"Richard J." wrote in message news
Roland Perry wrote on 18 March 2014 20:47:53 ...
In message , at 20:03:09 on Tue, 18 Mar
2014, Mizter T remarked:

On 18/03/2014 19:34, Roland Perry wrote:

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/16/thousa...for-bus-after-
oyster-readers-charge-wrong-card-in-contactless-glitch-4610552/

"Just under one per cent of all Oyster and contactless journeys
involve a card clash and we are seeing this number continue to
drop each week."

Sorry, but 1% seems very high.

My experience of card clash is an error 94 & the gates don't open.

I didn't think that gates were enabled for contactless cards yet.

Given there's a not-insignificant trial running, I'd suggest they are.

I'd forgotten about the trial.

But it's very worrying that they are charging the credit cards of people
not signed up to the trial. That seems to me to be completely wrong, on
many levels (for example, it means anyone can join the 'trial' just by
proffering their card).

The Metro story you referenced in the original post refers to buses -
CPC acceptance is not a trial on buses, it's been accepted as a fare
payment method since December 2012.

I know, but someone mentioned "gates" (error 94 etc), which I don't
recall ever seeing on a bus.

FWIW, trying my contactless credit card on validators (both on gates
and standalone) has resulted in an error message, can't remember which
one.

There are now posters and signs around the transport network warning
against card clash, but I think the message should have been delivered
earlier and more forcefully.

That's another message from the newspaper article - the need for such
warnings, which are quite frankly a desperate attempt to cover up a
massive technology failure.

I'm not sure I'd describe it as a *technology* failure. The passenger
has presented a set of cards to the reader, two of which have validity
for the journey. What do you expect to happen in those circumstances?

If the card furthest away from the reader pad is on the edge of the
acceptable range, it may or may not be read. So you might get a card
clash (neither card accepted - try again) or you might have the nearest
card used for the journey.

The failure is the lack of communication for several YEARS, by both TfL
and the banks. It took me some time to realise that the frequent
mis-read of my Oyster (Freedom Pass) at Tube stations was caused by the
RFID Barclaycard in the same wallet. That was long before RFID cards
had any validity on TfL services. Neither Barclaycard nor TfL had
bothered to warn me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you contradicted your own claim here

If both cards are valid for the journey then you are right that the
technology may have difficulty deciding which one to charge (and certainly
wont know it has made a mistake if only one tries to "connect")

but cards that are not valid for the journey interfering with a card that
is, is a failure of the technology and ought to have been designed out at
the start

tim

tim..... wrote on 18 March 2014 21:57:24 ...


"Richard J." wrote in message news
Roland Perry wrote on 18 March 2014 20:47:53 ...
In message , at 20:03:09 on Tue, 18 Mar
2014, Mizter T remarked:

On 18/03/2014 19:34, Roland Perry wrote:

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/16/thousa...for-bus-after-
oyster-readers-charge-wrong-card-in-contactless-glitch-4610552/

"Just under one per cent of all Oyster and contactless journeys
involve a card clash and we are seeing this number continue to
drop each week."

Sorry, but 1% seems very high.

My experience of card clash is an error 94 & the gates don't open.

I didn't think that gates were enabled for contactless cards yet.

Given there's a not-insignificant trial running, I'd suggest they are.

I'd forgotten about the trial.

But it's very worrying that they are charging the credit cards of people
not signed up to the trial. That seems to me to be completely wrong, on
many levels (for example, it means anyone can join the 'trial' just by
proffering their card).

The Metro story you referenced in the original post refers to buses -
CPC acceptance is not a trial on buses, it's been accepted as a fare
payment method since December 2012.

I know, but someone mentioned "gates" (error 94 etc), which I don't
recall ever seeing on a bus.

FWIW, trying my contactless credit card on validators (both on gates
and standalone) has resulted in an error message, can't remember which
one.

There are now posters and signs around the transport network warning
against card clash, but I think the message should have been delivered
earlier and more forcefully.

That's another message from the newspaper article - the need for such
warnings, which are quite frankly a desperate attempt to cover up a
massive technology failure.

I'm not sure I'd describe it as a *technology* failure. The passenger
has presented a set of cards to the reader, two of which have validity
for the journey. What do you expect to happen in those circumstances?

If the card furthest away from the reader pad is on the edge of the
acceptable range, it may or may not be read. So you might get a card
clash (neither card accepted - try again) or you might have the nearest
card used for the journey.

The failure is the lack of communication for several YEARS, by both TfL
and the banks. It took me some time to realise that the frequent
mis-read of my Oyster (Freedom Pass) at Tube stations was caused by the
RFID Barclaycard in the same wallet. That was long before RFID cards
had any validity on TfL services. Neither Barclaycard nor TfL had
bothered to warn me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you contradicted your own claim here

If both cards are valid for the journey then you are right that the
technology may have difficulty deciding which one to charge (and certainly
wont know it has made a mistake if only one tries to "connect")

but cards that are not valid for the journey interfering with a card that
is, is a failure of the technology and ought to have been designed out at
the start

Or perhaps a limitation of the technology? Are there in fact any
examples of RFID systems which can handle and ignore any non-valid cards
while processing a valid card?
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message ...

tim..... wrote on 18 March 2014 21:57:24 ...


"Richard J." wrote in message news
Roland Perry wrote on 18 March 2014 20:47:53 ...
In message , at 20:03:09 on Tue, 18 Mar
2014, Mizter T remarked:

On 18/03/2014 19:34, Roland Perry wrote:

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/16/thousa...for-bus-after-
oyster-readers-charge-wrong-card-in-contactless-glitch-4610552/

"Just under one per cent of all Oyster and contactless journeys
involve a card clash and we are seeing this number continue to
drop each week."

Sorry, but 1% seems very high.

My experience of card clash is an error 94 & the gates don't open.

I didn't think that gates were enabled for contactless cards yet.

Given there's a not-insignificant trial running, I'd suggest they are.

I'd forgotten about the trial.

But it's very worrying that they are charging the credit cards of
people
not signed up to the trial. That seems to me to be completely wrong, on
many levels (for example, it means anyone can join the 'trial' just by
proffering their card).

The Metro story you referenced in the original post refers to buses -
CPC acceptance is not a trial on buses, it's been accepted as a fare
payment method since December 2012.

I know, but someone mentioned "gates" (error 94 etc), which I don't
recall ever seeing on a bus.

FWIW, trying my contactless credit card on validators (both on gates
and standalone) has resulted in an error message, can't remember which
one.

There are now posters and signs around the transport network warning
against card clash, but I think the message should have been delivered
earlier and more forcefully.

That's another message from the newspaper article - the need for such
warnings, which are quite frankly a desperate attempt to cover up a
massive technology failure.

I'm not sure I'd describe it as a *technology* failure. The passenger
has presented a set of cards to the reader, two of which have validity
for the journey. What do you expect to happen in those circumstances?

If the card furthest away from the reader pad is on the edge of the
acceptable range, it may or may not be read. So you might get a card
clash (neither card accepted - try again) or you might have the nearest
card used for the journey.

The failure is the lack of communication for several YEARS, by both TfL
and the banks. It took me some time to realise that the frequent
mis-read of my Oyster (Freedom Pass) at Tube stations was caused by the
RFID Barclaycard in the same wallet. That was long before RFID cards
had any validity on TfL services. Neither Barclaycard nor TfL had
bothered to warn me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you contradicted your own claim here

If both cards are valid for the journey then you are right that the
technology may have difficulty deciding which one to charge (and certainly
wont know it has made a mistake if only one tries to "connect")

but cards that are not valid for the journey interfering with a card that
is, is a failure of the technology and ought to have been designed out at
the start

Or perhaps a limitation of the technology? Are there in fact any
examples of RFID systems which can handle and ignore any non-valid cards
while processing a valid card?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't really the point at which the technology has failed

if an RFID can't cope with this then that's the technology that's been
poorly implemented

tim