Re: CityRail on-time plan slipping

["Ivan Smith" <ivsmith11@hotmail.nospam.com>]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
3ab9570b@news.iprimus.com.au">news:3ab9570b@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> Ivan Smith <ivsmith11@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:tTbu6.15296$992.99115@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Dave Proctor <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote
> >> Ivan Smith <ivsmith11@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >>> Well after discussions with a solicitor, I'm going to have to plead
guilty.
>
> He's right basically.

Yep.
>
> >>> I'm not happy about this:
>
> Doesnt change the law.

Yep.
>
> >>> The ticketing machine at Wooloware station had a texta written
> >>> message stuck over the note input saying "No Notes accepted".
> >>> I was buying my weekly as I always do, allowing 5 minutes
> >>> before the train arrived
>
> If you dont allow enough time to allow for problems with buying your
> ticket before the train shows up, basically thats your legal problem.

Apparently - on advice.
>
> The law says 'without reasonable excuse' and thats you.

Apparently
> No 'technically' about it, the law covers your situation very explicitly
indeed.

Apparently.

> Hardly surprising given thats an obvious way to
> do deliberate fare evasion, have that story ready
> when you get caught travelling without a ticket.

Well I know now don't I? I don't know and don't want to know what excuses
habitual fare evaders use.

I was trapped by the system, not fare evading.

>
> If they bought that line, everyone would be using it when caught.

Well I know one thing from all of this. If this *ever* happens again I won't
be speaking to the inspector at all, and they can have me for common assault
as well because I'm innocent as far as I'm concerned and it's really not in
my nature to be dishonest for the sake of it.

>
> >>> asks for my DOB (got it wrong in spite of me clearly speaking
> >>> it slowly for him - technically the summons isn't mine).
>
> Thats wrong. There is no requirement for it to be perfect, particularly
> when that would mean that anyone could deliberately give the wrong DOB.

Or the thousands who give false addresses and names, the ones that don't get
caught because they are more cunning than I am. I'm an honest person most of
the time, but from now on I'm not going to be so honest, particularly with
ticket inspectors.

This is my first "offence" as far as I'm aware, but I worry that some of the
dishonest scum out there have used my details to get off. It's well known in
NSW from the news reports that hundreds of thousands of dollars are owed and
more than 50% of people caught lie about their identity with the Government
able to do nothing about it BECAUSE of the Act. It's my opinion that this
act isn't particularly well thought out or implimented.

Can this government and it's beuracracy chase these people? No. This is
partly what I mean about the Rail Safety Act 1993.

In my endevour to be honest I and 49% have paid the price for the thousands
who have bolted, given false particulars, rorted the system, assaulted city
rail staff and generally make it their business to travel around the
CityRail network for nix. This is what is so unfair about it all.

I'm not an evader. I tried to be co-operative and do the right thing. I was
oblivious to the nature of the Rail Safety Act 1993 and I still hold that it
needs overhauling and cleaning out.


>
> You hadnt, you chose to cut it that fine that there was no margin for a
problem.

Apparently. I know better now. The act needs review on this aspect.

>
> >>> He gave me the ticket and then watched as I purchased
> >>> a weekly from the machine not 2 metres away.
>
> Doesnt prove anything about what you would
> have done if you hadnt been caught, legally.

And the more I go through bull crap like this, the more I'm waking up to the
fact that telling the truth and be honest gets you nowhere. I know they
didn't know that, but I thought a little trust would have gone a long way. I
got nabbed by someone who obviously hadn't got his quota up for the morning,
full of post-Olympic misery.

>
> >>> As it stands now I have to plead guilty to avoid a long a laborious
> >>> battle in the lower courts and costs I just can't afford to prove my
point.
>
> You've got buckleys with the law written that explicitly.

I know ;(

>
> It aint just that, the law says very clearly that not allowing yourself
> enough time to purchase the ticket before you travel isnt a valid defense.

So take note all those who think that getting to a railway station 10 to 5
minutes before the arrival of the service, and propose buying a ticket, only
to find a busted machine, a single station attendant, over-run with duties,
dealing with aged pensioners and their needs, as well as ducking outside to
manage the arrivals and ticket collection, and can board one of the
magnificent SRA fleet and arrive at the other end, telling the truth, to
still be dissed for $100.

This is my peeve: I was there in sufficient time. The attendant was
overworked and the train turned up. I get done because the SRA can't employ
enough people...great. Gotta love NSW sometimes..not.
>
> >>> and there are two of them, and so on advice, I'm going to
> >>> plead guilty and apply for special dispensation/circumstance.
>
> No such 'circumstance' exists.

I believe it does, but it's too hard to prove, and I have advice that the
Magistrate sitting my case will be blase about it anyway.
>
> >>> It's not fair
>
> The law aint about whats fair, its about what the law specifys.

Well this particular law needs attention. It is very easy for a memeber of
the general public to get stung by it due to SRA inefficiencies. The law is
out of date and not really with the times or degredation of the SRA IMO.
>
> >>> and I've been trapped by the Rail Safety Act
> >>> 1993 and it's myriad of confusing amendments.
>
> Oh bullshit. You cant get any clearer than that section.

The pertinent section yes, but the Act as a whole isn't very good.
>
> >>> This particular legislation is one of the worst
> >>> acts I've ever seen (Ex S.A. Policeman),
>
> Not on clarity it aint. Anyone can understand what its saying, its
> a lot clearer on that question of that defence than you usually see,
> saying very clearly that that doesnt qualify as 'reasonable excuse'

Agreed there.
>
> >>> and I'm sure given enough funding and gumption
> >>> I could get up a case against them on this issue,
>
> You are always welcome to 'get up' any 'case' you like,
> but with the law that explicit on not leaving yourself enough
> time to purchase the ticket at what you admit was the open
> ticket window, serving customers, you've got buckleys.

Ah, but...he was outside on the platform for about 2 of the 5 minutes,
sweeping or some such trivia, leaving us all there wondering if we were
going to be able to get a ticket at all..

It's worth noting that several Seniors couldn't get their tickets and borded
as I did.

The ones that alighted at Sutherland just went straight through the
inspectors and nothing was said to them.

I was very upset about this little factoid.

>
> >>> but I'm not in that position right now.
>
> Just as well, you'd just be pissing even more money against the wall.

Terrible.

>
> >>> I've spoken to a few others who have been caught this way too.
> >>> I can't believe all of them but there is evidentially a precedent
> >>> here that needs investigation further by someone other than the SRA.
>
> Nope, not with the law obviously deliberately written that explicitly.

Yep, with the law written so explicitly. There is a clear trap in the
system, which is caused by a combination of the legisation and the way the
modern SRA runs (or doesn't).

>
> Its completely irrelevant with the law written that explicitly.

Well it's a shame then. A shame that innocent people can be trapped by this
legislation on a system that clearly doesn't function as intended and has
balance of favour in such situations.


Thanks any way Rod,

Ivan

>
>
>