Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:37:22 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Neil
Williams wrote this:-

It's not a fine.

If it looks like a fine, walks like a fine and talks like a fine
then it is a fine.

It's effectively a purchase price for the card, and
not far off what the cards actually cost.

Opinions vary on what they cost. ISTR it was in this thread that a
much lower price for the card was estimated and the "deposit" was
actually because the card can go into the red in some circumstances,
covered by the "deposit".

And what's more it's refundable.

I have looked through the conditions of carriage and the like for
some details of how this refund works, so far without success. There
is some empty waffle but nothing with enough detail to understand
the process.

If someone can walk up to a booking office, get the £3.00 back and
any remaining credit on the card without any hassle then I am wrong
and the word fine is not appropriate, it is a deposit. On the other
hand if there is leaking of personal data, which is what is reported
on blog sites, then the word fine is appropriate.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:22:11 -0800 (PST) someone who may be MIG
wrote this:-

If it's a fine, it's a fine for losing the card. I had one, lost it,
had to buy another one. I don't expect to get the £3 back, but I may
pay another £3 when I lose this one ...

"A refund is not payable of any deposit paid for the lost/stolen
Oyster card."

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/conditions-of-carriage.pdf
page 39.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

In message
MIG wrote:

On 3 Feb, 09:44, Mizter T wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:51*am, Graeme wrote:





In message
* * * * * David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:27:26 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
ticketyboo wrote this:-

Exactly what happens with Oyster: very many rarely used (including
mine) or never again used cards [1]. But, given the very large gap
between Oyster fares and cash fares, the incentive is there to get an
Oyster card when making only one visit to London. There really ought
to be an expiry date on these type of cards in a metropolitan area -
perhaps 3 years.

Why?

As I understand it the £3.00 fine for getting one covers the cost of
the card and provides a buffer against abuse.

Why this stupid insistence on using emotive words like 'fine' to describe a
simple deposit? *It just devalues any point you might have.

Agreed - it's a feature of David Hansen's writing style that makes
reading his posts rather trying and hectoring.

The cards cost money to produce. The £3 deposit/ charge for them
encourages people to reuse them, rather than bin them.

"Fine" may be the wrong word, but "deposit" is at least as wrong.
"Price" would seem to cover it. There is almost no realistic
opportunity to get the £3 back for the vast majority, and I don't
suppose it's the first thing on relatives' minds when someone dies.


It is a deposit, you can get it back when you finish with the card. If you
don't then that is your choice. I have surrendered a few cards already and
got my deposit on them back.

If it's a fine, it's a fine for losing the card. I had one, lost it,
had to buy another one. I don't expect to get the £3 back, but I may
pay another £3 when I lose this one ...

If you lose your umbrella then you'll have to pay for a new one. Is the cost
of the umbrella a fine?


It's a bit annoying to know that if you did surrender one, it would be
binned anyway. I once found someone's registered Oyster and handed it
in, only for it to dawn on me that it was probably going to be binned
without the person who registered it being informed (at least not
before they bought another one).

Why did you think that? Did you see it binned?

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

In message
David Hansen wrote:

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:22:11 -0800 (PST) someone who may be MIG
wrote this:-

If it's a fine, it's a fine for losing the card. I had one, lost it,
had to buy another one. I don't expect to get the £3 back, but I may
pay another £3 when I lose this one ...

"A refund is not payable of any deposit paid for the lost/stolen
Oyster card."

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/conditions-of-carriage.pdf
page 39.




See umbrellas.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

On Feb 3, 9:37*am, Neil Williams wrote:

I hadn't thought of it until this thread comes up, but if masses of
inactive cards are having to be held on the database, it will just
grow continuously...

And in any business (TfL is effectively a business, so its bosses
should always be fighting to keep cost down) a continually growing
database is a continually growing cost and risk.

As for the conspiracy theorists......

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

On Feb 3, 10:22*am, MIG wrote:

On 3 Feb, 09:44, Mizter T wrote:

On Feb 3, 8:51*am, Graeme wrote:

David Hansen wrote:
[snip]
As I understand it the £3.00 fine for getting one covers the cost of
the card and provides a buffer against abuse.

Why this stupid insistence on using emotive words like 'fine' to describe a
simple deposit? *It just devalues any point you might have.

Agreed - it's a feature of David Hansen's writing style that makes
reading his posts rather trying and hectoring.

The cards cost money to produce. The £3 deposit/ charge for them
encourages people to reuse them, rather than bin them.

"Fine" may be the wrong word, but "deposit" is at least as wrong.
"Price" would seem to cover it. *There is almost no realistic
opportunity to get the £3 back for the vast majority, and I don't
suppose it's the first thing on relatives' minds when someone dies.

"There is almost no realistic opportunity to get the £3 back for the
vast majority" - not true. If it's never been topped up with a credit
card, and the balance is under a certain amount (sorry I forget the
figure), then one can surrender it at a Tube station and get the
deposit refunded (if the card's registered then AIUI this is still
possible, you just need to know the security phrase).


If it's a fine, it's a fine for losing the card. *I had one, lost it,
had to buy another one. *I don't expect to get the £3 back, but I may
pay another £3 when I lose this one ...

It's a bit annoying to know that if you did surrender one, it would be
binned anyway. *I once found someone's registered Oyster and handed it
in, only for it to dawn on me that it was probably going to be binned
without the person who registered it being informed (at least not
before they bought another one).

Eh - how do you "know" this?

My understanding is that surrendered cards are issued again, if
they're in working order, and are not consigned to the bin. Where's
your evidence that they get binned please?

I don't know what the process if for handling registered Oyster cards
that gets handed in is, but these are different from surrendered
Oyster cards.

You are making lazy and inaccurate assumptions that fit your world
view, and proceeding to unequivocally state them as facts.

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

In message
David Hansen wrote:

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:37:22 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Neil
Williams wrote this:-

It's not a fine.

If it looks like a fine, walks like a fine and talks like a fine
then it is a fine.

It doesn't so it isn't.


It's effectively a purchase price for the card, and
not far off what the cards actually cost.

Opinions vary on what they cost. ISTR it was in this thread that a
much lower price for the card was estimated and the "deposit" was
actually because the card can go into the red in some circumstances,
covered by the "deposit".

And what's more it's refundable.

I have looked through the conditions of carriage and the like for
some details of how this refund works, so far without success. There
is some empty waffle but nothing with enough detail to understand
the process.

You walk up to a manned ticket counter and say I want to surrender this
Oyster card please. Possibly even you could manage that.


If someone can walk up to a booking office, get the £3.00 back and
any remaining credit on the card without any hassle then I am wrong
and the word fine is not appropriate, it is a deposit.

That is exactly what happens. You are wrong.

On the other hand if there is leaking of personal data, which is what is
reported on blog sites, then the word fine is appropriate.


Given your paranoia I assume you pay cash for your card and get cash when you
surrender it. Where is the leakage of personal data? All Boris knows is
that the card was used by an alledged human being.


--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:11:10 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Mizter T
wrote this:-

As ever you're quite right. It's a bid to furnish MI5 with as many
personal details as they can get.

Nice try, but if you want to stop making bad arguments you need to
address what people say rather than your distortion of it.

The assertion you claim I have made is not one I have made. The
Security Service gets personal details from many places. What I have
said, and so far nobody has rebutted it, is that linking travel data
from the card with personal information on who has it provides a lot
of extra data for the forces of darkness to pour into their
computers.

They have spent a lot of money on computer software to do data
mining, match patterns and wish to justify it. That is also one of
the main reasons that the police use every trick they can think of
to get personal details when they stop and search people attending
political gatherings [1]. Those tricks include accusing people of
stealing their own bank cards and accusing anyone with a foreign
accent of being an illegal immigrant. It is discussed in the reports
at http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/get-involved/working-groups/legal
and at least one of the police reports into Kingsnorth complains
that many of the forms were not legible enough to enter this
personal information on the database of dangerous intellectuals [2]
[3].

Anyone questioning this logic is a naive idiot.

Please provide some examples of where I have called people taking
part in this discussion naive or an idiot.

Anyone proffering alternative explanations is just making excuses.

Again, nice try, but if you want to stop making bad arguments you
need to address what people say rather than your distortion of it.

If someone offers an explanation then it may be tested to see if it
fits with the facts. So far none of the explanations have fitted in
with the facts, other than that the gadget does not always work as
it is claimed it should. The explanation of why this happens is a
matter for conjecture.



[1] the other main reason is to try and intimidate people into not
going to the meeting or not going to another one.

[2] the database isn't called this, but that is what it is, people
with opinions which are different from government.

[3] probably the South Yorkshire one, but I can't be bothered to
look it up.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

On 3 Feb, 10:52, Mizter T wrote:
On Feb 3, 10:22*am, MIG wrote:





On 3 Feb, 09:44, Mizter T wrote:

On Feb 3, 8:51*am, Graeme wrote:

David Hansen wrote:
[snip]
As I understand it the £3.00 fine for getting one covers the cost of
the card and provides a buffer against abuse.

Why this stupid insistence on using emotive words like 'fine' to describe a
simple deposit? *It just devalues any point you might have.

Agreed - it's a feature of David Hansen's writing style that makes
reading his posts rather trying and hectoring.

The cards cost money to produce. The £3 deposit/ charge for them
encourages people to reuse them, rather than bin them.

"Fine" may be the wrong word, but "deposit" is at least as wrong.
"Price" would seem to cover it. *There is almost no realistic
opportunity to get the £3 back for the vast majority, and I don't
suppose it's the first thing on relatives' minds when someone dies.

"There is almost no realistic opportunity to get the £3 back for the
vast majority" - not true. If it's never been topped up with a credit
card, and the balance is under a certain amount (sorry I forget the
figure), then one can surrender it at a Tube station and get the
deposit refunded (if the card's registered then AIUI this is still
possible, you just need to know the security phrase).

I know that one physically can do this, but when is anyone ever going
to be in that situation?

If you are leaving the country forever, it's probably not the first
thing on your mind, but it's about the only situation in which you
would do it.

It's unlikely that you'd ever be in a position where you would KNOW
that you would either

a) never visit London again

b) die before you needed it again

c) lose it before the next time you would use it

So, in what circumstances, realistically, would the vast majority ever
get their £3 back?

If it's a fine, it's a fine for losing the card. *I had one, lost it,
had to buy another one. *I don't expect to get the £3 back, but I may
pay another £3 when I lose this one ...

It's a bit annoying to know that if you did surrender one, it would be
binned anyway. *I once found someone's registered Oyster and handed it
in, only for it to dawn on me that it was probably going to be binned
without the person who registered it being informed (at least not
before they bought another one).

Eh - how do you "know" this?

My understanding is that surrendered cards are issued again, if
they're in working order, and are not consigned to the bin. Where's
your evidence that they get binned please?

Firstly there was the body language of the woman I handed it to, who
seemed to be putting it aside very casually and looked at me like I
was an idiot when I said that I hoped it was in time for the person
not to get another one, There was no sense of any action being about
to follow, like an urgent call to the person who had registered it.
Nothing noted down. She seemed to be more concerned with telling me
that I couldn't use it, which had never been suggested. I never
checked if there was any credit on it, but had confirmed with the
helpline that it was registered (also not dealt with as an obvious
question).

Secondly, shortly after that incident, someone did post here that they
are definitely never reissued. Can't remember who it was or in what
thread (please come forward) ...



I don't know what the process if for handling registered Oyster cards
that gets handed in is, but these are different from surrendered
Oyster cards.

You are making lazy and inaccurate assumptions that fit your world
view, and proceeding to unequivocally state them as facts.

It what sense is "it dawned on me that it was probably..."
unequivocally stating a fact?

Conflict of Oyster Cards
 

On 3 Feb, 10:48, Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * MIG wrote:





On 3 Feb, 09:44, Mizter T wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:51*am, Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:27:26 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
ticketyboo wrote this:-

Exactly what happens with Oyster: very many rarely used (including
mine) or never again used cards [1]. But, given the very large gap
between Oyster fares and cash fares, the incentive is there to get an
Oyster card when making only one visit to London. There really ought
to be an expiry date on these type of cards in a metropolitan area -
perhaps 3 years.

Why?

As I understand it the £3.00 fine for getting one covers the cost of
the card and provides a buffer against abuse.

Why this stupid insistence on using emotive words like 'fine' to describe a
simple deposit? *It just devalues any point you might have.

Agreed - it's a feature of David Hansen's writing style that makes
reading his posts rather trying and hectoring.

The cards cost money to produce. The £3 deposit/ charge for them
encourages people to reuse them, rather than bin them.

"Fine" may be the wrong word, but "deposit" is at least as wrong.
"Price" would seem to cover it. *There is almost no realistic
opportunity to get the £3 back for the vast majority, and I don't
suppose it's the first thing on relatives' minds when someone dies.

It is a deposit, you can get it back when you finish with the card. *If you
don't then that is your choice. *I have surrendered a few cards already and
got my deposit on them back.

If it's a fine, it's a fine for losing the card. *I had one, lost it,
had to buy another one. *I don't expect to get the £3 back, but I may
pay another £3 when I lose this one ...

If you lose your umbrella then you'll have to pay for a new one. *Is the cost
of the umbrella a fine?

Of course not. It certainly isn't a deposit, which is what I was
saying. It's simply a price.


It's a bit annoying to know that if you did surrender one, it would be
binned anyway. *I once found someone's registered Oyster and handed it
in, only for it to dawn on me that it was probably going to be binned
without the person who registered it being informed (at least not
before they bought another one).

Why did you think that? *Did you see it binned?

See other response.