On 24/05/2012 15:30, ian batten wrote:
On May 24, 3:24 pm, wrote:

Yes, lots. Much of London suburbia is served by driver only trains in
PF areas. Such areas also often suffer from ticket machine vandalism
and irregular ticket office opening times.

A situation which is crying out for a handy, credit-card sized object
that you can purchase in many locations and use as a ticket.


It'll never catch on.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message
, at
15:03:53 on Thu, 24 May 2012, Sam Wilson remarked:
As I explain above, legal tender is irrelevant to this debate, as a
debt doesn't exist at the point of payment. There are other reasons
why this might not get to court, but that isn't one of them.

Though presumably a debt exists once the passenger travels on the train.
The debate then would be whether it should be treated as a simple debt
or an attempt to defraud punishable by a PF (which might be a fare or
might be a punitive fine levied under railway byelaws.)

If it was a debt then the traveller can pay using whatever legal tender
they have, but the ToC doesn't have to give change.

Otherwise a person waving a £50 note would never have to pay.
--
Roland Perry

"ian batten" wrote in message
...
On May 24, 3:24 pm, bob wrote:

Yes, lots. Much of London suburbia is served by driver only trains in
PF areas. Such areas also often suffer from ticket machine vandalism
and irregular ticket office opening times.

A situation which is crying out for a handy, credit-card sized object
that you can purchase in many locations and use as a ticket.


Arguably the London suburbs extend outside the zones (and outside Greater
London).

Peter

On May 24, 3:44*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

In the SWT area, there are a fair proportion of card only machines, but
AFAIAA only where multiple machines are fitted alongside one another.

And there are card-only machines in LUL stations, although again only
(in my limited experience) in multiple with more full-service
machines. However, it's an interesting question as to whether if you
have a pair of machines, one of which takes cash (or your preferred
method of payment) and the other of which doesn't, and the "wrong" one
fails, whether that constitutes "full working order". A pair of
machines which together accept two forms of payment might be seen as
one machine which takes both, or as two machines either of which needs
to be working. Presumably, someone with money and time on their hands
will get themselves PF'd, force a testcase and get a resolution.

ian

On 24/05/2012 10:33, Max Demian wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 23:56:06 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Harris



There is a major problem with PTT machines in that they encouraged
people to pay 5 pence for a journey and then not pay at the
destination even if they had more cash in their possession.

What do you mean by "then not pay at the destination"? do you mean
refuse to pay, or avoid payment by dodging any barriers or ticket
inspectors? If the former, presumably the rail companies have some way
of dealing with non-payers. If the latter, they could dodge payment
whether the PTT machines existed or not.

The latter. If stopped without a ticket, you were probably up to no
good. If stopped with a 5p permit to travel, you could say you intended
to pay later - and if not stopped, you got a journey for 5p.



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On May 24, 4:56*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

Arguably the London suburbs extend outside the zones (and outside Greater
London).

And the set of people making journeys on heavy rail outside Greater
London who are under 11 and do not hold a season ticket for commuting
to school is how large?

ian

On 24/05/12 10:51, ian batten wrote:
Moreover, Oyster cards don't just "run out",
and someone dim enough to travel without enough credit on their card
to get home is also dim enough to not carry sufficient money to top it
up, even were a machine to do so available.

I had to do ExCel - Limehouse and then, later, Limehouse - Bank by DLR
earlier this year. The machine at Limehouse refused to touch me out and
told me to consult the ticket office. There is no ticket office and no
call button to talk to anyone. Because I had an unresolved journey I was
charged maximum single fare (the nice man from customer services said
that an Oyster Card debits maximum fare when you touch in and refunds
when you touch out.

So, there I was. Started the trip with more than enough money for both
legs, ran out halfway. It happens.

Ian

On 24/05/2012 15:28, ian batten wrote:

... Cranks who don't carry debit
cards are an increasingly irrelevant portion of society and, rather
like people who complain about processes which require a mobile phone,
there comes a point where it is unreasonable for the rest of us to
subsidise them.

Is a dumb phone adequate for your vision of a conveniently conforming
society or are we all supposed to have smartphones?

I note the rise of adverts where URLs for further information are
deliberately obscured from non-smartphone users:

http://wtfqrcodes.com/


--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

On May 24, 7:41*pm, Graham Nye wrote:
On 24/05/2012 15:28, ian batten wrote:

... *Cranks who don't carry debit
cards are an increasingly irrelevant portion of society and, rather
like people who complain about processes which require a mobile phone,
there comes a point where it is unreasonable for the rest of us to
subsidise them.

Is a dumb phone adequate for your vision of a conveniently conforming
society or are we all supposed to have smartphones?

For the problem I was thinking of (SMS parking systems), a standard
phone will do. But eventually, "I don't have a smartphone" (which is
this year's equivalent of "I don't have a television" --- we're
supposed, presumably, to be impressed by your principled stance) will
place you in a set presumed to be economically inactive.


I note the rise of adverts where URLs for further information are
deliberately obscured from non-smartphone users:

No, they've just made a decision that people who don't use smartphones
but who are also a potential market for their product aren't a large
enough set to worry about.

ian

On 24/05/2012 20:27, ian batten wrote:
On May 24, 7:41 pm, Graham Nye wrote:

For the problem I was thinking of (SMS parking systems), a standard
phone will do. But eventually, "I don't have a smartphone" (which is
this year's equivalent of "I don't have a television" --- we're
supposed, presumably, to be impressed by your principled stance)...

The people I know who deliberately don't have a TV whilst having a
somewhat unworldly aura also manage to get a lot done.

(But younger people now might dispense with a TV and just watch
programmes on a laptop.)

I note the rise of adverts where URLs for further information are
deliberately obscured from non-smartphone users:

No, they've just made a decision that people who don't use smartphones
but who are also a potential market for their product aren't a large
enough set to worry about.

Perhaps they just want to attract a clientele that has a demonstrated
weakness for spending several hundreds pounds on keeping up with the
latest gizmos?


--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk