It recently occurred to me that perhaps a lot of bank robberies could be deterred if the tellers were guarded by a heavy, bullet-proof glass partition in front of them like the ones you see used in some convenience stores. Even most movie theater box offices have this setup, which makes less sense to me since the potential “take” for such a robbery would be substantially less (not to mention that there are usually more people present than in a bank). Could such a measure be implemented in a bank, or are there some other issues that I am overlooking?
Ummm…some do. I’ve seen a few, in Florida.
Yeah, all ones I see here in South Florida have what I assumed is bullet-proof glass. I guess banks elsewhere in the US do not always have this? I guess that might say something about the crime rate here.
WAGs - ricocheting bullets would endanger anyone on the far side of the glass, and they don’t prevent a robber holding someone (probably a member of the public) hostage with a gun to their head.
In any case, how many bank robberies would the presence of this glass make a substantial difference?
My bank has a such an arrangement, with baffles in the front so you can talk to the teller. What I’d guess is that bulletproof glass could be considered customer-unfriendly, which is why some banks might refuse to do it. The bank I go to is a somewhat old-fashioned community bank, and presumably above such mean considerations.
Some do. However, banks are a business too and have to be concerned about image. Thick glass partitions are real pain when Mr. or Mrs. Upscale American goes into a local bank and needs to actually talk to a teller. Banks with those types of setups aren’t going to do very well in Nicesuburb USA.
I’d also guess that the cost of installing and maintaining the glass is generally going to be more expensive than the cost of the robberies (unless it’s an area where robberies are common). Around here, you get maybe a half dozen a year total if you count all bank branches, and they probably cost the bank less (assuming none of the money is recovered) than equiping one of the branches with the glass.
Not to mention the fact that they wouldn’t accomplish anything. All the robber would have to do is turn to the next customer in line, stick a gun to their head, and say “Give me all the money.” Then the little old lady who just got the .45 stuck in her ear will sue said bank for whatever assetts it has left for “reckless endangerment” or some such. Better to just have the tellers there.
Banks used to have such arrangements. Banks in Switzerland still do. But here I guess they are consider customer-unfriendly and banks gradually converted, maybe 40 or 50 years ago to an open counter model. If banks in Florida have converted back, I guess they decided it is was necessary.
In Switzerland, the conversation with the teller problem is handled by a grill that may not be bulletproof but would be trivial to duck away from. Rail ticket offices have the same setup (although more and more you get your tickets at automatic machines).
Here is another point. Although you could protect the tellers, what could you do if a bank robber came in and grabbed a customer and grabbed and threatened to kill a customer unless they put some money in a paper bag and gave it to him. Banks that decided their customers were more expendable than their money might not last too long.
At the bank I use, it takes a minute to open a safe if you withdraw more than a few hundred dollars and I don’t thinka robber would want to wait around that long.
Let’s also define what we mean by “bulletproof” glass. Are we talking about a quarter inch of lexan reinforced glass, or a foot thick wall of polycarbonate? I’d think a determined group of people armed with M-1 Garands could probably make it through the glass rather quickly. Sure, you’d foil your average 9mm hand gun user, but not much is going to stop 10 rounds of .30-06 at point blank range.
This is only a guess, but nonetheless, my guess is that the benefit to cost ratio makes it an unnecessary option. Sort of like seat belts on school buses. The truth is, out of the millions of bank branches out there most of them will never get robbed. I live in (suburb of) Atlanta where crime is pretty high. Even then I don’t recall hearing about that many bank robberies. Maybe 5 or 6 year, and I’m being generous because I’m sure there are some I don’t remember. Of those, I would imagine that the thief is usually caught.
Why bother? It’s a business decision, and I’m sure they end up with more money in their own pockets this way.
Enright3, bank robberies tend to only get reported locally if there wasn’t a pretty fire that day. While not as common as car theft, unless the thieves are brandishing AK-47s, a bank robbery is just as newsworthy.
Go visit the upper floors in the Diamond District in New York City. The receptionist’s windows are all really thick bullet-proof glass, with no direct line-of-sight through the passthroughs. And there are cameras everywhere. Doors require traditional keys and cards. It’s The Most Paranoid Place on Earth. The security out-does military bases I’ve visited.
That, I suspect, is why most banks don’t do it – they want to project the image that they’re a friendly, open place, rather than a tight-fisted vault that won’t release their money. Banks want you to take out loans – they make a living off the interest.
When I lived in Philadelphia shudder there was a fast food chicken place that was set up bullet proof/resistant glass/plastic. They had a lazy susan type pass through to give you your food (after you paid of course). Kinda Beiruty.
Rather than deter robbery, I suspect that bullet resistant partitions would only cause
potential robbers to escalate their efforts. They might resort to explosives, kidnapping
or other methods of getting the cash.
My credit union has a machine that delivers cash to the teller, similar to an ATM.
Presumably there are safeguards built into this device to deal w/ robbery attempts. I
think that drive up tellers may be protected by heavy, shatter resistant glass.
Most places are designed to prevent robbery through psychological means. People will not commit criminal activity nearly as often if they believe everybody can see them. A clean, brightly-lit building with a good line of sight from a busy road is a lot less likely to be robbed than a building fitted with steel bars and bulletproof glass. The amount of litter on the streets also affects this: litter makes an area look uncared for. Criminals (and people in general) are paranoid around clean, well-lit areas.
In NYC, there was bulletproof glass between you and the teller area (although a robber could grab a bank employee over in the open desk area), bulletproof glass at sketchier-neighborhood fast food places and convenience stores, and bp glass at the post office, where there was a special area to place your package, pull down the door on your side, have the PO employee shoot a bolt on their side and then be able to open their door and retrieve your package.
I’ve since moved up to the country and it took a few months to get used to how different things are. It’s been eight years and I am still occasionally bemused by the fact that I could just reach out and grab a teller by the neck. Of course I never want to, because everyone is very nice up here. Very, very nice.
Why would they need them? Most bank robberies are not committed by people who walk up to the teller and stick a gun in his or her face. They are done by walking quietly up to the teller window, and passing a note. The note may say they have a bomb or a gun, but it is very rare that someone actually displays one. The tellers are trained to hand over their drawer money and, if possible, pass the robber a dye pack.
It is significantly better for the robber if no one, other than the teller they are dealing with, is aware that a robbery is taking place. Walking into a bank brandishing a weapon is not the best way to keep yourself inconspicuous.
Banks need to evaluate many considerations when they design their physical security measures.
When it comes to barriers and whether or not to use them, they need to balance their desire to be friendly and approachable with the desire to repel would-be robbers, and also consider the cost of security measures.
It’s certainly possible to create crime-proof environments with the use of mantrap vestibules, metal detectors and remote tellers (pretty much a walk-up version of an auto drive-up teller) However, customers will feel very alienated at the thought of having to be scanned, locked into a plastic cube and doing their business via intercom. The cost to set this up would also be tremendous. Why not just replace the entire building with a couple ATMs?
The overwhelming portion (close to 90%) are what are called “note jobs” where a lone crook hands the teller a note or just says “Gimme the money!” Multi-person takeovers are uncommon, and movie-style scenarios with well thought-out plans involving anything more than a Saturday Night Special in the pocket are very rare.
Only problem is that barriers are expensive, starting at around $1000 per running foot. However, if it’s a bad neighborhood, they can pay for themselves pretty quickly.
It’s also entirely possible that a bank that has no visible barriers actually does have them. You just can’t see them because a teller hasn’t kicked the button at their station to activate the pop-up barrier. These are very expensive, but very effective as they activate faster than most crooks can think - typically around a second from button press to deployment. I’ve seen videos of these things in action, and invariably, the crook is puzzled by the sudden appearance of a solid wall shooting up in front of them. They get nothing other than arrested.