Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:08:02 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
I do not understand why you see the rules of using Oyster as being a
punishment. It's simple enough - touch in and touch out. There have to
be incentives to make sure that people do these simple tasks otherwise
we might as well have free travel everywhere.

Touch in and touch out within an unspecified time period (and if you
exceed that unspecified time period, you're subject to an £8 penalty).
And maybe at some interchange points too, but nobody seems to know for
sure (e.g., Bank).

Sorry but you'll have to explain that one to me.

What I don't understand is why the presumption is that PAYG users are
trying to cheat the system while TravelCard holders are traveling within
their zones. (If a dishonest TravelCard holder travels outside his
zones and exits the system at a station without gates, what possible
reason would he have to touch out? Why is nobody concerned with his
fare evasion? On the flip side, if the TravelCard holder is granted the
benefit of the doubt, why not treat the PAYG user with the same courtesy?)

I don't think it is how you describe it. I am not privy to the analysis
or design making process but I would assume that PAYG users have
displayed more fraudulent behaviour than travelcard holders. There is
certainly more likelihood that fares would not be correctly deducted for
sole PAYG trips than for extension trips beyond Travelcard validity.

It seems like the goal is to penalize infrequent riders, especially
tourists. Tourists generally don't stay in town long enough for a
TravelCard to be worthwhile. Now, when they get lost in the system and
take a bit longer than the system expects to reach their destination,
and they get hit with an £8 penalty, they can't get it eliminated at the
ticket window -- no, they have to call the Oyster helpdesk and then jump
through whatever hoops the helpdesk imposes to collect a refund.

Sorry but I think that is extreme cynicism. I may for TfL but I cannot
conceive of anyone designing a policy on the basis you describe. There
are many tourists for whom a Travelcard may well be worthwhile - it's
been recommended on this group enough times. The alternative is more
likely to be one day travelcards giving NR validity too which can be
useful for certain tourist destinations.

I would also point out that I have yet to see a system where if tourists
participate in the standard ticketing product that they have any
preferential rights over residents in terms of refunds or correction of
problems. If they buy the overpriced rip off tourist ticket they might
get a quick refund if they surrender their ticket but I imagine most
tourists are not organised to do this before they leave their
destination and thus remaining value and deposit paid sit with the
operator.

My HK Octopus card failed on my penultimate trip when I was last in HK.
When I tried to get it read it could not be interrogated. I was told it
would take a week to organise the refund which was a tad inconvenient as
I was due to head off to the airport within 45 minutes! Thankfully the
supervisor was called and some discretion was exercised where I was
given a refund but it was quite clear that they were not very
comfortable with doing it. I can well understand why as they would not
wish to have a rule whereby cards could be surrendered and refunded on
the basis of a guess as to the remaining value from the customer.

And to add insult to injury, the penalty was (supposedly) set at £4 to
reflect the maximum possible fare, yet the penalty doesn't count towards
a Z1-6 cap. If we're going to assume that somebody who forgot to touch
out might have traveled to the opposite end of the Underground map, we
could at least give him credit for that trip towards his daily cap.

I'm sorry but the whole point of this exercise is to get people to
comply with the system's rules. Why on earth should an £4 entry / exit
charge count towards to the cap? There are plenty of things that we can
claim to forget about but they are not without their consequences. All
passengers are being asked to do is to touch a card on a pad on a gate
or validator - is that really so immensely difficult.

It seems from the adverse comments on this group that it was a gross
error by TfL / LU to launch PAYG on the basis of minimum fare deduction
rather than have the proposed system. People have got far too used to an
easy life and wish to have it preserved.

I shall now retire to my bunker awaited the response.

But the new, more stringent system is still wide open to fraud.

If you say so. I accept the system design is a compromise (see below)
but something has to be done to ensure the majority comply with the
rules of the system.

If you want to seriously reduce fraud, install gates at the stations
that don't have them.

Sorry but this was looked at very early on. It is not just gating
stations at their periphery but also installing gates on every open
interchange between LU and NR lines. Given the safety rules that apply
to monitoring and control of gatelines it is a non starter on that
basis. In addition there is the nonsense of making what is a simple
interchange walk a potential nightmare for passengers. Further there are
the issues about management of passenger flows and congestion. Then
there is creating the impression that the LU network is a "prison" which
I personally do not think is desirable. Finally there is the utterly
inordinate cost associated with trying to ensure validation in physical
environments that cannot practically be adapted to allow such. Gates
down the middle of the island platforms at Stratford between NR and the
Central Line - err I think not.

The Stored Value equipped networks in the Far East (Singapore and HK)
have the huge advantage of having designed their networks to be separate
and fully gated from day one. London is trying something not done
anywhere else - SVT that *demands* entry and exit validation to work
properly but without a fully gated network. That requires other
measures to incentivise validation. The most noticeable and powerful
incentive is without doubt financial - I can't see what else can be done
to get people to play by the required rules.



I think this is the nub of the problem. You seem to be convinced that
the purpose of Oyster is to enforce the rules of Oyster.

We can all understand rules that say you need to pay the fare that
covers the journey that you are making and that fare-evasion, when
detected, should be punished.

You seem to be think that people should be punished, not for going
where they shouldn't go, but for failing to understand or comply with
the rules of a system which doesn't detect either fare-evasion or your
being where you shouldn't be, but merely detects that you failed to
comply with its own rules.

Add to this the fact that it is not yet fully possible to comply with
the rules of Oyster, the totally unfair assumption of guilty till
proven innocent and punishment without charge, let alone trial, and now
the withdrawal of means of proving that you are innocent.

What we are left with is a system which imposes new rules which are
difficult to comply with and which automatically extracts extra money
from people, not for any crime (or in return for any service), but
merely for non-compliance with the new rules.

By any definition, this is a scam (or possibly scamola).