On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Neil Williams wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:41:58 -0800 (PST), John B
wrote:

Under your "touching out is mandatory for Travelcard users" model, I'd
be penalised for doing this, because I'd have touched in at Waterloo
and wouldn't have touched out anywhere.

No, because you'd mark the BZ tickets as "only valid with Oyster card
number N" and make them open the barriers at both ends, so you wouldn't
touch your Oyster at all.

So you'd actually be buying a single, and paying for it with your oyster
card. Sounds sensible.

tom

--
.... a tale for which the world is not yet prepared

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:38:02 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

So you'd actually be buying a single, and paying for it with your oyster
card. Sounds sensible.

Yep, or a return. To prevent it being given to someone else, it'd
have the relevant Oyster card number printed on it.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 29 Nov, 18:53, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:38:02 +0000, Tom Anderson

wrote:
So you'd actually be buying a single, and paying for it with your oyster
card. Sounds sensible.

Yep, or a return. *To prevent it being given to someone else, it'd
have the relevant Oyster card number printed on it.

Neil

So Oyster would be a bank. It ought to pay interest.

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:25:42 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote:

So Oyster would be a bank. It ought to pay interest.

Most current accounts don't.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 30 Nov, 06:43, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:25:42 -0800 (PST), MIG

wrote:
So Oyster would be a bank. *It ought to pay interest.

Most current accounts don't.

Didn't mean the comments to follow necessarily. It ought to pay
interest anyway. It's a system for us to lend our money up front and
use it later along with a whole new assumption of guilt, and now huge
inconveniences, thrown at us.

It's supposed to make everything more convenient, but in practice what
we really get is all other fares put up to coerce us to use this
system where we lend our money up front, but for practical reasons
that involves far more inconvenience and complication when we have to
mix systems to get the best deal.

The £3, which almost no one is ever going to claim back, is like a
bank charge for having an account at all. Most banks offer
inducements to get you to lend them their money.

On 30 Nov, 08:48, MIG wrote:
On 30 Nov, 06:43, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:25:42 -0800 (PST), MIG

wrote:
So Oyster would be a bank. *It ought to pay interest.

Most current accounts don't.

Didn't mean the comments to follow necessarily. *It ought to pay
interest anyway. *It's a system for us to lend our money up front and
use it later along with a whole new assumption of guilt, and now huge
inconveniences, thrown at us.

It's supposed to make everything more convenient, but in practice what
we really get is all other fares put up to coerce us to use this
system where we lend our money up front, but for practical reasons
that involves far more inconvenience and complication when we have to
mix systems to get the best deal.

The £3, which almost no one is ever going to claim back, is like a
bank charge for having an account at all. *Most banks offer
inducements to get you to lend them their money.

But that 'interest' is being used in offering cheaper fares than by
paying cash - so you do get something in return.

On 30 Nov, 13:20, Chris wrote:
On 30 Nov, 08:48, MIG wrote:





On 30 Nov, 06:43, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:25:42 -0800 (PST), MIG

wrote:
So Oyster would be a bank. *It ought to pay interest.

Most current accounts don't.

Didn't mean the comments to follow necessarily. *It ought to pay
interest anyway. *It's a system for us to lend our money up front and
use it later along with a whole new assumption of guilt, and now huge
inconveniences, thrown at us.

It's supposed to make everything more convenient, but in practice what
we really get is all other fares put up to coerce us to use this
system where we lend our money up front, but for practical reasons
that involves far more inconvenience and complication when we have to
mix systems to get the best deal.

The £3, which almost no one is ever going to claim back, is like a
bank charge for having an account at all. *Most banks offer
inducements to get you to lend them their money.

But that 'interest' is being used in offering cheaper fares than by
paying cash - so you do get something in return.

A "discount" compared with cash fares they've increased to coerce you
to use Oyster? No thanks.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:48:42 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote:

Didn't mean the comments to follow necessarily. It ought to pay
interest anyway. It's a system for us to lend our money up front and
use it later

Do you "lend" your money to your wallet? It's an electronic wallet,
and one in which there's no need to have large balances.

along with a whole new assumption of guilt

Eh? It means that you cannot be PFed if you are within the TfL area,
on traditional PAYG at least.

It's supposed to make everything more convenient, but in practice what
we really get is all other fares put up to coerce us to use this
system where we lend our money up front, but for practical reasons
that involves far more inconvenience and complication when we have to
mix systems to get the best deal.

Must admit I don't like the "premium-isation" of paper tickets. I'd
have used an Oyster even without it - it's just more convenient.
Arriva have just introduced mobile phone ticketing across their bus
networks - I'll use this because it's more convenient than fumbling
for change. (It's quite well-implemented, though the driver on my way
home was a bit perplexed by it as it was the first one he'd seen - it
was only introduced a week or two ago).

The =A33, which almost no one is ever going to claim back, is like a
bank charge for having an account at all. Most banks offer
inducements to get you to lend them their money.

The gbp3 is a charge for purchasing the card, just like buying a
wallet to hold it in. The card does cost a couple of quid at least -
contactless smartcards are not as cheap as you'd think. And the
charge brings environmental benefits - without it, just like free
newspapers[1], you'd see them all over the floor.

A number of other countries with similar systems don't even offer the
ability to get the money back.

[1] A lot less so with the Standard, it has to be said. I suspect
that's because it's actually worth taking it with you to finish it
off, unlike the erstwhile Lite and London Paper, both of which could
be read cover to cover in their entirety quite easily between Aldgate
and Euston Square.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 30 Nov, 19:56, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:48:42 -0800 (PST), MIG

wrote:
Didn't mean the comments to follow necessarily. *It ought to pay
interest anyway. *It's a system for us to lend our money up front and
use it later

Do you "lend" your money to your wallet? *It's an electronic wallet,
and one in which there's no need to have large balances.

I wouldn't pay for a wallet. Money is in my pocket between taking it
out of the machine and spending it, not in TfL's bank account. Money
in my pocket can be spent on anything I like.


along with a whole new assumption of guilt

Eh? *It means that you cannot be PFed if you are within the TfL area,
on traditional PAYG at least.

You are assumed to be travelling the maximum possible distance unless
you can prove that you didn't (by touching out, having OEP etc). No
such assumption applies to paper travelcards with limited zones.


It's supposed to make everything more convenient, but in practice what
we really get is all other fares put up to coerce us to use this
system where we lend our money up front, but for practical reasons
that involves far more inconvenience and complication when we have to
mix systems to get the best deal.

Must admit I don't like the "premium-isation" of paper tickets. *I'd
have used an Oyster even without it - it's just more convenient.
Arriva have just introduced mobile phone ticketing across their bus
networks - I'll use this because it's more convenient than fumbling
for change. *(It's quite well-implemented, though the driver on my way
home was a bit perplexed by it as it was the first one he'd seen - it
was only introduced a week or two ago).

The =A33, which almost no one is ever going to claim back, is like a
bank charge for having an account at all. *Most banks offer
inducements to get you to lend them their money.

The gbp3 is a charge for purchasing the card, just like buying a
wallet to hold it in. *The card does cost a couple of quid at least -
contactless smartcards are not as cheap as you'd think. *And the
charge brings environmental benefits - without it, just like free
newspapers[1], you'd see them all over the floor.

Not many shops charge me extra if I pull my cash out of a wallet other
than theirs, and also charge me for their wallet.


A number of other countries with similar systems don't even offer the
ability to get the money back.

Somewhere is worse. Well that's all right then.



[1] A lot less so with the Standard, it has to be said. *I suspect
that's because it's actually worth taking it with you to finish it
off, unlike the erstwhile Lite and London Paper, both of which could
be read cover to cover in their entirety quite easily between Aldgate
and Euston Square.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, MIG wrote:

On 30 Nov, 06:43, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:25:42 -0800 (PST), MIG

wrote:
So Oyster would be a bank. *It ought to pay interest.

Most current accounts don't.

Didn't mean the comments to follow necessarily. It ought to pay
interest anyway. It's a system for us to lend our money up front and
use it later along with a whole new assumption of guilt, and now huge
inconveniences, thrown at us.

Have you considered moving to a city where the public transport ticketing
arrangements don't bring you to the brink of seizure on a daily basis?

I like Oyster. It's made things more convenient for me.

tom

--
The price of pedantry is eternal vigilance. -- Sam Wilson