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.