Re: [Vic] Metcard - What could be done.

[mk@netstra.com.au (Michael [remote])]

daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au (Dave Proctor) wrote in
<ypc25.13$k_4.346033@news0.optus.net.au>: 

>> Failure to validate initially can be considered fare evasion. Failure
>> to constantly revaldate is not fare evasion, since the ticket is
>> already valid to expire at a certain time/date. This means, that for
>> no reason other than bureaucratic convenience, people are forced to
>> continually revalidate against their will.
>
>And once again you miss the point. If everyone validated every single
>time, then the fare evaders would stand out. If community attitudes did
>not tolerate fare evasion, then people who did not validate would be
>abused by other passengers. But since everyone with a ticket validates
>every time, this abuse would be valid, as the person being abused would
>be fare evading. 

Wrong. No-one in their right mind would tell off someone for not 
validating. Have you ever seen fellow passengers who don't even know the 
offender sticking up for the offender when an RPO asks for details? It's 
the RPO's job to check tickets, a small green box on a pole can't tell fine 
someone who's not paid their fare. If someone who wasn't in their right 
mind told someone that they were evading their fare they would a) be beaten 
up b) be told where to go c) laughed at d) all of the above, not 
necessarily in that particular order.

>> You are also required to buy a ticket before travelling. What you are
>> implying is, it's okay to have to buy an etag, and never have to
>> inconveniently stop to revalidate the etag every time you hit a toll
>> point, but it's not okay to be able to purchase a train/tram/bus
>> ticket, and not have to inconveniently stop to revalidate the ticket
>> every time you hit a point of validation. Double standards? Keep
>> digging. 
>
>No such double standards. My point was in response to the claim that
>people should not have to buy tickets in advance, and that using cars
>does not require any form of pre-purchase. I agree that people should
>not have to pre-purchase a ticket for public transport, but they should
>be encouraged to (preferably by making it slightly cheaper - the carrot
>rather than the stick).

People should be able to get from point A to point B without any 
inconvenience whatsoever. e-Tag and the current Metcard system don't 
achieve this.

>> Bus drivers still handle money even if people are encouraged to
>> pre-purchase their Metcards. No member of parliament in their right
>> mind would create a repeat of the scratch ticket fiasco whereby bus
>> drivers did not require to handle money. Keep digging.
>
>But again you miss the point. If you encourage the vast majority of
>passengers to pre-purchase the amount of cash being handled by the
>driver is signifigantly reduced, making them a much less attractive
>target for would be thieves.

Armed robbers aren't that smart. Money is money. They will beat up a 90 
year old man for 50 cents, let alone a bus driver for a bit more than 50 
cents.

>> It may not encourage fare evasion, but it encourages less people to
>> use public transport. If people see public transport as a chore, they
>> will drive instead. A person should be able to purchase their fare,
>> and be able to travel on it, using any reasonable means to get into
>> the station (i.e. if there is a barrier, THEN have a need to poke a
>> ticket) without being pushed into being counted, or with the threat of
>> being fined for doing something wrong.
>
>I agree that having to validate at a non-gated ticket seems silly, but I
>disagree with regard to trams and buses. Using your reaasoning people
>will object to having to produce their tickets for RPO's (it is an
>inconvenience to get it out).

Which has been my main point from the start. RPO's should be able to check 
tickets, because unlike the validators they can actually do something about 
a fare evader.

>> Most people do validate. Most also don't revalidate. Other than
>> beancounting issues, as pointed out above, there is no logical reason
>> for revalidating.
>
>So you will be calling for the removal of gates at gated stations then?

No. Gates at stations are useful for letting large masses of people in and 
out. Generally the gates can't let people without tickets in, and those 
without tickets have to visit the person at the gate to get out. Generally 
the person at the gate SHOULD refer the matter to an RPO, but they 
generally let the person buy a ticket and make the person validate that 
ticket immediately.

>> Since when did Sydneys train system require you to constantly
>> revalidate your ticket at each station? Sydney's system requries you
>> to poke a ticket in the gate to get in and out, at gated stations
>> only. I, like many people have no problem with this. What most-all of
>> us do have a problem with is the need to poke a validated ticket in at
>> each and every station, tram, bus to be counted.
>
>And Sydney's bus system requires you to insert your ticket on each and
>every boarding, which is directly comparable to Melbourne's trams.

Sydney's bus system isn't Sydney's train system. I am not arguing against 
validating every time on buses. Trams and trains are another issue however.

>> Why can't the fare allocation be worked out from the point of sale
>> takings rather than journeys travelled? For retail tickets, and
>> tickets not purchased directly from a
>> Bayside/Hillside/Swanston/Yarra/[Buscompany of choice], THEN allocate
>> the takings from the INITIAL validation.
>
>Too sensible.

Is this an achievement? So why then, are you telling us "do as they say" 
when the more people who argue against it, the more likely the argument has 
of getting somewhere?

>> The current system of continual revalidation is also flawed in such,
>> that a private operator can send a person out with 5 or so tickets to
>> revalidate them at each station all day long. The money made is
>> incentive to do so. So based on this logic alone, it seems pretty
>> impossible that REvalidation plays any part in fare allocation.
>
>And I have never argued that it should.

So you take back everything you have argued for over your previous posts?

Michael