AFAICS fare evasion on buses is now undetectable.

But one must own a contactless credit card.

As long as one can in any way get on the bus in the first place ( for
example using a stolen Freedom Pass/child ticket or whatever ), one
can then, when asked for one's ticket by a RPI, show the credit card.

Credit cards can't be read by MOVies so the RPI will have to take your
word for it.

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 22:34:54 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:

Now how such a check can be done a tube or train when CBC acceptance
is extended - that is a definite challenge!

Is a new handheld device capable of reading such cards not possible?

--
jhk

In message , at 21:17:30 on
Sun, 3 Mar 2013, Jarle H Knudsen remarked:

Now how such a check can be done a tube or train when CBC acceptance
is extended - that is a definite challenge!

Is a new handheld device capable of reading such cards not possible?

Reading the cards isn't a problem. What the gripper needs to know is
whether it was used "recently" to enter the system. Paywave cards don't
store transaction history on them, so you'd need to be in contact with
the bank's back-office systems.
--
Roland Perry

On 2013\03\03 20:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:17:30 on
Sun, 3 Mar 2013, Jarle H Knudsen remarked:

Now how such a check can be done a tube or train when CBC acceptance
is extended - that is a definite challenge!

Is a new handheld device capable of reading such cards not possible?

Reading the cards isn't a problem. What the gripper needs to know is
whether it was used "recently" to enter the system. Paywave cards don't
store transaction history on them, so you'd need to be in contact with
the bank's back-office systems.

Only if you wanted to arrest the person on the spot. If you have their
bank account details and the time, you can work out at the end of the
day whether they need to be summoned to court.

In message , at 13:06:44 on
Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Basil Jet remarked:
Now how such a check can be done a tube or train when CBC acceptance
is extended - that is a definite challenge!

Is a new handheld device capable of reading such cards not possible?

Reading the cards isn't a problem. What the gripper needs to know is
whether it was used "recently" to enter the system. Paywave cards don't
store transaction history on them, so you'd need to be in contact with
the bank's back-office systems.

Only if you wanted to arrest the person on the spot. If you have their
bank account details and the time, you can work out at the end of the
day whether they need to be summoned to court.

You don't want to arrest them, rather than charge a penalty fare. So
will there be a regime where the gripper takes a "swipe" from every such
card offered, and then a post-processing of the penalty for all those
where the card was either not swiped in originally, or the swipe-in was
not properly registered?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 13:06:44 on Mon,
4 Mar 2013, Basil Jet remarked:
Now how such a check can be done a tube or train when CBC acceptance
is extended - that is a definite challenge!

Is a new handheld device capable of reading such cards not possible?

Reading the cards isn't a problem. What the gripper needs to know is
whether it was used "recently" to enter the system. Paywave cards don't
store transaction history on them, so you'd need to be in contact with
the bank's back-office systems.

Only if you wanted to arrest the person on the spot. If you have their
bank account details and the time, you can work out at the end of the day
whether they need to be summoned to court.

You don't want to arrest them, rather than charge a penalty fare. So will
there be a regime where the gripper takes a "swipe" from every such card
offered, and then a post-processing of the penalty for all those where the
card was either not swiped in originally, or the swipe-in was not properly
registered?

Given that this is based upon wireless technology, there must be some scope
for this information getting lost.

I can't believe that retrospectively fining people because the gripper says
that you were on the train but your bank account details don't show that you
have paid, is going to stand up to expert court scrutiny.

tiom

tim..... wrote on Mon, 4 Mar 2013

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 13:06:44 on
Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Basil Jet remarked:
Now how such a check can be done a tube or train when CBC acceptance
is extended - that is a definite challenge!

Is a new handheld device capable of reading such cards not possible?

Reading the cards isn't a problem. What the gripper needs to know is
whether it was used "recently" to enter the system. Paywave cards don't
store transaction history on them, so you'd need to be in contact with
the bank's back-office systems.

Only if you wanted to arrest the person on the spot. If you have
their bank account details and the time, you can work out at the end
of the day whether they need to be summoned to court.

You don't want to arrest them, rather than charge a penalty fare. So
will there be a regime where the gripper takes a "swipe" from every
such card offered, and then a post-processing of the penalty for all
those where the card was either not swiped in originally, or the
swipe-in was not properly registered?

Given that this is based upon wireless technology, there must be some
scope for this information getting lost.

I can't believe that retrospectively fining people because the gripper
says that you were on the train but your bank account details don't
show that you have paid, is going to stand up to expert court scrutiny.

Wouldn't you need to show at least that the system provides adequate
feedback to the passenger at the time of swiping that a transaction has
been provisionally accepted, and has a record of the acceptance? Will
the innovation provide this?
--
Iain Archer

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 13:44:49 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

You don't want to arrest them, rather than charge a penalty fare. So will
there be a regime where the gripper takes a "swipe" from every such card
offered, and then a post-processing of the penalty for all those where the
card was either not swiped in originally, or the swipe-in was not properly
registered?

Given that this is based upon wireless technology, there must be some scope
for this information getting lost.

I'd say it's as acceptable (or not) as being found not to have, as the
stickers say, a validated Oyster card. On the bus at least, it is IMO
very difficult to claim that you didn't know whether your card had
been accepted.

I can't believe that retrospectively fining people because the gripper says
that you were on the train but your bank account details don't show that you
have paid, is going to stand up to expert court scrutiny.

Well, it's not really a fine. It's a charge for not being able to
demonstrate that you've done the right thing, as unfair as you might
think that is.

Richard.

In message , at 22:38:02 on
Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Richard remarked:

I can't believe that retrospectively fining people because the gripper says
that you were on the train but your bank account details don't show that you
have paid, is going to stand up to expert court scrutiny.

Well, it's not really a fine. It's a charge for not being able to
demonstrate that you've done the right thing

The Paywave terminals[1] don't give receipts, so it's quite difficult to
demonstrate [2] that you've used the card. The objection is to in effect
allowing your card to be used to collect a PF off all cardholders, which
they'll nullify if it turns out later that you have paid.

[1] eg on the gates into the tube.
[2] To a gripper on the tube system, who probably won't have his own
wireless connection back to the bank.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:42:04 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 22:38:02 on
Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Richard remarked:

Well, it's not really a fine. It's a charge for not being able to
demonstrate that you've done the right thing

The Paywave terminals[1] don't give receipts, so it's quite difficult to
demonstrate [2] that you've used the card.

Yes, to be clearer I meant demonstrate *somehow*, but I agree that
there is a difference that I hadn't thought about: the Oyster knows it
has been validated, the bank card doesn't, but I don't think it really
matters -- if you have seen the green light and read the message, the
chances of you later being found not to have paid are almost zero.
False positives are going to be in the user's head, did it register my
card? I think this sort of problem is easier to imagine at a station
gateline than on a bus.

Richard.