this is why it just isn't worth fare dodging!

[jon0844]

No doubt. I used to drive a range of rather hit hatches (Ford RS models, including the Escort Cosworth) so I probably got stopped more often than most.

But when I've been at my wife's gym, it's quite clear that the people willing to drive a mile or two home after visibly having consumed a few pints or more are more likely driving a more mundane BMW or Audi and aged around 40+, yet probably don't get stopped much at all.

 

[Flamingo]

Oh random tests are allowed, at least the 3 times I have been stopped going to or from work at stupid oclock in the morning. The normal routine is to follow me for a mile or two, pull me over and then use those well rehearsed words "nothing to worry about Sir, just a routine vehicle check have you been drinking". That is it almost word for word!

I've never been stopped. What do you drive?

 

[jon0844]

Surely a 455? Must stand out like a sore thumb on the North Circular and cause a real headache for other motorists at Hangar Lane...

 

[455driver]

I've never been stopped. What do you drive?

A car which is older than my kids, 2 of whom have got driving licences!

 

[Flamingo]

A car which is older than my kids, 2 of whom have got driving licences!

There you go! They are probably classic car enthusiasts! The only time I ever got stopped was when I had a '72 MG. Twice the coppers owned one themselves, the third time he was thinking about buying one!

 

[455driver]

There you go! They are probably classic car enthusiasts! The only time I ever got stopped was when I had a '72 MG. Twice the coppers owned one themselves, the third time he was thinking about buying one!

Oh it aint no classic thats for sure!

 

[tony_mac]

Oh random tests are allowed, at least the 3 times I have been stopped going to or from work at stupid oclock in the morning. The normal routine is to follow me for a mile or two, pull me over and then use those well rehearsed words "nothing to worry about Sir, just a routine vehicle check have you been drinking". That is it almost word for word!

Random stops are allowed, but random breath-tests are not.
But, if you admit to having a drink, they have a reason to test you. If you deny it, then obviously you won't mind doing the test.....
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q723.htm

 

[455driver]

Random stops are allowed, but random breath-tests are not.
But, if you admit to having a drink, they have a reason to test you. If you deny it, then obviously you won't mind doing the test.....
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q723.htm

I know about the random stops, routine vehicle checks etc being allowed, its just the way they ask me about having a drink and when the reply is "no I am going to/from* work" and they can then see the uniform it is always "sorry mate off you go" so there was never any intention of carrying out the routine vehicle check (which is given as the reason for stopping me) and every intention of seeing if I am p1ssed.

Its just the blatant way they do it, although I once refused to answer any questions until the routine vehicle check had been carried out.
The car had passed its MOT a week beforehand so I knew it was okay , I wouldnt do that now though!
It might surprise you, but I dont actually mind being stopped, its just the dishonesty about the reasons given. It would be nice if they were honest about but of course they cant can they because they are not allowed to stop drivers for random breath tests unless its commercialfest in December time!

* delete as applicable!

Anyway none of this has anything to do with some faredodging scummer getting fined £602.10 in Court has it!

 

[tony_mac]

The car had passed its MOT a week beforehand so I knew it was okay , I wouldnt do that now though!

That's a bit of a risky tactic at any time!

I got breathalyzed in New Zealand - on my way back from the cricket on Boxing Day; they were just stopping every car joining the motorway.
They do a 'passive' breath test - they point the device at you, you give your name and address (it's probably the easiest way of making sure you breathe out!), and then 2 seconds later you are on your way....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bg60aByXB4
If they stop every car, at least you know you haven't been singled out for some reason.

I worked in a city centre pub for a while, and despite regularly doing Friday/Saturday nights at 2:30am, I was never stopped.
I did have one night where there was a police car driving in the right hand lane at 20mph. I stayed behind him - the first car to go past him on the inside got pulled over. I did wonder if they were waiting for this particular car, or were just looking for an excuse to stop somebody.

Anyway none of this has anything to do with some faredodging scummer getting fined £602.10 in Court has it!

Ok, errrm, well, the £2.10 wasn't a fine - he would have paid that fare anyway, so it's only really cost him £600.

 

[jon0844]

Its just the blatant way they do it, although I once refused to answer any questions until the routine vehicle check had been carried out.

Best stop for me was in my two or three month old car, because they wanted to check the spacing on my number plate. Erm, yes, okay!

Anyway one of the officers quickly established that I hadn't had a drink and didn't even proceed to test me, but felt he had to do something. So, as I carry my driving licence, that checked out. He already knew I had insurance and who the car was registered to, but then proceeded to give me a producer so that I could present my MOT certificate within 7 or 14 days (can't remember what it is).

I said it was a new car, but he still insisted. So off I went to the police station the very next morning to have them all wondering what the hell the officer was on given a new car doesn't need an MOT for three years!

To this day I still can't figure out how a police officer in a traffic car could not have known that, and I certainly didn't fail the attitude test (was very polite throughout, as was he) so that he thought of making things awkward for me.

Anyway, this is now waaaaaayy off topic and I don't have anything to add to even remotely bring it back on track (well, the word track will have to do).

 

[talldave]

Getting back on topic, it's unlikely the offender will have the money to pay. Which is where bailiffs need the power to drop by and put a hammer through his ipad and flat screen telly - then we're all even!

 

[DarloRich]

Stray failed to respond to letters from First Great Western and did not appear in court when summonsed to do so.

In his absence Stray was found guilty of fare evasion, fined £400, ordered to pay prosecution costs of £160 and a victim surcharge of £40.

This is the reason why it cost him £600! An open and shut case!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Getting back on topic, it's unlikely the offender will have the money to pay. Which is where bailiffs need the power to drop by and put a hammer through his ipad and flat screen telly - then we're all even!

Surely it would be easier just to take his Ipad and flat screen telly and, you know, sell them on to recover the loss?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Which is where bailiffs need the power to drop by and put a hammer through his ipad and flat screen telly - then we're all even!

I'm sure selling them for money would be a better idea, but what do I know.

 

[455driver]

Surely it would be easier just to take his Ipad and flat screen telly and, you know, sell them on to recover the loss?

But where is the fun in that?

 

[DarloRich]

But where is the fun in that?

Surely there is a compromise we can reach here: Why not take and sell the stuff of financial value AND smash up the stuff with sentimental value. You can replace a telly..........

 

[ainsworth74]

Or we could not descend to the level of this fare dodger and just have him pay up his fine + fare outstanding or sell his goods if he can't pay/is unwilling to pay? Just a thought...

 

[Deerfold]

Or we could not descend to the level of this fare dodger and just have him pay up his fine + fare outstanding or sell his goods if he can't pay/is unwilling to pay? Just a thought...

 

[Tibbs]

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co....kipping-2-10/story-22905819-detail/story.html oh dear!

I'm not sure that this shows that. It shows that ignoring court correspondence can be very costly.

Had he responded to the original letter, I'd imagine he would have just got away with his 'administrative penalty' or whatever they're calling them this week to help the bottom line and he'd be back on his way doing what he does.

 

[Clip]

I'm not sure that this shows that. It shows that ignoring court correspondence can be very costly.

Had he responded to the original letter, I'd imagine he would have just got away with his 'administrative penalty' or whatever they're calling them this week to help the bottom line and he'd be back on his way doing what he does.

Indeed he py would have. Now, however he has a conviction against his name which means he really cant be doing it again.

 

[trainophile]

My first thought was is that name for real? Alfie Stray? How many 20 year olds are called Alfred? Of course the diminutive is often used as the birth certificate name these days. But all the same, Stray...

 

[Skimpot flyer]

When he ignored the first letter, the correct action should have been to send a follow-up letter, with just one question posed:

"What's it all about, Alfie?"

 

[Geronimo]

Those out of court settlements, which are now a significant number, must be a problem for train companies. How do they count them or report in their posters and news releases?

The £80+ fee might be a bit of a deterrent (depending how long someone got away with it before being caught) but when word gets around that there's a near certainty that you'll not go to court and therefore not get the criminal record (which always seems to be the real concern offenders have) then it suddenly seems like less of a problem.

My understanding (based on a very unscientific survey of some commuting acquaintances, and from reading offenders' original posts on this board) is that a large majority of travelers are not aware of the penalty regime, especially not of the risk of criminal record. It cannot act as a deterrent if people are not aware of it.

 

[jon0844]

I do think most people assume it's a simple PF and is just an occupational hazard. It probably doesn't help that the most serious punishment isn't widely used as it doesn't really benefit the TOC. Perhaps the legal system needs to adapt to give more compensation to the victim in court, so settlements won't be necessary.

 

[swt_passenger]

I do think most people assume it's a simple PF and is just an occupational hazard...

I reckon we can also infer (from a fair range of previous posts) that some people believe a PF is an entitlement that they must be offered, hence their apparent surprise when the TOC does something different, such as a summons...

 

[jon0844]

There does need to be some more education, and the posters produced by TOCs don't always help.

It's especially confusing when a sticker mentions a PF or prosecution. No wonder some assume that if they pay the PF, they avoid the prosecution.

 

[duncanp]

All this talk of fare dodging reminds me of a classic sketch from the Dick Emery show. (I am showing my age here!!)

Scene : Brighton Station, late 70s/Early 80s

Dick Emery and Roy Kinnear are approaching the barrier, having travelled from London
without buying a ticket.

Roy Kinnear (Dad) accidentally on purpose bumps into the ticket collector, making him drop the tickets that he has collected from the incoming passengers.

He apologises profusely and helps the ticket collector pick up the dropped tickets, but also retains two tickets for himself and his son (Dick Emery)

He gives one ticket to his son, they show the tickets to the collector, and get through the barrier successfully.

Then Dick Emery says in a loud voice so that everyone can her "..'ere Dad, these tickets are only from Haywards Heath. We hid in the khazi all the way from Victoria..."

As they are being led away, he then says "..Dad, I think I got it wrong again..."

 

[Andrewlong]

I think signs above the doors when leaving the train highlighting the implications of not buying a ticket when you could of might get some passengers to consider their actions.

Getting people to read the signs is the key and what better place when you are waiting for the doors to open!

 

[bb21]

I think signs above the doors when leaving the train highlighting the implications of not buying a ticket when you could of might get some passengers to consider their actions.

Getting people to read the signs is the key and what better place when you are waiting for the doors to open!

Above the door?

I can understand it if the proposal is for notices to be displayed under the windows, but above the door? No one will read them.

 

[Clip]

Above the door?

I can understand it if the proposal is for notices to be displayed under the windows, but above the door? No one will read them.

You say that but all(I think) TfL services have notices saying just that above their doors. Its the only thing to bloody read when your in the rush hour

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think signs above the doors when leaving the train highlighting the implications of not buying a ticket when you could of might get some passengers to consider their actions.

If the first sign you see is above the door as you leave the train, it is far far far too late to do anything about it.