-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Ejecting Passengers From A Train
- Thread starter dmacw
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
scotsman
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 3,252
Interesting question? Why are you asking?
All I'm saying is that if you try it some places, you'll be done by RPIs for fare evasion. If you try it in other places, they might keep you on so that plod can lift you (if plod cares, that is). It also depends on the station, if there's staff about, I doubt any guard would have qualms about booting someone off there.
All I'm saying is that if you try it some places, you'll be done by RPIs for fare evasion. If you try it in other places, they might keep you on so that plod can lift you (if plod cares, that is). It also depends on the station, if there's staff about, I doubt any guard would have qualms about booting someone off there.
That's down to a Court to decide I'd suggest. Massive grey area - why should the railway have a duty of care to a ticketless traveller?
185
On Moderation
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 5,709
It's a thoroughly discretionary decision.
Several factors need to be weighed up before ejecting any passenger, vulnerable or not.
Worst thing is, even when a (40+ adult) passenger has broken the law, become abusive and violent, no ticket and smoking etc, some companies still don't back up their staff fearing media reports showing them in a bad light.
As a general rule, some of us work under the basis of 1. is there CCTV 2. are there staff at the station.
Several factors need to be weighed up before ejecting any passenger, vulnerable or not.
Worst thing is, even when a (40+ adult) passenger has broken the law, become abusive and violent, no ticket and smoking etc, some companies still don't back up their staff fearing media reports showing them in a bad light.
As a general rule, some of us work under the basis of 1. is there CCTV 2. are there staff at the station.
If a vulnerable person hasn't got the means to pay and approaches staff (or perhaps a help point) then I can't see why they couldn't be allowed to travel.
Others aren't passengers (or customers) so should be kicked off. If the train isn't moving at the time, lucky them.
Others aren't passengers (or customers) so should be kicked off. If the train isn't moving at the time, lucky them.
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
If they are under 18 or vunerable then I won't kick them off (duty of care and decency) if they are 18 or over and have no intention to pay then they leave the train by their own accord or they get escorted off, if its just someone who wants to get home has manners and asks they either get a UFN or told to keep head down and behave. Common sense reallyIf a vulnerable person hasn't got the means to pay and approaches staff (or perhaps a help point) then I can't see why they couldn't be allowed to travel.
Others aren't passengers (or customers) so should be kicked off. If the train isn't moving at the time, lucky them.
As they are not passengers (they cannot be as they dont have a ticket) then the railway doesnt have a duty of care.
If I was to walk in your unlocked front door and sit on your sofa (because I didnt have anywhere to live or any money) do you have a duty of care to me?
If I was to walk in your unlocked front door and sit on your sofa (because I didnt have anywhere to live or any money) do you have a duty of care to me?
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
Under 18's and the vulnerable then yes we do, we may not like it but that's the way it is.
asylumxl
Established Member
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Unfortunately, possibly yes. See the case of British Railways Board v Herrington.
RPI
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 3,335
Technically someone travelling without a ticket from a staffed/TVM station breaches a Byelaw and for breaching a byelaw you can be removed from the railway. But in reality you ask for name and address etc, only if they then give you the run about are they usually ejected but not in the case of minors where you need to be far more careful.
Joseph_Locke
Established Member
I have been a Priv. pasenger on a train which was stopped at a level crossing to unload a particularly truculent drunken yuppie.
His was the severe misfortune to be alighted (?) at Banbury Lane. I'll bet that was a sobering walk. To anywhere.
However, you (the householder/TOC/whatever) has a duty of care to anyone on your property or in an area where their safety is under your control. You
would have to prove that any action you took was reasonable under the circumstances ...
Fincra5
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,636
Kinda a grey area. I've been told that kids can be ejected if there is more than 1, thats where the duty of care comes in I guess. Adults can be solo. But then its all up to the guard at the time.
I don't believe it's morally right, but the railway does have a duty of care to vulnerable groups.
Unfortunately, it does seem that those who have committed offences sometimes have far more 'rights' than those who have had offences committed against them.
If a vulnerable person hasn't got the means to pay and approaches staff (or perhaps a help point) then I can't see why they couldn't be allowed to travel.
Others aren't passengers (or customers) so should be kicked off. If the train isn't moving at the time, lucky them.
I agree!
I believe you are correct. There is an obligation somewhere to keep your property safe for visitors, whether they have been invited or not.
Once, travelling from Bristol to Cardiff not long after the introduction of Sprinters, a young couple walked up and down the unit several times on departure. Turns out they were dismayed at the dearth of places to attempt to hide on the new trains.
The gripper confronted them just a short distance into the journey, then went off to have a word with the driver.
One unscheduled stop at Pilning later, there were 2 passengers fewer on the train.
The service at Pilning in those days was only slightly better than it is nowadays. A long walk was their reward for attempted fare evasion.
The gripper confronted them just a short distance into the journey, then went off to have a word with the driver.
One unscheduled stop at Pilning later, there were 2 passengers fewer on the train.
The service at Pilning in those days was only slightly better than it is nowadays. A long walk was their reward for attempted fare evasion.
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
Yes! quite simply in the eyes of the law they are an ADULT and are responsible for their actions. in the eyes of the law if you are 17 and 364 days you are still a child and companies have a duty of care. Its hardly brain surgery.
asylumxl
Established Member
See. I agree with Dmacw. I don't think their age is really relevant. If they were 1 day off 18 I think they should still be ejected. After all they are exactly the same person.
ANorthernGuard
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 2,662
Still have to follow the rules and beloive me when I say it does pain me sometimes to see scroates get away with things just because they are under 18 but I do not want to be prosecuted or lose my job or feel guilty if someone I threw off was still a kid and something happened.
WestCoast
Established Member
Although, of course, those 16 or over are expected to buy an adult ticket, so technically those aged 16-18 are treated as adults according to the NRCoC
Isn't it the case that in England, Wales and NI, 18 is an adult in the eyes of the law. However, in Scotland an adult is 16? Does that alter anything?
Last edited:
Of course, we could get into a discussion regarding Gillick Competency ......
[The legal concept by which the competence to determine one's action is determined by personal development rather than chronoligical age]
Tough as it may seem, 'duty of care' is a legal requirement and - arguably - a moral issue.
If I'm driving down a country lane and encounter a child weeping at the roadside should I stop to assist?
If I own a bookshop and a weeping child comes in through the door, but doesn't want to buy a book, should I usher him/her out of the door?
Handing vulnerable passengers to the care of the BTP might concentrate minds for the future?
[The legal concept by which the competence to determine one's action is determined by personal development rather than chronoligical age]
Tough as it may seem, 'duty of care' is a legal requirement and - arguably - a moral issue.
If I'm driving down a country lane and encounter a child weeping at the roadside should I stop to assist?
If I own a bookshop and a weeping child comes in through the door, but doesn't want to buy a book, should I usher him/her out of the door?
Handing vulnerable passengers to the care of the BTP might concentrate minds for the future?
And if they're two days off 18 are they the same person? Three days? Three hundred days? Three thousand?
The law is quite clear and it draws a line on a person's 18th birthday. If you don't accept that, where would you draw the line?
asylumxl
Established Member
The law is meant to be applied with logic The only reason people don't do so is fear of litigation.
If they are abusive etc. they should be ejected. If they seem genuine they should be treated with care.
Not true. Logic would support the argument that somebody aged 17 years and 50 weeks is similar to somebody three weeks older. But legally they are very different indeed and it is that difference that has to be taken into account by those in the front line.
Your second paragraph is more subjective but seems to support both a legal an a common-sense approach.
Ah, but your talking about the emotional state of someone. If said child was walking down the road being abusive I wouldn't stop. Likewise, said child walking in the bookshop swearing, it would be a case of 'get out'.
If said child was in tears on your train, then I'm sure most staff would think twice about ejecting them.
I know I started the thread, but I don't pretend to have any answers.
- Status