Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Oyster charging for journeys that don't happen
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:00:26PM +0000, Mizter T wrote:
On 12/02/2015 12:55, David Cantrell wrote: The result - I was charged for entering and exiting at Waterloo, and then charged again for my actual journey. It's not an error, the system is operating as programmed. (You're a programmer, no? Technology, including Oyster, doesn't just do it's own random thing.) Operating as programmed isn't the same as operating without error. If it were then there would be no such thing as a bug. Nor is operating as *specified* the same as operating without error. If it were then specifications would never change. The Oyster website says that they deliberately make this charge "to avoid fare evasion". But I'm really struggling to think of a way of evading fares that would involve touching in, and then touching out less than ten minutes later at the same station. I might just about be able to make a round trip from Waterloo to Vauxhall and back again in ten minutes with a great deal of luck, but it's fairly obvious that the potential costs of people avoiding that fare are far less than the excess income generated. It is clear to me that the specification is faulty in this case. -- David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire There are two kinds of security, the one that keeps your sister out, the one that keeps the government out and the one that keeps Bruce Schneier out. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Oyster charging for journeys that don't happen
In message , at 12:03:34
on Fri, 13 Feb 2015, David Cantrell remarked: The result - I was charged for entering and exiting at Waterloo, and then charged again for my actual journey. It's not an error, the system is operating as programmed. (You're a programmer, no? Technology, including Oyster, doesn't just do it's own random thing.) Operating as programmed isn't the same as operating without error. If it were then there would be no such thing as a bug. Nor is operating as *specified* the same as operating without error. If it were then specifications would never change. The Oyster website says that they deliberately make this charge "to avoid fare evasion". But I'm really struggling to think of a way of evading fares that would involve touching in, and then touching out less than ten minutes later at the same station. I might just about be able to make a round trip from Waterloo to Vauxhall and back again in ten minutes with a great deal of luck, but it's fairly obvious that the potential costs of people avoiding that fare are far less than the excess income generated. It is clear to me that the specification is faulty in this case. The failure mechanism would appear to be someone touching in, and then touching out on a gate but failing to go through the gate. So they are still "airside", and capable of catching a train somewhere. This is such a fundamental fraud vector that whoever designed the system to allow it (while penalising innocent passengers whose platform was changed at the last minute) should be hung out to dry. -- Roland Perry |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Oyster charging for journeys that don't happen
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Oyster charging for journeys that don't happen
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Oyster charging for journeys that don't happen
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:39:18 -0600,
wrote: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: In message , at 07:18:41 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015, remarked: This is such a fundamental fraud vector that whoever designed the system to allow it (while penalising innocent passengers whose platform was changed at the last minute) should be hung out to dry. What do you suggest? Landside validators to confirm you've left the platform. Which will be even less well understood than pink validators? "If you enter and exit at the same station without travelling, you must touch your card at a ticket machine or validator to avoid beeing charged a (penalty) fare." Easy to understand. -- jhk |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Oyster charging for journeys that don't happen
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Oyster charging for journeys that don't happen
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:32:50 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 07:18:41 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015, remarked: What do you suggest? Landside validators to confirm you've left the platform. Nah, there's a far more simple solution - if no one goes through the gates on a touch out (infra red beam not triggered) before they close THEN you deduct a penalty fare otherwise you refund. -- Spud |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Oyster charging for journeys that don't happen
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Oyster charging for journeys that don't happen
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:44:09 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:38:53 on Fri, 13 Feb 2015, d remarked: What do you suggest? Landside validators to confirm you've left the platform. Nah, there's a far more simple solution - if no one goes through the gates on a touch out (infra red beam not triggered) before they close THEN you deduct a penalty fare otherwise you refund. The fare dodgers could just wave an umbrella/briefcase through the beam to get it to falsely register their departure. True, but that would look a bit obvious to any staff standing nearby or on CCTV evidence later. Besides - how many average plebs even know about the infra red detectors? -- Spud |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Oyster error - how does this happen | London Transport | |||
They said it would never happen... | London Transport | |||
Why would this happen? | London Transport | |||
Oh dear.....I'm sure it wont happen. | London Transport | |||
What will happen to KX Thameslink? | London Transport |