Comparison of offences

[DaveNewcastle]

Speeding is a safety issue, fare-dodging is a purely financial one. I would expect an offence where you put people[1] at additional risk against their will (albeit minor if it's minor speeding, buit still risk) to have a higher penalty, personally.

This is not really correct.

The Courts are bound to apply the Sentencing Guidelines to the cases they try. A quick glance of them seems to tell us that:

A Speeding Offence which carries 3 'points' (i.e. up to 10mph in excess at 30mph, 15 in excess at 50mph, or 20 in excess at 70mph) carries a 'Starting Point' in Band A (50% of weekly earnings), with a maximum Fine of £1000.
A Railway Fare Evasion Offence (Regulation of Railways S.5) where there has been evidence of an intent to avoid paying the fare (i.e. Fare Evasion) carries a 'Starting point' in Band B (100% of weekly earnings), also with a maximum Fine of £1000.

This is the opposite of what you 'expected'. Though if the 'Speeding' Offence was on a motorway, the 'Starting point' remains 50% (lower than for Fare Evasion) but the maximum rises to £2500 (higher than for Fare Evasion) which would be applied where there are additional aggravating factors.

 

[yorkie]

I would expect....

Then take the opposite, to get the likely result in our legal system

Casual fare-dodging (or forgetting to buy a ticket) is more comparable to failure to pay in a car park, which is completely decriminalised ...

They wouldn't be able to criminalise people for comparable motoring offences, as the motoring lobby is very powerful and would not stand for it. Rail users are, in comparison, much easier to be heavier handed with.

 

[Flamingo]

A speeding motorist has not deprived anybody of income - a fare evader has. Wouldn't a better analogy be with a shoplifter?

 

[Class377]

Speeding is a safety issue, fare-dodging is a purely financial one. I would expect an offence where you put people[1] at additional risk against their will (albeit minor if it's minor speeding, buit still risk) to have a higher penalty, personally.

The national speed limit was not brought in for safety, rather it was introduced during the fuel crisis as an attempt to encourage more efficient driving, and was never raised or removed after it ended. In most cases driving at 80mph on a motorway is no less safe than 70.

 

[jon0844]

Most of Europe has gone up to 80 or thereabouts. Even Sweden which is very keen to reduce accidents. And of course Germany where you can go as fast as you like (but accepting responsibility for your actions if it goes wrong). What's interesting is that everyone else drives better and more considerately (generally, there are obvious exceptions) when they know there's no limit on some roads.

 

[anme]

Most of Europe has gone up to 80 or thereabouts. Even Sweden which is very keen to reduce accidents. And of course Germany where you can go as fast as you like (but accepting responsibility for your actions if it goes wrong).

Except of course that doesn't work. "Accepting responsibility for your actions" doesn't help those you've killed or seriously injured.

The UK actually has amongst the safest roads in Europe (although still horribly dangerous).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The national speed limit was not brought in for safety, rather it was introduced during the fuel crisis as an attempt to encourage more efficient driving, and was never raised or removed after it ended. In most cases driving at 80mph on a motorway is no less safe than 70.

Regardless, it is less safe to travel at 80mph than 70mph. Of course it is, because if there is a collision *any* increase in speed will increase the collision energy and therefore the severity of any injuries.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A speeding motorist has not deprived anybody of income - a fare evader has. Wouldn't a better analogy be with a shoplifter?

Sort-of. Though physical theft requires deprivation of the original.

It's a bit more like software piracy, which is rather less clear-cut. If I steal your PC, I've deprived you of the right to use/sell it. If I rip off a copy of Windows, I've not done anything to the original. I might have deprived M$ the cost of it had I paid for it, but then maybe I would never have paid for it. Fare dodging is similar, I suppose. By travelling, you haven't (unless the train is *very* crowded) prevented anyone else from travelling.

And theft isn't strict liability, in any case. It requires intent.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Most of Europe has gone up to 80 or thereabouts. Even Sweden which is very keen to reduce accidents.

I'll give you that one, but 40 in a 30?

And of course Germany where you can go as fast as you like (but accepting responsibility for your actions if it goes wrong). What's interesting is that everyone else drives better and more considerately (generally, there are obvious exceptions) when they know there's no limit on some roads.

The Autobahnen, particularly the 2-lane sections are *terrifying* if you wish to do a sensible 80ish mph.

TBH, I think it's right to have a limit. "Doing the ton" is not safe nor considerate of other motorists. Though I think I would increase it to 80mph, I'd also roll out managed motorways nationally and enforce it.

Neil

 

[DaveNewcastle]

And theft isn't strict liability, in any case. It requires intent.

. . . . and neither is Railway Fare Evasion. It also requires 'intent'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just a reminder that this thread is The way some passengers who have made mistakes are treated in Disputes & Prosecutions, not the place for opinions about car driving.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
. . . . and neither is Railway Fare Evasion. It also requires 'intent'.

I thought the Byelaw offences were strict-liability?

Neil

 

[fowler9]

I thought the Byelaw offences were strict-liability?

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Threads drift. Though perhaps it has drifted a bit far if it heads into a discussion on motoring specifically, the analogy between the punishment for motoring offences and for fare dodging is relevant to the thread in my view.

Neil

Not in mine to be honest. A fine or a penalty fare on the railways is because you are effectively defrauding the operator. Fines and other penalties on the roads are generally because you are not behaving in a safe manner.

 

[najaB]

I thought the Byelaw offences were strict-liability?

Indeed they are. But a Byelaw 18 prosecution isn't about fare evasion, it's about being unable to show a ticket.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not in mine to be honest. A fine or a penalty fare on the railways is because you are effectively defrauding the operator. Fines and other penalties on the roads are generally because you are not behaving in a safe manner.

I personally think the civil penalties for parking infringements are closer to railway fare dodging, at least the casual kind or just forgetting to buy/renew a ticket.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed they are. But a Byelaw 18 prosecution isn't about fare evasion, it's about being unable to show a ticket.

Which I believe should be a civil, not a criminal, offence, penalised in a similar way and at a similar level to failing to buy a parking ticket and with no need for the involvement of court cases and the likes.

Neil

 

[najaB]

Which I believe should be a civil, not a criminal, offence, penalised in a similar way and at a similar level to failing to buy a parking ticket and with no need for the involvement of court cases and the likes.

I agree, but that requires a nation-wide penalty fares scheme.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree, but that requires a nation-wide penalty fares scheme.

Yep. The way the TOCs are going in their enforcement, particularly Northern, I believe such a scheme would now be the right way to go (notably Switzerland has in the last couple of years gone that way as well). However I would widen its scope to low-level deliberate evasion. Leave the courts to deal with the serious fraud stuff e.g. falsifying tickets, dumbbelling etc.

No confusion that way. You are expected to have a ticket before boarding[1]. If you don't, this WILL happen.

Don't EMT and LM have Penalty Fares Schemes throughout their operations including rural areas, if I recall?

[1] With exceptions, but I really don't see why a new cheap solar-powered PERTIS machine with the cash box below floor level (as change need not be given) could not be deployed at every station in the country, with a requirement to report a fault before boarding if there is one.

Neil

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I thought the Byelaw offences were strict-liability?

Yes, but they don't cover Fare Evasion. Fare Evasion requires intent, and is captured by the Regulation of Railways Act or Railway Clauses Consolidation Act.

If you're interested, I was invited to write a summary of the legal position for passenger rail travel for this forum here.

. . . . a Byelaw 18 prosecution isn't about fare evasion, it's about being unable to show a ticket.

Which I believe should be a civil, not a criminal, offence, penalised in a similar way and at a similar level to failing to buy a parking ticket . . . .

Well, you may believe that, but you are mistaken. There is a standard of behaviour which concerns the state and incidents which violate that standard are the concern of the State. Penalty Fares schemes in any variant, are an attempt to resolve some minor matters by way of a speedy and simple settlement and resolution between the parties, Some Magistrates Courts have less appetite for Railway Byelaw prosecutions, and Scottish Justices are even less inclined to hear them without compelling evidence of loss.

. . . . should be a civil, not a criminal, offence, penalised in a similar way and at a similar level to failing to buy a parking ticket and with no need for the involvement of court cases and the likes.

Disagreements in Criminal and Civil matters are both resolved in the Courts.

. . . . . perhaps it has drifted a bit far if it heads into a discussion on motoring specifically, the analogy between the punishment for motoring offences and for fare dodging is relevant to the thread in my view.

Yes, but you were mistaken about that, (as I pointed out in post #29 [EDIT - it is now post #3] ).

 

[fowler9]

I personally think the civil penalties for parking infringements are closer to railway fare dodging, at least the casual kind or just forgetting to buy/renew a ticket.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Which I believe should be a civil, not a criminal, offence, penalised in a similar way and at a similar level to failing to buy a parking ticket and with no need for the involvement of court cases and the likes.

Neil

I see what you are saying but I think many motorists ignore the safety aspect of where they park. I saw a car parked on the corner of Cook Street and Castle Street in Liverpool city centre. It stopped a bus from getting around the corner and blocked the traffic (Including the emergency services) right down Castle Street, Dale Street and over the flyover from Islington, and of course every road leading on to those roads right through the centre of of Liverpool. This was one car, and the driver probably couldn't understand the fuss. He blocked the entire city centre for an hour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I see what you are saying but I think many motorists ignore the safety aspect of where they park. I saw a car parked on the corner of Cook Street and Castle Street in Liverpool city centre. It stopped a bus from getting around the corner and blocked the traffic (Including the emergency services) right down Castle Street, Dale Street and over the flyover from Islington, and of course every road leading on to those roads right through the centre of of Liverpool. This was one car, and the driver probably couldn't understand the fuss. He blocked the entire city centre for an hour.

Yes, that's a bit different, my analogy was mostly with what happens if you fail to buy a ticket, either deliberately or accidentally, in a public car park, with nothing otherwise wrong with your parking other than not having correctly paid for it.

Neil

 

[fowler9]

Yes, that's a bit different, my analogy was mostly with what happens if you fail to buy a ticket, either deliberately or accidentally, in a public car park, with nothing otherwise wrong with your parking other than not having correctly paid for it.

Neil

Well that is fair enough mate, I agree with you there.

 

[Flamingo]

Yes, that's a bit different, my analogy was mostly with what happens if you fail to buy a ticket, either deliberately or accidentally, in a public car park, with nothing otherwise wrong with your parking other than not having correctly paid for it.

Neil

No problem. I'm quite happy to put a large yellow metal clamp on a passengers left leg until they pay a release fee on top of their train ticket

 

[fowler9]

No problem. I'm quite happy to put a large yellow metal clamp on a passengers left leg until they pay a release fee on top of their train ticket

Ha ha ha. I wish you could.

 

[najaB]

However I would widen its scope to low-level deliberate evasion. Leave the courts to deal with the serious fraud stuff e.g. falsifying tickets, dumbbelling etc.

I can't agree with that. Any deliberate attempt to evade a fare is, to my mind at least, attempted fraud and as a criminal act should be dealt with as such.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For those who do make a genuine error, is an £80 "penalty fare" from Northern or a £20 penalty fare from another TOC really more unfair than a £60 fixed penalty and 3 points for speeding on an empty road in perfect driving conditions?

Speeding is a safety issue, fare-dodging is a purely financial one. I would expect an offence where you put people[1] at additional risk against their will (albeit minor if it's minor speeding, buit still risk) to have a higher penalty, personally.

Casual fare-dodging (or forgetting to buy a ticket) is more comparable to failure to pay in a car park, which is completely decriminalised and incurs a payment in the £30-£150 sort of range. Significant long-term fraud using things like forged tickets is rather different, but then I'm not convinced that needs its own laws and would maybe be better handled by way of a standard fraud charge.

So I'm less than convinced that the railway needs a criminal sanction of its own, to be honest.

[1] "An empty road" is debatable. Maybe you couldn't see the junction ahead with a car pulling out of it. Maybe he didn't look properly and shouldn't have pulled out, but you still hit him, and maybe he'd have lived if you'd hit him at 60mph rather than 80mph, say. You can never assume it is not going to put someone at risk if you are speeding.

Neil

 

[Timster83]

Mods' note: split from The way some passengers who have made mistakes are treated

...For those who do make a genuine error, is an £80 "penalty fare" from Northern or a £20 penalty fare from another TOC really more unfair than a £60 fixed penalty and 3 points for speeding on an empty road in perfect driving conditions? At the very least, it will install a sense of responsibility in the person "fined" and act as a strong encouragement not to let it happen again. ...

 

[cjmillsnun]

Mods' note: split from The way some passengers who have made mistakes are treated

...For those who do make a genuine error, is an £80 "penalty fare" from Northern or a £20 penalty fare from another TOC really more unfair than a £60 fixed penalty and 3 points for speeding on an empty road in perfect driving conditions? At the very least, it will install a sense of responsibility in the person "fined" and act as a strong encouragement not to let it happen again. ...

The speeding fine is now £100 and 3 points.

 

[fowler9]

I can't agree with that. Any deliberate attempt to evade a fare is, to my mind at least, attempted fraud and as a criminal act should be dealt with as such.

Well it would cost the country a fortune but why not.

 

[najaB]

Well it would cost the country a fortune but why not.

Why would it cost a fortune? We already treat (attempted) fare evasion as a crime.

 

[fowler9]

Why would it cost a fortune? We already treat (attempted) fare evasion as a crime.

Well you could charge everyone bunking on a penalty fare or you could take them all through the legal system. What do you reckon is cheaper?

 

[yorkie]

Well you could charge everyone bunking on a penalty fare or you could take them all through the legal system. What do you reckon is cheaper?

In terms of raking in the most revenue, neither of those options! Instead ask them to pay a £80 out of court settlement in order to keep the matter out of court, which most people will pay to avoid going to court.

 

[najaB]

...take them all through the legal system.

Taking them through the legal system already happens - in the majority of cases the TOC agrees an out of court settlement and the case never troubles the courts.

Misusing penalty fares as a way of dealing with deliberate attempts at fare evasion just muddies the waters. Keep penalty fares for technical violations and honest mistakes - e.g. someone travelling with a discounted ticket but no rail card, or on a peak train with an off-peak ticket.

 

[fowler9]

In terms of raking in the most revenue, neither of those options! Instead ask them to pay a £80 out of court settlement in order to keep the matter out of court, which most people will pay to avoid going to court.

I think that is the best option.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Taking them through the legal system already happens - in the majority of cases the TOC agrees an out of court settlement and the case never troubles the courts.

Misusing penalty fares as a way of dealing with deliberate attempts at fare evasion just muddies the waters. Keep penalty fares for technical violations and honest mistakes - e.g. someone travelling with a discounted ticket but no rail card, or on a peak train with an off-peak ticket.

I think penalty fares rigorously enforced will stop a lot of people from thinking bunking on is an option.