On 9 May, 17:10, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
MIG wrote

On May 8, 6:39*pm, "Michael R N Dolbear" *wrote:
MIG wrote
solution, it is sheer bloody-mindedness that makes TfL and its
defenders refuse to contemplate addressing it.
And Tfl's attackers redefine the question as they go.
I haven't quite followed your point. *You seem to be identifying a

number of potential problems.

If some or even one of them had a simple solution, shouldn't it be

applied?

"Every problem has an answer which is obvious, simple and wrong"

Are you saying "there's lots of problems, so we can't start solving

any of them in case people ask us to solve the others"?

What we mostly see on this NG is the Frank Sinarta questioner, "I want
to do it my way" and no solution is acceptable that requires any change
in the questioner's *behavior still less any enhancement in know.

I really think that that attitude applies more to TfL's dogged
insistence that all Oyster rules are correct and fair and will not be
changed, without reference to Oyster's incomplete availability or any
attempt to point out any problems to which there are solutions.

On 9 May, 17:10, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
MIG wrote

Today, while queuing at the ticket office (with a slightly shorter

queue than the machine with a pad) purely to find out how much credit
I had left, because the barriers don't display anything, a couple in
front of me were being charged £8 to get to Finsbury Park and were
shocked.

They lived in Cambridge and had no intention of getting Oyster cards

(£6 in deposits?). *Welcome to London.

So why didn't they buy a through ticket to Finsbury Park at Cambridge ?

I assume that they were going to pick up their Cambridge train at
Finsbury Park (maybe with a Cambridge - Finsbury Park return), having
visited Central London.

But I didn't engage them in conversation.

On Fri, 9 May 2008 01:14:57 -0700 (PDT), Boltar
wrote:

On May 9, 7:23 am, James Farrar wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 12:49:26 -0700 (PDT), Boltar

wrote:
On 8 May, 17:30, James Farrar wrote:
Bottom line, when you get penalised because you screwed up - that's
no-one's fault but your own.

You are a jackass arn't you. I had money on me , ergo I didn't screw
up.

Then why are you whingeing?

Because I got screwed over. But like I said, you're a jackass and
obviously too stupid to understand the issue here.

The issue is: it's trivial to keep track of your PAYG balance. You
failed to do so.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

In article ,
MIG wrote:
I really think that that attitude applies more to TfL's dogged
insistence that all Oyster rules are correct and fair and will not be
changed, without reference to Oyster's incomplete availability or any
attempt to point out any problems to which there are solutions.

I think you'll find that most people think that Oyster rules can
be improved, but that (on the whole) it's better than the alternatives.

IMO, the detractors of oyster do not understand why it is the way
it is. This understanding is essential to understand if the change
will be a net improvement or not.

Noone is doubting that making cash fares and oyster fares would
be an improvement for some... but TfL have to worry about the rest
of London too. It would be daft to improve the service for - say
- a thousand folk at the cost of the other 7.5 million folk in
London.

Personally, I'm moderatly impresed with TfL at the moment. Oyster
readers at my Overground station were broken, so on my journey home
I touched in at the start of the journey and couldn't touch out on
exit. Before I rang the oyster helpdesk, they'd already emailed me
to tell me a refund had been issued!

(I'll probably have to ring them anyway: I didn't touch in on the way
to work, so I owe them 50p or something).

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

In message
,
solar penguin writes

Most people just want to get somewhere as quickly, cheaply and easily
as possible, and don't want to think about the actual details of
journey at all.

In which case they have to depend on those who could well sell them the
most expensive ticket by the longest and most inefficient route. Some
travel agents make a very good living by cashing in on such naivety.

--
Paul Terry

On 9 May, 17:24, John B wrote:
Could you get any more Anglophone-arrogant? Last time I checked, TfL
stations didn't have signs in Katakana...

I think its fair to say that the latin alphabet is a worldwide
standard which the majority of the world population who are literate
would at least have a basic knowledge of. Any metro that didn't have
phonetic signs using the latin alphabet is probably just being bloody
minded. Or in North Korea.

B2003

John B wrote:
On 9 May, 12:33, Boltar wrote:
the system should go out of its way to accommodate them. As it is, TfL
does allow people who are clueless about the system to use it, but
imposes a fee for the inconvenience they cause.
That kind of arrogant attitude just about sums you and your fellow TfL
apologists up. I rest my case.

I look forward to meeting you next time I'm in Toyko, ranting about
the arrogance of the subway company as you struggle to find the exit.

If Tokyo (or for that matter Timbuktu, Ulan Bator or Glasgow) don't use
some kind of obvious pictogram or distinctive sign for the way out, I'd
say they were being a bit odd - not least on safety grounds.

I've never been to Japan, but do they not transliterate the station
names into the Roman alphabet? Thailand does. Or just use a (western)
alphanumeric code, which I've met somewhere.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Boltar wrote:
On May 8, 9:25 pm, Simon wrote:
You are just being silly. TfL provide cheap and excitant travel for
Londoners.

Sorry , that joke is lost on me , it must be too early in the morning.

It's true, though. Try elsewhere in the country. See what response you
get in Hull to something like "the 01.00 bus was a whole 10 min late,
and they only run every 20 min".

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On May 9, 7:07*pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
* * * * MIG wrote:

I really think that that attitude applies more to TfL's dogged
insistence that all Oyster rules are correct and fair and will not be
changed, without reference to Oyster's incomplete availability or any
attempt to point out any problems to which there are solutions.

I think you'll find that most people think that Oyster rules can
be improved, but that (on the whole) it's better than the alternatives.

IMO, the detractors of oyster do not understand why it is the way
it is. *This understanding is essential to understand if the change
will be a net improvement or not. *

Noone is doubting that making cash fares and oyster fares *would
be an improvement for some... but TfL have to worry about the rest
of London too. *It would be daft to improve the service for - say
- a thousand folk at the cost of the other 7.5 million folk in
London.

I think there's more than a thousand tourists, other visitors and
south London residents.

Also, this is totally inconsistent with TfL's (quite correct) attitude
to disabled people, people with child buggies etc, who are a minority
but should not have their opportunities restricted just because a lot
of able-bodied commuters are all right Jack.

TfL is there to provide a public service to all the public.

In article ,
Boltar wrote:
On 9 May, 17:24, John B wrote:
Could you get any more Anglophone-arrogant? Last time I checked, TfL
stations didn't have signs in Katakana...

I think its fair to say that the latin alphabet is a worldwide
standard

Western European, rather than worldwide.

which the majority of the world population who are literate
would at least have a basic knowledge of. Any metro that didn't have
phonetic signs using the latin alphabet is probably just being bloody
minded. Or in North Korea.

Or in Moscow, Japan, China, Greece or any country using the Arabic
alphabet (which used to include examples on every continent except
Antarctica and America).


--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash