and meaningful human oversight.

The women’s safety capability remains under development and trial. Before wider adoption, independent evaluation should show how accurately the laser technology works, how quickly staff respond, whether outcomes improve and whether particular groups are disproportionately flagged.

Used responsibly, the system could become one layer of a safer public-space strategy alongside visible staff, better lighting, reliable transport, reporting systems and effective action against perpetrators. It should move responsibility towards the authorities and organisations that control public spaces, not create another safety task for women.

The success of laser technology will be measured not by how many dots it can track, but by whether people receive timely, proportionate help without surrendering privacy or being treated as suspicious simply for moving differently.

For more technology, privacy and public-safety reporting, follow The News Ink on Instagram or read our coverage of AI trends and women’s ride-hailing safety.