On 30 Oct 2006 14:02:56 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:


Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:45:56 GMT, "Robin Mayes"
wrote:

Out of interest, have you raised your concerns with TfL?

Paul and others who work for LUL respond to queries on this group to try and
help people out, yet several posts recently appear to be attacking Paul
personally for the rules to deal with Oyster TfL have imposed. Paul doesn't
work in the TfL customer relations department. which, I feel., some recent
comments should be addressed, so those who are implementing these rules can
be advised of the concerns raised.

Thank you Robin. I am clearly attempting to explain something that is
seen as indefensible by a fair slice of group opinion. I might work for,
I may even have been one of the brains behind the Prestige project but
I'm not here to defend a policy I did not develop and do not have
responsibility for. Those who are fed up with it should direct their ire
at LU directly.

I don't come here and contribute to be "beaten around the head". Whether
people like it or not a stored value type product requires an entry and
an exit to work properly - that is how it works. It cannot work any
other way unless you have flat fares which are deducted solely on entry
as in New York on the Subway.

I was going to draft a detailed explanation about the forthcoming change
but I don't see that there is any point because such a post will simply
attract unwarranted criticism when I am trying to be helpful. Sorry to
those who asked for it but there's no point in perpetuating the
criticism. I won't be responding to other posts in the thread even
though some of the conclusions are clearly incorrect.


I agree that there is no point in defending the indefensible.
Explaining it is a bit like explaining to a mugging victim why someone
wanted his wallet, as if that makes it all right.

I am obviously not holding you responsible for the system. I am simply
responding to you with incredulity when you try to defend it.

And as for raising my concerns TfL, again, TfL knows exactly what it is
doing and why it is doing it. It has found a system which
automatically extracts money from people well over the fares they
should have paid while simultaneously saving them the cost of
installing more barriers and employing the staff that are necessary
when there are barriers in operation.

What would be the point of raising my concerns? It would be like
saying to the mugger "I say, do you realise that you have taken my
wallet?".

And it's because of nonsense like this that Paul's given up
responding. You simply will not assume good faith.

James Farrar wrote:
On 30 Oct 2006 14:02:56 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:


Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:45:56 GMT, "Robin Mayes"
wrote:

Out of interest, have you raised your concerns with TfL?

Paul and others who work for LUL respond to queries on this group to try and
help people out, yet several posts recently appear to be attacking Paul
personally for the rules to deal with Oyster TfL have imposed. Paul doesn't
work in the TfL customer relations department. which, I feel., some recent
comments should be addressed, so those who are implementing these rules can
be advised of the concerns raised.

Thank you Robin. I am clearly attempting to explain something that is
seen as indefensible by a fair slice of group opinion. I might work for,
I may even have been one of the brains behind the Prestige project but
I'm not here to defend a policy I did not develop and do not have
responsibility for. Those who are fed up with it should direct their ire
at LU directly.

I don't come here and contribute to be "beaten around the head". Whether
people like it or not a stored value type product requires an entry and
an exit to work properly - that is how it works. It cannot work any
other way unless you have flat fares which are deducted solely on entry
as in New York on the Subway.

I was going to draft a detailed explanation about the forthcoming change
but I don't see that there is any point because such a post will simply
attract unwarranted criticism when I am trying to be helpful. Sorry to
those who asked for it but there's no point in perpetuating the
criticism. I won't be responding to other posts in the thread even
though some of the conclusions are clearly incorrect.


I agree that there is no point in defending the indefensible.
Explaining it is a bit like explaining to a mugging victim why someone
wanted his wallet, as if that makes it all right.

I am obviously not holding you responsible for the system. I am simply
responding to you with incredulity when you try to defend it.

And as for raising my concerns TfL, again, TfL knows exactly what it is
doing and why it is doing it. It has found a system which
automatically extracts money from people well over the fares they
should have paid while simultaneously saving them the cost of
installing more barriers and employing the staff that are necessary
when there are barriers in operation.

What would be the point of raising my concerns? It would be like
saying to the mugger "I say, do you realise that you have taken my
wallet?".

And it's because of nonsense like this that Paul's given up
responding. You simply will not assume good faith.



I don't assume bad faith in Paul's explanations (which is probably not
what you meant).

I and others have repeatedly explained the problems which result in us
either losing money or suffering long delays purely for reasons to do
with the introduction of Oyster. I have repeatedly suggested

1) not introducing draconian measures to encourage people to comply
with Oyster rules before the means of complying with Oyster rules are
fully available

2) offering extension tickets at rather less than £4 to people who can
show a paper travelcard

In response it has been implied

1) that I am talking nonsense

2) that it's my fault for not explaining TfL's own system to TfL

I am close to giving up as well - on using public transport in London.
I am soon going to be the object of those regular threads about wanting
to kill cyclists.

On 31 Oct 2006 01:40:55 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:


James Farrar wrote:
You simply will not assume good faith.



I don't assume bad faith in Paul's explanations (which is probably not
what you meant).

No, it certainly is not what I meant. You will not assume good faith
on the part of TfL in attempting to close off a loophole in the
system.

I don't know why. Assuming bad faith without evidence is an inherently
irrational position.