Richard M Willis wrote:
Why had this guy "clearly worked out .. " ? You can't know what he
was doing on his other journeys, or even if he made other journeys.

There are loads of things in life where you can say "I didn't expect
that" or someone surprises you.. but the fact he had a smirk on his
face, and just handed over the £20 before anyone had said a word
suggests he might have done it before. How else would he have known it
was a £20 penalty? Maybe he saw a poster, or maybe not.

People who can't get a ticket (and I've seen a situation where someone
has stepped on a train, asked the inspector *when the doors were still
open* if he would sell a ticket and STILL been penalty fared once the
doors shut) usually argue or say SOMETHING. This is why I conclude it
has happened before. Maybe I am wrong, but it isn't unique.

On my line, the vast majority of fare evaders are still of the chav
variety (and in groups, inspectors will leave them alone unless backed
up by police) that probably don't even know what a ticket machine looks
like! Hatfield has now closed the side access door, but that hardly
forces them to stop at the ticket window before boarding!

Incurring a Penalty Fare is not a criminal offence: it is simply the
cost of a ticket when purchased on-train.

Indeed, which is why it's the easy option for TOCs. However, it's
pretty obvious that this person (or others like him, if you're so sure
he's innocent) is intentionally fare evading. I doubt he is likely to
be hunting down a member of staff at his destination, and Kings Cross
will ALWAYS be able to sell you a ticket - there's a manned office 24
hours a day!!

As the train stops at the platform, I moved to the door where the grippeurs
were, explained that I just HAD to get THAT train and was happy to pay the
22.20.
(I said all this before boarding). They issued me a PF and I paid. There was
no animosity at all.

I have no problem with that. I've boarded HEX in a hurry and not only
had to pay the surcharge but also lose my railcard discount. It's still
cheeky that they PF'd you (see my comment above about a similar
situation) when you were perfectly open about it. I guess they figured
that you might do this regularly and bank on there NOT being someone.

Do you buy a ticket at your destination or consider yourself lucky when
there isn't anyone on the train doing a check? That decides if you're a
fare evader or not, especially as the conditions of travel on FCC say
you must buy a ticket in advance or a permit to travel. Otherwise
you're effectively tresspassing!

Jonathan

On 14 Jun 2006 04:21:55 -0700, "Jonathan Morris" wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:
a 20 quid penalty every couple of weeks was
cheaper than a season ticket. It was even more "favourable" when the
PF used to be a tenner.

Even after the £20 introduction last year, a gripper 'caught' a guy in
a suit that had £20 in his hand and gave it over before the inspector
said a word. He'd clearly worked out that it was cheaper than a ticket
every day. Sadly, he's right to think it.

Well, that's what the threat of a £1,000 fine and a jail term is supposed to
counter. If you get caught once or twice, £20. However, more than that and
there should be prosecution and, on conviction, the appropriate sentence.

I suspect that the fine would be more than a yearly season ticket. And the
criminal record (including a possible stay with Her Majesty) might make suits
think twice about fare evasion.

But of course, since they're only fare-evaders they aren't interesting to the
criminal justice people.
--
Chris Hansen | chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com
|http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk or
|http://www.livejournal.com/users/chrishansenhome/

Christian Hansen wrote:
Well, that's what the threat of a £1,000 fine and a jail term is supposed to
counter. If you get caught once or twice, £20. However, more than that and
there should be prosecution and, on conviction, the appropriate sentence.

You'd need to keep detailed records to do this. I suspect it's easier
to dish out a penalty, earn your £1 commission and move on.

I suspect that the fine would be more than a yearly season ticket. And the
criminal record (including a possible stay with Her Majesty) might make suits
think twice about fare evasion.

If it happens, sure. However...

"..since they're only fare-evaders they aren't interesting to the
criminal justice people."

....shows why they shouldn't be too worried.

Fines for those who attend court are pathetic, going by the ones I've
seen published in local newspapers (from court). It probably costs the
TOC more than they ever get back, so penalties have become the standard
'punishment', which is in my opinion woefully inadequate as a
deterrant.

Jonathan

"Jonathan Morris" wrote in message
oups.com...
Christian Hansen wrote:


You'd need to keep detailed records to do this. I suspect it's easier
to dish out a penalty, earn your £1 commission and move on.

Is there really a £1 commission on penalty fares?

It probably costs the
TOC more than they ever get back, so penalties have become the standard
'punishment', which is in my opinion woefully inadequate as a
deterrant.

I saw two results from the City of London court two days ago for London
Underground.

Case 1 was £300 fine, £100 costs and £3.00 compensation. £403 in all.
Case 2 was £330 fine, £100 costs and £3.00 compensation. £433 in all.

"Christian Hansen" wrote in
message

Well, that's what the threat of a £1,000 fine and a jail term is supposed
to
counter. If you get caught once or twice, £20. However, more than that and
there should be prosecution and, on conviction, the appropriate sentence.

Why so ? It's perfectly legal for someone to board a train ticket-less-ly
and pay the PF on every journey if they want to. There is no offence to
be prosecuted for !

Why do you use words such as "caught" ? There are only two possibilities:
a) you are suspected of FE, in which case you should be prosecuted
b) you simply board a train without a ticket, in which case the PF is the
only ticket
available to you.

There is no situation in which you can be prosecuted OR PF'd: the two are
mutually exclusive (for a particular jny)

Richard [in SG19]



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Richard M Willis wrote:

Why do you use words such as "caught" ? There are only two possibilities:
a) you are suspected of FE, in which case you should be prosecuted
b) you simply board a train without a ticket, in which case the PF is the
only ticket
available to you.

Which is why PFs are a nonsense as they are currently implemented. The
suspicion in the above is left down to the ticket staff, who (according
to recent posts in here) often go down the prosecution route even for
an obvious case of forgetting a season ticket had expired or similar.

We should either;
1. Abolish PFs and take everyone who doesn't pay to court for evasion,
perhaps allowing the normal fare to be charged for obvious non-evasion
cases.
2. Increase the PF and make it the only sanction against someone who
hasn't paid, making fare-evasion a civil matter like unauthorised
parking is. The level of the PF and frequency of checks should be such
that a profit, not a loss, is made from people "choosing" to pay the
PF.

I would strongly favour #2.

Neil

"Christian Hansen" wrote in
message ...
On 14 Jun 2006 04:21:55 -0700, "Jonathan Morris"
wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:
a 20 quid penalty every couple of weeks was
cheaper than a season ticket. It was even more "favourable" when the
PF used to be a tenner.

Even after the £20 introduction last year, a gripper 'caught' a guy in
a suit that had £20 in his hand and gave it over before the inspector
said a word. He'd clearly worked out that it was cheaper than a ticket
every day. Sadly, he's right to think it.

Well, that's what the threat of a £1,000 fine and a jail term is supposed
to
counter. If you get caught once or twice, £20. However, more than that and
there should be prosecution and, on conviction, the appropriate sentence.

I suspect that the fine would be more than a yearly season ticket. And the
criminal record (including a possible stay with Her Majesty) might make
suits
think twice about fare evasion.

But of course, since they're only fare-evaders they aren't interesting to
the
criminal justice people.

Thousands of poeple are prosecuted every year for fare evasion. It is now
handled as a private prosecution by London Transport thereby bypassing the
Crown Prosecution Service, which did indeed use to drag its feet on such
matters.

Jonathan Morris wrote:
Having used the new station entrance for the H&C, Circle and Met lines
at Kings Cross, I've been using the new style barriers regularly and
must question who designed them or allowed them to be put into use?

In addition to all these points, I also find the angle of the Oyster
card reader very awkward compared to the old style gates where the
readers were retro-fitted. Maybe it's my height or the way I hold my
card, but it feels much more awkward to swipe on the new gates. Is it
just me, or has anyone else noticed this?

Patrick

wrote:
Jonathan Morris wrote:
Having used the new station entrance for the H&C, Circle and Met lines
at Kings Cross, I've been using the new style barriers regularly and
must question who designed them or allowed them to be put into use?

In addition to all these points, I also find the angle of the Oyster
card reader very awkward compared to the old style gates where the
readers were retro-fitted. Maybe it's my height or the way I hold my
card, but it feels much more awkward to swipe on the new gates. Is it
just me, or has anyone else noticed this?

Not just you - I've noticed this too. I've also noticed how slow the
gates seem to be - I end up doing an emergency stop every time I use
them, because I expect them to open more quickly! Really I should
remember that when I go to King's Cross...


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On 14 Jun 2006 02:49:01 -0700, "Jonathan Morris"
wrote:

Having used the new station entrance for the H&C, Circle and Met lines
at Kings Cross, I've been using the new style barriers regularly and
must question who designed them or allowed them to be put into use?

Sure, they're smaller which means more barriers, but they open so slow
that they;

a) Make you wait to pass through, which causes delays and frustration
if you're in a hurry to make a connection.

b) Take ages to close, which means I've had a guy double up with me on
two separate occasions in a week. I've never had *anyone* double up
before, and on the second time I tried to walk slowly in the hope the
barrier would close on him. However, it stays open long enough that I
bet two people could double up. The police are usually there, but don't
seem interested - after all, they're looking for terrorists.

"Doing a lambada" at ticket gates can happen anywhere with any type of
gate. The electric gates have a more "swept" movement than the old air
gates which are at Kings Cross.

Your observations are not new but the latest small gates are not
indicative of a policy change. It is fair to say that the operation of
ticket gates and the paddle movements are a compromise between the
engineering design, throughput and safety. The end result will never be
ideal and I have yet to see a gate or turnstile anywhere in the world
that cannot be evaded by someone determined enough.

I would imagine that in time the manufacturers will review the setting
of the gates and could fine tune to reduce "lambadas" if it is
considered necessary.

So, along with the bendy buses problem, it seems that fare evasion
isn't difficult in London - and presumably these 'new' barriers will be
rolled out to all stations in due course.

The gates - not barriers please - will only be installed as and when the
air supply is no longer available as it feeds from the signalling system
or as in this case where new station areas need to be equipped. I
cannot recall the design life of the air gates but as they are modular
they can continue in service for a long time provided the air supply
remains available.

I picked up an interesting comment in another thread about fare evasion
on buses, from Paul Corfield, which points out that with many new
measures and initiatives in place, it's quite possible that TfL believe
they no longer need to try too hard to enforce what they believe is no
longer a real issue;

I don't think that is the case at all.

[snip]

It's a very valid point. However, even if TfL aren't too concerned,
what about passengers paying high fares and watching others going for
free?

I think you need to make sure you are quoting me in the correct context.
The comment I made was in the context of bus fraud and the ticketing
structure. That structure does not apply to the Tube and many forms of
fraud remain on LUL that are not present on buses. Ticket gates are an
excellent way of dealing with such frauds. Gates are also an excellent
tool to ensure that people do validate on entry and exit with Oyster so
that pre-pay and capping and auto extensions and auto add value / ticket
upload work.

As I am the person who was the LU business client for network wide
gating I cannot accept you attributing a quote of mine in the context of
LU's revenue collection policy or TfL's view of the same when that is
not what I was talking about.

I am also the person who spent a lot of time explaining the benefits of
gating and the business case issues to a wide range of TOCs as well as
the first private owners (Prism) of what is now C2C. While it is
obviously for each TOC to decide if they want gates I like to think that
I was pretty instrumental in getting them adopted on the national
network. Naturally I think they work well and after a period of
difficulty with both passenger and staff acceptance I am of the view
that we did an excellent job in getting network gating delivered on the
LU system.

It may be considered acceptable to allow a small percentage of
fraudsters, but this is infuriating - especially on overcrowded trains
or buses that wouldn't necessarily have to BE so crowded if you could
remove the free-riders. There is almost no chance of these people being
caught and, if as another poster said, there are regular checks in
certain areas, the chances are even lower once they know to avoid them.

No one said it is acceptable. I said that the business case for bendy
buses is such that a higher rate of evasion due to open boarding would
not destroy the case for having the form of bendy bus operation we have.
I also said that the nature of fraud risk had materially changed on the
buses due to structural change in the ticketing product range.

Barriers were supposed to address the problem, and these will be the
ones rolled out on National Rail stations in the future (e.g. First
Capital Connect) so, for the ones not paying, they'll present almost no
barrier at all.

Sorry but not correct. There are many different suppliers of gates and
while Cubic have the biggest share of the market they are not without
competitors. The TOCs have procured gates from different manufacturers.
There is also no requirement at all for TOCs to have gates to the same
settings as those used on LU. In many cases there is justification for
them being different as the throughput requirement at Kings Cross Tube
is rather different to say Enfield Chase on FCC (to pull an example out
of the hat).
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!