In message , at 14:06:37 on
Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Paul Corfield remarked:
A lot of child fare fraud has been taken off the buses by removing
child fares and requiring the use of Zip cards. Clearly some kids do
faff about with the cards but fraud is low. The use of flat fares
also makes overriding fraud go away too.

In Nottingham they scrapped child "all day" bus fares because of rampant
pass-back fraud.

If numerous kids are going to travel on the same ticket, you might as
well make sure it's a full-fare one.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:50:13PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:40:02
on Fri, 19 Sep 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
Whereas they might well pass
Oysters around, because the amount on it is all that is at risk.
Not if you've got auto-topup enabled - as anyone will have who uses PAYG
frequently and doesn't enjoy pointless queueing.
There were some stats pointed at here about six months ago (when
discussing the imminent demise of the Barclay Onepulse) which I think
(but am willing to be corrected) indicated a very low takeup rate of
auto-topup. Something like 2%

I suppose that the number of people who use it frequently but not quite
enough to make it worth having a travelcard is going to be low.

The thing about the risk of a card-borrower cranking up a huge CPC debt
is "how many coffees can they drink a day"?

My understanding is that there's no way of flagging repeated
transactions just under the twenty quid limit - so no way of saying "OK,
those drinks for GBP18.40 are fine, but if he does it again we should
really ask for a PIN". If that's the case you can *easily* run up a
large bill very quickly with a few rounds of drinks.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

NANOG makes me want to unplug everything and hide under the bed
-- brian d foy

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 01:13:00PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:00:33
on Fri, 19 Sep 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 04:23:17PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Paul Corfield remarked:
the key problem is avoiding fraud / misuse.
Yes, because everyone is nowadays guilty unless proved innocent. Chavs
rule.
It would be much more convenient for me if I could just travel whenever
the hell I wanted without being bothered by pesky ticket barriers and
the like and just tell TfL how much I owe them at the end of the year.
That's an annual all-zones Travelcard I suppose?

No, because you pay for those in advance, and what you pay has little
bearing on your actual usage.

It's really easy to avoid all fraud and misuse if that's all you care
about.
See Richmond, and the ?40k Oyster-banker from Kent. No, avoiding all
fraud isn't easy.

Sure it is. Manually check all tickets and Oyster cards at entry and
exit.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

Sobol's Law of Telecom Utilities:
Telcos are malicious; cablecos are simply clueless.

In message , at 13:10:11
on Mon, 22 Sep 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:50:13PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:40:02
on Fri, 19 Sep 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
Whereas they might well pass
Oysters around, because the amount on it is all that is at risk.
Not if you've got auto-topup enabled - as anyone will have who uses PAYG
frequently and doesn't enjoy pointless queueing.
There were some stats pointed at here about six months ago (when
discussing the imminent demise of the Barclay Onepulse) which I think
(but am willing to be corrected) indicated a very low takeup rate of
auto-topup. Something like 2%

I suppose that the number of people who use it frequently but not quite
enough to make it worth having a travelcard is going to be low.

Although there's increasing traction for the idea of a "3 day a week
season ticket", but perhaps only on National Rail rather than TfL.

My own use of auto-topup kicked in perhaps three times a year and was
mainly to avoid having to queue to top up at would inevitably be the
most inconvenient time.

The thing about the risk of a card-borrower cranking up a huge CPC debt
is "how many coffees can they drink a day"?

My understanding is that there's no way of flagging repeated
transactions just under the twenty quid limit - so no way of saying "OK,
those drinks for GBP18.40 are fine, but if he does it again we should
really ask for a PIN". If that's the case you can *easily* run up a
large bill very quickly with a few rounds of drinks.

FSVO 'large'. If the PIN kicks in after an average of ten transactions,
then that's still what they presumably regard as an acceptable limit.

And if someone is buying *rounds of drinks*, how many of those can they
manage in a day?

[I'm assuming here, that at the end of the day the cardholder will ask
for his card back from whoever he lent it to].
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:14:58
on Mon, 22 Sep 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 01:13:00PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:00:33
on Fri, 19 Sep 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 04:23:17PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Paul Corfield remarked:
the key problem is avoiding fraud / misuse.
Yes, because everyone is nowadays guilty unless proved innocent. Chavs
rule.
It would be much more convenient for me if I could just travel whenever
the hell I wanted without being bothered by pesky ticket barriers and
the like and just tell TfL how much I owe them at the end of the year.
That's an annual all-zones Travelcard I suppose?

No, because you pay for those in advance, and what you pay has little
bearing on your actual usage.

But wouldn't you want your annual spend capped to that? Paying in
advance or arrears isn't a deal-breaker here, although TfL might not
want to wait as long as a year for its money.

It's really easy to avoid all fraud and misuse if that's all you care
about.
See Richmond, and the ?40k Oyster-banker from Kent. No, avoiding all
fraud isn't easy.

Sure it is. Manually check all tickets and Oyster cards at entry and
exit.

Is this a job creation scheme, or do you just run a ban-the-barriers
campaign?
--
Roland Perry

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 10:11:42 AM UTC-4, wrote:

All their competitors would already have their own systems up and running
else they wouldn't still be in business.

Well here in Noo Yawk we're still on dumb paper tickets for commuter rail and magstripe tickets for buses and subway. The MTA have made noises about moving straight to CPC acceptance and not going for an Oyster-a-like so they might well be in the market to buy TfL's solution.

Although given American bureaucracy's "not-invented-here" syndrome I shouldn't be at all surprised if they insist on inventing a wheel all of their own.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Roy wrote:
Although given American bureaucracy's "not-invented-here" syndrome I should=
n't be at all surprised if they insist on inventing a wheel all of their ow=
n.

Believe me - that syndrome isn't restricted to just the USA!

--
Spud

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 01:23:48PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:14:58
on Mon, 22 Sep 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 01:13:00PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:00:33
on Fri, 19 Sep 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
It's really easy to avoid all fraud and misuse if that's all you care
about.
See Richmond, and the ?40k Oyster-banker from Kent. No, avoiding all
fraud isn't easy.
Sure it is. Manually check all tickets and Oyster cards at entry and
exit.

Is this a job creation scheme, or do you just run a ban-the-barriers
campaign?

You must have missed the words "if that's all you care about".

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

Just because it is possible to do this sort of thing
in the English language doesn't mean it should be done

In message , at 11:48:58
on Tue, 23 Sep 2014, David Cantrell remarked:

It's really easy to avoid all fraud and misuse if that's all you care
about.
See Richmond, and the ?40k Oyster-banker from Kent. No, avoiding all
fraud isn't easy.
Sure it is. Manually check all tickets and Oyster cards at entry and
exit.

Is this a job creation scheme, or do you just run a ban-the-barriers
campaign?

You must have missed the words "if that's all you care about".

If it's *all* you care about, reduce the fares to zero.
--
Roland Perry

d wrote:

What idiots use contactless debut cards anyway with all the inherent
security
risks? There's a reason for PINs. As soon as my bank sent me one of these
damn
things I disabled it straight away by cutting through the antenna which
also
has the added bonus that I can have it in my wallet with my oyster and not
have to worry at the gate.

How many banks are doing contactless as default now? All my debit cards are
a few years old and none have it whilst a credit card renewed this summer
didn't either.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c