Laser Technology Aims to Keep Women Safe From Predators in Public Spaces

Laser technology is being developed to help security teams spot behaviour that may signal a threat to women and girls in public spaces. The system, created by Cumbria-based technology company Createc, uses LiDAR sensors and AI-driven movement analysis to detect patterns such as loitering, following, crowd disturbance or someone moving unusually close to another person in an otherwise quiet area.

The idea is not to label someone as guilty from a machine alert. That point matters. The system is designed to flag patterns for trained human staff, who can then check CCTV, send a member of staff to the area or decide that no threat exists. In simple terms, laser technology is being used as an early-warning tool, not as a replacement for judgement, policing or safer public-space design.

Rosie Richardson, Createc’s product and strategy director, has become one of the public faces of the project. She has spoken openly about being sexually assaulted in a crowd when she was 12 and says the experience shaped her desire to build tools that shift responsibility away from women having to protect themselves alone. Her argument is simple: if public spaces already use technology to manage crowds, delays and security risks, they should also use it to notice behaviour that makes women unsafe.

That ambition is powerful, but it is also sensitive. Laser technology for public safety raises real questions about privacy, false positives, bias, accountability and how much surveillance people should accept in everyday spaces. The strongest version of this idea is not a system that watches everyone suspiciously. It is a carefully governed tool that keeps people anonymous, alerts staff only when patterns matter and remains subject to clear human oversight.

The Problem This Technology Is Trying to Solve

Women are often expected to adjust their behaviour in public spaces. They change routes, avoid empty platforms, keep keys in their hand, pretend to be on the phone, share live locations or sit near other passengers to feel safer. Those habits are so common that they can begin to feel normal, even though they represent a hidden cost of moving through public life.

The UK evidence supports that concern. The Office for National Statistics previously found that women aged 16 to 34 were the group most likely to feel unsafe using public transport alone after dark. In 2026, the UK government also cited YouGov polling showing that almost nine in 10 women had felt unsafe walking at night, while many changed routes during darker months.

That is the social background behind Createc’s work. Laser technology is being explored because public spaces already contain blind spots. A security worker on the ground may not see the full pattern of a person following someone through a station. CCTV operators may be watching too many feeds at once. A bystander may notice something uncomfortable but not act. A victim may feel unsafe before anything obvious enough for intervention has happened.

The aim is to catch patterns earlier.

This is also where the story connects with wider debates around AI trends and public safety. AI systems are increasingly being used to identify anomalies, predict risk and help humans prioritise attention. The challenge is making sure those systems assist people without creating a new form of unfair or intrusive surveillance.

How the Laser Technology Works

Createc’s system is based on LiDAR, short for Light Detection and Ranging. LiDAR uses laser light to measure distance and position. Instead of recording a normal video image of a person’s face, clothing or identity, it can map movement as anonymous points or dots in space.

Createc’s Station Guardian page describes its anonymous crowd monitoring system as using a laser rangefinder to track people in real time and understand behaviour. It says the system uses deep-learning algorithms to spot unusual behaviour and alert operators. Createc also says its technology takes no personal data from space users.

That privacy-preserving design is central to the pitch. The system does not need to know whether someone is a man or woman. It does not need to identify a face. It does not need to store a normal image of every commuter. Instead, it watches movement patterns.

A simple version might look like this:

Behaviour pattern	Why it may matter	Possible response
Someone repeatedly follows another person	Could indicate stalking, harassment or unwanted attention	Staff check CCTV or attend the location
A person loiters in one place for a long time	Could be harmless, but may need attention in an isolated area	Operator reviews context
A crowd suddenly moves away from one person	Could indicate panic, aggression or an incident	Security team focuses on that zone
Someone sits unnecessarily close on an empty platform	Could be innocent, but may trigger concern if combined with other signals	Staff monitor or approach
A person moves near the platform edge unusually	Could indicate safety risk or distress	Staff intervene quickly

The key word is “possible”. Laser technology can identify a pattern. It cannot know intent. Someone may be waiting for a train, looking for a friend, lost, anxious, neurodivergent, drunk, confused or simply unaware that their behaviour appears worrying. That is why human review must remain central.

From Crowd Monitoring to Women’s Safety

The women’s safety application is a new development of a broader system already tested for crowd management. Createc’s LiDAR crowd monitoring work received support through the Defence and Security Accelerator, known as DASA. A GOV.UK case study said Createc’s technology underwent year-long trials at Euston Station and Luton Airport, plus a month-long trial at Waterloo Station. It also said Network Rail acquired the technology for deployment at Waterloo in 2024.

That history matters because it shows the system did not appear suddenly as a speculative anti-harassment tool. It grew from work on crowd safety, station management and rapid incident detection. Transport environments are complex. Platforms, concourses, queues, escalators and entrances can become dangerous quickly when crowds surge or when staff cannot see what is happening everywhere at once.

The Connected Places Catapult said Richardson has been working on new Situate functionality to detect violence against women and girls in public places, including loitering and following behaviours. The same profile said the ambition is to improve safety across transport, shopping centres and stadiums.

Professional Engineering also reported earlier that Createc’s Situate system was selected for trials at Bristol Temple Meads, where it could alert station operators to incidents in real time and warn of concerning activity, including people standing too close to the platform edge.

The women’s safety feature is therefore an extension of a bigger question: can anonymous sensor data help staff notice risk before harm happens?

Why Rosie Richardson’s Story Matters

Richardson’s personal motivation gives the project emotional force. She has said she was sexually assaulted as a child while watching the Tour de France in Paris. In interviews, she has described a man moving through a crowd and assaulting people while others moved away. Her point is that, from ground level, individual bystanders or staff may not always understand the pattern. From above, or through movement data, that pattern may become clearer.

This is where laser technology could have a real advantage. A single incident can look confusing from the pavement. A movement trail may show that one person has been moving through a crowd in a way that repeatedly causes others to step back. That does not prove guilt by itself, but it gives staff a reason to look closer.

The strongest part of Richardson’s argument is that the burden should not fall only on potential victims. Women should not have to rely on personal survival habits while transport operators and public venues rely on passive surveillance. If a station, arena or shopping centre owns the space, it also owns some responsibility for making that space safer.

That does not mean every technological claim should be accepted uncritically. It means the problem is serious enough to test new tools carefully.

Why LiDAR May Be Less Intrusive Than CCTV

A major reason Createc’s approach has drawn attention is that LiDAR can be more privacy-protective than conventional camera surveillance. CCTV records images. If those images identify a person, they become personal data and must be handled under data protection rules. Facial recognition raises even sharper concerns because it can process biometric data.

LiDAR works differently. It can represent people as dots, shapes or movement trails without showing faces. That makes laser technology attractive for public-space monitoring because it may allow operators to detect risk while collecting less identifiable information.

This is not a free pass. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office has video surveillance guidance for organisations using systems that collect or process personal data. Even when a system is designed to be anonymous, public bodies and private operators still need to ask hard questions: What is collected? Is it necessary? Who can access it? How long is it kept? Can it be combined with CCTV? What happens after an alert?

The News Ink’s online privacy coverage has explored the same paradox in digital life: people want protection, but they also want control over how data about them is used. Laser technology for women’s safety sits exactly inside that tension.

The Safety Promise and the Privacy Risk

The strongest case for laser technology is prevention. A system that detects a pattern early may allow staff to check in before harassment escalates. A visible safety system may deter some behaviour. A better alert may reduce the chance that a victim is ignored in a crowd. In transport hubs, seconds matter.

The strongest concern is mission creep. A system introduced to protect women could later be used for unrelated monitoring: tracking loitering by homeless people, identifying protesters, profiling teenagers, managing retail behaviour or feeding wider surveillance networks. Even if the original product is privacy-preserving, future integrations may not be.

That is why governance must be built into the technology from the beginning. Operators should publish clear rules on where sensors are used, what behaviour triggers alerts, who reviews them, how data is stored and how people can complain. Independent testing should examine false positives and false negatives. Public bodies should consult women’s safety groups, disabled passengers, privacy experts, transport workers and civil liberties organisations before large-scale deployment.

Laser technology can help only if people trust the system.

False Positives Could Damage Trust

A false positive happens when the system flags behaviour that is not actually threatening. In a station, that could be someone waiting near another person because there are few seats, someone walking behind another passenger because they share the same route, or someone lingering because their train is delayed.

False positives matter because they can lead to embarrassment, discrimination or unnecessary intervention. If certain groups are flagged more often because of movement patterns linked to disability, anxiety, neurodivergence or homelessness, the system could create new harms while trying to prevent existing ones.

A false negative is also serious. That happens when the system fails to spot a real threat. If operators trust the technology too much, they may miss incidents that do not fit the expected pattern.

This is why laser technology should be treated as decision support, not decision authority. The alert should say, “Look here.” It should not say, “This person is a predator.”

The News Ink’s cybersecurity guide makes a similar point in a different field: tools are useful, but systems fail when people treat them as magic. Safety technology needs trained staff, clear procedures and honest limits.

What Public Spaces Would Need Before Using It

For laser technology to work responsibly, stations and venues need more than sensors. They need a complete response system.

That includes trained staff who understand what alerts mean and what they do not mean. It includes CCTV or on-site teams that can check context. It includes safeguarding protocols for approaching a person who may be at risk. It includes rules for when police are called. It includes data protection assessments. It includes public signage and accountability.

A responsible deployment should answer these questions before the system goes live:

• What exact behaviour patterns trigger an alert?
• How are false alerts reviewed and reduced?
• Is any personal data collected or stored?
• Can the LiDAR data be combined with CCTV?
• Who can see the alerts?
• How long is data retained?
• What training do staff receive?
• How can members of the public complain?
• How will the system be audited for bias or misuse?
• What evidence shows it improves safety?

Without those answers, laser technology risks becoming another surveillance promise with weak oversight. With those answers, it could become a useful layer in a wider safety strategy.

Technology Cannot Replace Culture Change

It is important not to oversell this tool. Laser technology will not end violence against women and girls. It cannot fix misogyny, poor policing, low reporting rates, unsafe streets, underlit areas, staff shortages, weak prosecution outcomes or harmful social attitudes. It cannot make every late-night journey safe.

UK police chiefs have described violence against women and girls as a national threat, and the National Police Chiefs’ Council has called for a whole-system response. That language matters because it shows the issue is not only about transport design. It is about prevention, education, enforcement, offender management, victim support and cultural change.

Technology can support that work. It cannot replace it.

The same is true of safer streets. Government guidance on women’s safety while walking and cycling focuses on lighting, route design, visibility, public-space planning and local authority responsibility. A sensor on a platform may help in one moment, but women also need safer routes home, better reporting systems, reliable transport, staffed stations and public confidence that complaints will be taken seriously.

Laser technology should therefore be seen as one part of a safety ecosystem.

Where It Could Be Used Next

Createc has already discussed transport hubs, airports, shopping centres and stadiums as possible environments for its crowd-monitoring work. Those spaces share several features: large numbers of people, complex movement, CCTV networks, security teams and a need to identify problems quickly.

Transport is the most obvious setting because stations combine crowds with isolated moments. A platform can be busy at 6pm and almost empty late at night. A concourse can shift from calm to congested in minutes after a delay. A person may feel unsafe long before an obvious crime occurs.

Shopping centres and stadiums present different challenges. They have larger open spaces, mixed age groups, queues, alcohol in some venues and sudden crowd flows. Laser technology could help staff detect crowd panic, bottlenecks, aggressive movement or unusual following behaviour.

The News Ink’s smart travel coverage often looks at how transport systems are becoming more data-driven. This is another example. The question is not whether data will shape public spaces. It already does. The question is whether that data is used transparently, proportionately and safely.

A Better Way to Frame the Debate

The debate should not be reduced to “technology will save women” versus “surveillance is always bad.” Both positions are too simple.

The better question is this: can laser technology help trained people notice danger earlier while collecting less personal data than traditional surveillance? If the answer is yes, the next question is how to prove it. That requires trials, independent evaluation, published safety outcomes and clear limits.

A useful pilot should measure:

Test area	What should be measured
Safety value	Did alerts help staff intervene earlier?
Accuracy	How many alerts were useful, wrong or missed?
Privacy	Was any identifiable data collected or linked?
Equality	Were certain groups flagged unfairly?
Staff response	Did teams know what to do after an alert?
Public trust	Did passengers feel safer or more watched?
Misuse risk	Could the system be repurposed without oversight?

These questions are not obstacles to innovation. They are what make innovation credible.

Why This Story Matters in 2026

Laser technology for women’s safety has arrived at a moment when three public debates are colliding.

The first is the debate about women’s safety in public spaces. Women are tired of being told to modify their behaviour while institutions move slowly.

The second is the debate about AI in everyday life. Systems that classify behaviour are moving from labs into transport, policing, retail and workplaces. The News Ink’s coverage of AI tools and AI risks shows how quickly the technology conversation has moved from novelty to accountability.

The third is the debate about privacy. People want safer streets and stations, but they do not want every public movement turned into a permanent record. That is why LiDAR’s anonymous design is important. It may offer a middle path, but only if operators resist the temptation to connect it to more invasive systems without public consent.

The technology is promising because it tries to solve a real problem. It is controversial because real problems often become the justification for systems that later expand beyond their original purpose.

The Bottom Line

Laser technology could help make women safer in public spaces by spotting movement patterns that human staff may miss. Createc’s LiDAR-based system can track people as anonymous dots, identify unusual behaviour and alert trained operators when something may need attention. That could be especially useful in stations, airports, shopping centres and stadiums where crowds are complex and safety teams cannot watch everything at once.

But the technology must be handled carefully. It should not label people as predators. It should not replace trained staff. It should not become a hidden surveillance network. It should not be deployed without transparency, privacy safeguards, independent testing and clear rules for human review.

The most credible promise is not that laser technology will solve violence against women. It is that, used responsibly, it may give public-space operators another way to notice risk earlier and act before harm escalates.

For women like Rosie Richardson, that shift matters. The burden should not always be on women to carry keys, change routes, scan platforms and hope someone steps in. Public spaces should be designed, staffed and monitored in ways that make safety a shared responsibility.

For more technology and public-safety coverage, follow The News Ink on Medium or read our latest guide to AI trends.