Intelligence-led stop with all your information and CCTV?

[The exile]

It's an odd system in the UK in my opinion. Here you just get some random person in DSB uniform hop on saying "cards and tickets please" and they just catch fare evaders that way.

And what happens if / when you are caught for the 100th time in a year?

 

[6Gman]

It's an odd system in the UK in my opinion. Here you just get some random person in DSB uniform hop on saying "cards and tickets please" and they just catch fare evaders that way.

The problem with that approach is that the regular offender may see the occasional penalty fare as cheaper than paying the appropriate fare.

 

[KNN]

The problem with that approach is that the regular offender may see the occasional penalty fare as cheaper than paying the appropriate fare.

Which is how it works on the CrossCity line in Birmingham.

People don't even consider it fraud, but "gaming the system".

 

[Krokodil]

The problem with that approach is that the regular offender may see the occasional penalty fare as cheaper than paying the appropriate fare.

Used to have this on Merseyrail back when a Penalty Fare was £20. As long as you only got caught once per week and carried a £20 note to pay upfront (so that details weren't taken) you were no worse off.

 

[blimmo]

The problem with that approach is that the regular offender may see the occasional penalty fare as cheaper than paying the appropriate fare.

It is entirely possible to have the expected cost of evading be higher than the expected cost of paying your fare. The level of penalty fare simply needs to be set appropriately and the level of enforcement needs to be sufficient that that level isn't infeasible. Also this is much easier if the penalty fare amount is higher the more often you have been caught since otherwise "honest mistakes" will get significant penalties.

 

[The exile]

Also this is much easier if the penalty fare amount is higher the more often you have been caught since otherwise "honest mistakes" will get significant penalties.

Which is much simpler to organise where there is national ID.

 

[blimmo]

Which is much simpler to organise where there is national ID.

Indeed. I suspect many of the "why is the UK weird" questions come back to this.

 

[Mgameing123]

And what happens if / when you are caught for the 100th time in a year?

Don’t actually know. The bus company Midttrafik though will report it to the police.

 

[andy33gmail]

And what happens if / when you are caught for the 100th time in a year?

1. Make the fine 10x the fayre, as a contract term
2. Ensure you catch at least 10% of evaders
3. Ensure the legal system supports the identification of people that are caught sans ticket

 

[AlterEgo]

3. Ensure the legal system supports the identification of people that are caught sans ticket

How?

 

[35B]

The extract you quote from Trainline's Privacy Policy says nothing about handing all your personal information over a train company so that they can investigate actual or possible crimes. It doesn't say they will happily tell the the train companies about what they think are suspicious patterns of ticket purchasing.

We have seen passengers subjected to intense pressure by certain TOCs to prove that their ticket buying is innocent of any fraudulent intent. All from scrutiny of online ticket buying and in spite of GDPR apparently protecting them.

It is one part of a longer page - https://www.thetrainline.com/terms/privacy.

If you look under the section entitled "Payment Card details and the address your card is registered to", you get the following:

Payment card details and the address your card is registered to​

• Necessary to pay for ticket, provide refunds and compensation for journey delays, where eligible.
• Some of the travel operators we work with may run your data through their own payment and eticket systems, to issue your tickets.

Legal basis for processing: Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract.

• To prevent and detect fraud against either you or Trainline.

Legal basis for processing: Processing is necessary for the purposes of Trainline's legitimate interest.

Further down, it states who Trainline share data with. What is interesting, and possibly for a different topic, is that it does not say that it shares information with train operators for the purposes of preventing crime, merely "the authorities". That suggests an interesting question of definition about whether a TOC's enforcement team constitute "the authorities" for this purpose.

 

[saismee]

That suggests an interesting question of definition about whether a TOC's enforcement team constitute "the authorities" for this purpose.

Is it a question? "The authorities" is often used to mean police, but in this case the railway are the authority for tickets, and police are irrelevant when the TOCs can prosecute privately. I think it can certainly mean TOCs, even if lay-people would interpret it as "the police".

 

[35B]

Is it a question? "The authorities" is often used to mean police, but in this case the railway are the authority for tickets, and police are irrelevant when the TOCs can prosecute privately. I think it can certainly mean TOCs, even if lay-people would interpret it as "the police".

As there is a separate category for "Service Providers", and the police are explicitly named in "The Authorities", that seems a stretch.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it a question? "The authorities" is often used to mean police, but in this case the railway are the authority for tickets, and police are irrelevant when the TOCs can prosecute privately. I think it can certainly mean TOCs, even if lay-people would interpret it as "the police".

As it's a customer contract, an ambiguous term which is not otherwise defined will be defined at the level of the layperson, that is, the person agreeing to it.

 

[Stephen42]

It is one part of a longer page - https://www.thetrainline.com/terms/privacy.

If you look under the section entitled "Payment Card details and the address your card is registered to", you get the following:

Further down, it states who Trainline share data with. What is interesting, and possibly for a different topic, is that it does not say that it shares information with train operators for the purposes of preventing crime, merely "the authorities". That suggests an interesting question of definition about whether a TOC's enforcement team constitute "the authorities" for this purpose.

Right below "the authorities" is "travel operators" which includes rail in brackets. That text does cover sharing potentially fraudulent travel patterns as part of fraud detection. I don't think anyone could realistically claim they didn't realise a train operating company would be considered a travel operator in the rail space.

Travel operators (rail, coach and bus)​

We work with travel operators who also need your data to create your tickets and provide services in relation to your journey as well as to deal with after-sales matters. Some travel operators may run your data through their own payment and eticket systems in order to issue your tickets or notify you of any travel disruption. We may also share your personal data with travel operators to prevent and detect fraud against either you, Trainline or the travel operator. We only share what is necessary to meet this purpose, and we make it clear to them they must keep your personal data safe.

 

[Kite159]

Used to have this on Merseyrail back when a Penalty Fare was £20. As long as you only got caught once per week and carried a £20 note to pay upfront (so that details weren't taken) you were no worse off.

Or carry a saveaway scratchcard (back when they came as scratchcards) and if you spot revenue quickly scratch off the date

(Although only worked when the saveaway would have been valid)

 

[saismee]

As it's a customer contract, an ambiguous term which is not otherwise defined will be defined at the level of the layperson, that is, the person agreeing to it.

Very fair point, I agree.

 

[JohnofWessex]

Of course its on line ticket buying that makes a lot of these fare evasions possible in the first place

 

[Trainman40083]

Of course its on line ticket buying that makes a lot of these fare evasions possible in the first place

Ah the days of long slow queues at ticket offices.

 

[Mattplans]

A lot of the interceptions would be impossible otherwise as well. Short-faring, doughnutting etc isn't new... There's no paper trail of someone that buys their ticket with cash, but there is with someone that purchases online.

 

[ChilliSauce]

Of course its on line ticket buying that makes a lot of these fare evasions possible in the first place

I suggest it's the lack of on train ticket checks that makes for fare evasions.

 

[35B]

Right below "the authorities" is "travel operators" which includes rail in brackets. That text does cover sharing potentially fraudulent travel patterns as part of fraud detection. I don't think anyone could realistically claim they didn't realise a train operating company would be considered a travel operator in the rail space.

The word “fraud” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there

 

[The exile]

The word “fraud” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there

Surely the hardest working word there is “potentially”?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I suggest it's the lack of on train ticket checks that makes for fare evasions.

Just as it's a lack of traffic cops that causes speeding.

I guess that this is probably just loose use of language, but let's keep it clear: lack of enforcement doesn't cause crime - it just makes it easier to get away with it. The causes of (intentional*) crime are many but they all intersect at the point where the offender decides to offend. I would strongly suggest that it's people not wanting to pay the full fare that makes for fare evasion.

* Yes, I know. Railway byelaw offences don't necessarily require intent. But it seems to me that doughnutting is hard to do accidentally: the same (though perhaps rather less) for a lot of short faring.

 

[Mgameing123]

Just as it's a lack of traffic cops that causes speeding.

I guess that this is probably just loose use of language, but let's keep it clear: lack of enforcement doesn't cause crime - it just makes it easier to get away with it. The causes of (intentional*) crime are many but they all intersect at the point where the offender decides to offend. I would strongly suggest that it's people not wanting to pay the full fare that makes for fare evasion.

* Yes, I know. Railway byelaw offences don't necessarily require intent. But it seems to me that doughnutting is hard to do accidentally: the same (though perhaps rather less) for a lot of short faring.

And that train fares in the UK are extortionate!

 

[BazingaTribe]

And that train fares in the UK are extortionate!

That's not an excuse/reason to evade either.thoigh.

Additionally I was in Germany/Belgium/Netherlands recently and, allowing for cross-border travel, the fares were more or less similar to what they would have been in the UK. There wasn't much difference any more. A day ticket for bus travel within Aachen was twice as much as it is in my home town here -- Aachen is bigger and more comparable to, e.g. Reading, but even in Reading the day ticket is pretty good value.

 

[Haywain]

And that train fares in the UK are extortionate!

Many things are expensive, and if too expensive most people do without rather than steal.

 

[blimmo]

Many things are expensive, and if too expensive most people do without rather than steal.

I think the difference in many people's minds is that stealing something physical is obviously depriving the previous owner of that item. Fare evading seems to not hurt anyone directly. "The trains are going to run anyway, why can't I ride" type thinking.

They are somewhat correct in that fare evading and stealing are not the same thing. I'm obviously not claiming fare evading is fine.

 

[John Luxton]

I think the difference in many people's minds is that stealing something physical is obviously depriving the previous owner of that item. Fare evading seems to not hurt anyone directly. "The trains are going to run anyway, why can't I ride" type thinking.

They are somewhat correct in that fare evading and stealing are not the same thing. I'm obviously not claiming fare evading is fine.

Part of the problem is that parents don't teach right from wrong.

Not only was I taught theft was wrong but taking a ride on public transport without paying was as bad as shop lifting - my parents owned a shop and were quite forthright on shoplifters.

Even today I won't take anything for nothing even if the fault is with the transport operator.

As well as railway i travel regularly with the Isle of Man Steam Packet enough to justify being a member of the Executive Travel Club. In the members lounge meals are served at seat and a bill is presented at the end of the sailing.

Twice in the past couple of years I have ended up sending them cheques for meals which they didn't bill - on the first occasion the steward and I both forgot I only realised after I disembarked, on the second occasion when the steward hadn't presented the bill I went to the steward to pay and he declined as the till had been cashed up.

I just feel incredibly guilty if I receive something for nothing - I don't mind accepting if I am told in advance if I am receiving something complimentary - but otherwise I will ensure I pay for everything I receive.

 

[Haywain]

I think the difference in many people's minds is that stealing something physical is obviously depriving the previous owner of that item. Fare evading seems to not hurt anyone directly. "The trains are going to run anyway, why can't I ride" type thinking.

They are somewhat correct in that fare evading and stealing are not the same thing. I'm obviously not claiming fare evading is fine.

It's still making a conscious choice not to pay for something.