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 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

MIG wrote:

In fact, shops right near stations often won't sell Oyster stuff,
because they'd become a substitute ticket office and the Oyster
commission wouldn't make up for their lost sales in newspapers and
crisps when their real customers are blocked by the queue.

And how happy will they be with people like me who aren't buying anything at
all but are just asking to have an OEP * put on their card?

(* And since the shop near Forest Gate nominated up thread currently
advertises "Travelling Cards" I am full of confidence that all their staff
will know what I will be asking for. Fortunately for me there is another
shop which I do use a bit, but if I'm travelling early or late it won't be
open.)

On 30 Nov, 15:51, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
MIG wrote:
In fact, shops right near stations often won't sell Oyster stuff,
because they'd become a substitute ticket office and the Oyster
commission wouldn't make up for their lost sales in newspapers and
crisps when their real customers are blocked by the queue.

And how happy will they be with people like me who aren't buying anything at
all but are just asking to have an OEP * put on their card?

(* And since the shop near Forest Gate nominated up thread currently
advertises "Travelling Cards" I am full of confidence that all their staff
will know what I will be asking for. Fortunately for me there is another
shop which I do use a bit, but if I'm travelling early or late it won't be
open.)

But most of us here I'm sure will be loading an OEP 'just in case' for
future use, so will always have oner ready to use as they don't expire.

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.