[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tickets plan wins support



I don't know if this is the case or not but it wouldn't be because fines go
straight to the government coffers while the operators get a slice of ticket
sales would it?
Paul Hambleton
"DL" <D_Lindstrom@Bigpond.com> wrote in message
4Zey6.8179$45.48456@newsfeeds.bigpond.com">news:4Zey6.8179$45.48456@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> "Al" <alpout@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> 3ac977c3$0$25509$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3ac977c3$0$25509$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > "Anthony Morton" <amorton@mudguard.ee.mu.oz.au> wrote in message
> > 9abrcl$o4e$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU">news:9abrcl$o4e$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU...
> > >
> > > >> Melbourne public transport users have applauded a plan to scrap
$100
> > > >> fines for fare evasion and instead make offenders buy $80 worth of
> > > >> tickets. But the radical bid was condemned by the State Opposition
> and
> > > >> the Public Transport Users Association, which claimed the move
would
> do
> > > >> little to stem the swelling numbers of ticket dodgers.
> > >
> > > Al <alpout@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Bit of a contradiction isn't it: "Melbourne public transport users
have
> > > >applauded" but "the radical bid was condemned by the Public Transport
> Users
> > > >Association".
> > >
> > > If you read the full article you'll see that the 'public transport
> users'
> > > cited were a self-selecting sample of a hundred or so Hun readers
> phoning
> > in.
> > > Hardly representative of public transport users in general.
> > >
> > > On the face of it the idea sounds attractive, but fiddling around with
> the
> > > nature of the penalty isn't going to stop the fare evasion that occurs
> now.
> > > (In fact if I was a fare evader I'd probably find the idea very
> attractive.)
> > >
> > > TM
> > >
> >
> > OK, I read the article, it was exactly 200 people who phoned in (172 for
> and
> > 28 against).
> >
> > How many people are in the PTUA?
> >
> Either 172 or 28 :)
>
>
>