The current situation speaks for itself. According to its own figures, the SBB alone experiences assaults on train staff about ten times a day—an estimated 3,600 cases per year. What stands out about these assaults is not so much the number, which has remained stable over the years, but rather their nature: while the frequency has plateaued, the assaults are becoming more brutal. This calls for action. Politicians and authorities have now responded.
Bodycams: the tool that has already struck a balance
Since the introduction of bodycams in September 2024, the transportation police have demonstrated what targeted protection can look like. According to SBB, after one year, assaults against their officers were down by about 11 percent compared to before.
Particularly revealing is how the footage is handled: Of 331 activations in the first half of the year, 224 were quickly stopped because the situation often defused on its own after the camera was turned on; only 15 recordings were forwarded to law enforcement authorities. Thus, only what is necessary is recorded—and deleted as soon as the purpose is served.
A mild, effective, and strictly limited measure. It serves as a good benchmark for all further actions.
Tasers: The question is not whether, but at what level regulation takes place
The transportation police are currently authorized to use restraints, irritant sprays, service dogs, batons, and firearms. Electroshock devices (“Tasers”), on the other hand, have not been authorized to date. This exclusion is not stipulated in the law itself, but in the accompanying ordinance (VST). This is more than a formality: The Federal Council can amend the ordinance without having to pass a new law. That is precisely what it announced after Parliament adopted the Buffat motion (23.4291).
This shifts the actual question. A Taser affects physical integrity. And when a tool has such a profound impact, there are good reasons to ask whether the crucial points—when it may be used, against whom, and within what limits—should not be addressed in the law rather than in an ordinance.
Both viewpoints are valid. The more drastic the measure, the stronger the case for not leaving the guidelines solely to the administration.
Electroshock weapons remain controversial
Cantonal police forces have been using Tasers since 2008; their use has increased, while that of firearms has decreased. Proponents see them as a less severe alternative to pistols, especially in the confined space of a train car. Amnesty International disagrees: The more widespread the device becomes, the lower the threshold for its use—and the greater the risk of serious injury or even death; such weapons belong in the hands of specialized units, not in everyday situations. The Federal Council intends to assess, before any decision is made, whether and where a Taser would be appropriate for the transport police at all.
This assessment should be taken seriously.
The sensitive issue: private ownership, sovereign power
The transportation police are not a government agency. They are part of SBB and yet exercise sovereign authority. This is legally sanctioned: the relevant federal law expressly permits this delegation of authority. But the more extensive the arsenal becomes—from body cameras to Tasers to real-time cameras—the more significant it becomes that coercion and surveillance are being carried out under private management. This calls for clear boundaries, a strict limitation of purpose, and vigilant oversight by the Federal Office of Transportation (FOT).
Anyone acting on behalf of the state should be subject to the same strict requirements as the state itself.
Video Surveillance: The Most Sensitive Intrusion
The planned real-time video surveillance in vehicles has the farthest-reaching implications. It directly affects privacy and falls under the new Data Protection Act. Public transportation already has its own video surveillance ordinance, which would need to be amended.
Here, too, the old triad remains crucial: a clear legal basis, a genuine public interest, and the least intrusive means possible—supplemented by strict purpose limitation and clear retention periods.
It is important to make the distinction: Live access to a camera feed is different from the subsequent analysis of a recording. Where exactly this threshold lies must be clearly defined.
The discussions have begun—the deliberations must follow
This week (on July 8, 2026), the federal government, cantons, transportation companies, and the transportation police met in Bern at the invitation of the Federal Office of Transportation and launched a national action plan. The first step is to take stock of the situation. Plans include better coordination of police operations across cantonal borders, de-escalation training, and a revision of the regulations governing body cameras, Tasers, and real-time video surveillance.
In doing so, the federal government is fulfilling the mandates set forth in the Buffat and Marchesi motions. The need for action is recognized, but the funding is not. For each individual measure, it remains to be clarified whether it is effective, necessary, and reasonable—and at what level it should be implemented.
