tim...... wrote:

Got on the bus on Saturday, and concentrating on the stupid tiny little
screen so that I should see my remaining balance I didn't notice whether I
got a red/green light (or a beep)

When nothing came up on the screen I asked the driver if it had
registered, and she said no.

So I "tapped in" again and got "card already used for this journey",
driver looked bemused, I shrugged and sat down.

And now on obtaining a printout of my journey history I find that I didn't
make a registered bus journey at 18:00 on Saturday.

So how did that happen (and I dread to think what the conversation would
have been if an inspector got on - he wouldn't have believed me, would
he!)?

I don't know whether I am mis-remembering something, but I thought it was
obligatory for a bus operator to issue paper proof that you have paid for
the journey you are making, assuming you don't already have it. The
purpose, I always assumed, was that it protected the innocent passenger
against false accusations of fare-dodging.

A paper pass, with the relevant validations printed on it (date(s) etc.)
serves this purpose. As does a conventional ticket issued for a single or
return pay-as-you-go journey.

A piece of plastic with the information buried in an embedded chip and/or a
remote computer under the sole control of the operator doesn't provide any
sort of objective evidence, as far as I can see.

Similarly, a card/paper 10-trip ticket (where the driver punches a hole each
time I board) provides no objective evidence that I have paid for my
journey if an inspector challenges me. Is it the operator's problem or
mine? (I may as well never take any ticket that the driver issues me,
provided I carry an exhausted 10-trip card with me at all times!)

So, which of these is the case:
(a) there was no such law;
(b) there was a law but it got repealed;
(c) there is such a law but it is now routinely ignored;
(d) something else.

(Sorry, I know the 10-trip ticket example is very provincial!)