Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

What powers do the Luas ticket inspectors actually have?

  • 02-11-2011 1:49pm
    #1
    mydiscworld
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 797 ✭✭✭


    Just read another thread about an upaid Luas fine resulting in a court summons.

    It got me thinking: What powers do the Luas ticket inspectors actually have?

    Let's say you haven't a valid ticket and are stopped by an inspector

    a) inside the tram, or

    b) outside the tram.


    Q1. Does he have the power either way to issue you a fine on the spot?

    Q2. I commonly see them checking newly alighted passengers. If you are outside of the tram when inspected, can you say you had a ticket and left it on the tram?

    After all, you were not found on the tram without a valid ticket, so no evidence you didn't have one, and you're now on a public road, so surely he can't stop you walking off?

    Q3. And how does he know you will give him a correct name & address anyway?

    He can compel you for ID but has no power to search you. And even if he had your full name, most people wouldn't have proof of address on them.

    Q4. If you do not cooperate, such as giving no details or trying to just walk off, can they do a sort of citizen's arrest, similar to what a security guard would do to a shoplifter, and wait for the Gardaí to arrive?


«13

Comments

  • #2
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    The bylaws around this were changed a few months ago. You can now be checked on a tram or on a platform after leaving a tram.
    4. (1) A passenger, on entering a light rail vehicle, who is not in possession of a valid ticket, is liable to pay the standard fare.

    (2) Where an authorised person observes an individual alighting from a light rail vehicle they may request that the individual produces a valid ticket for inspection on the stop platform.

    (3) A passenger alighting from a light rail vehicle, who is not in possession of a valid ticket, is liable to pay the standard fare.

    (4) An individual at a stop platform is not taken to be travelling on a tram service unless they came there by alighting from a tram.

    If they have reason to fine you, they will ask for proof of ID. If you don't have any, they will ask for a phone number and then call that number to make sure it's yours and working.


  • #3
    mydiscworld
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 797 ✭✭✭mydiscworld


    markpb wrote: »
    The bylaws around this were changed a few months ago. You can now be stopped:

    Ok. That answers Q2.

    They can stop you on the platform if they have seen you alight.

    Straight away I see a loophole: If the person ignores the inspector(s) and hops off the platform asap after alighting the tram.

    That should annoy them but they can't put a hand on you I'd say and once off the platform, the bye-law is null and void.


  • #4
    mydiscworld
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 797 ✭✭✭mydiscworld


    markpb wrote: »
    If they have reason to fine you, they will ask for proof of ID. If you don't have any, they will ask for a phone number and then call that number to make sure it's yours and working.

    Right, that's Q3.

    So at best they have your real name (through proof of ID) & phone number (through ringing you phone), plus whatever (potentially fake) address you gave them.

    Not much to go on if you give fake details!

    I should say at this point I'm not looking to fare dodge. Just wondering how good or bad their powers are!


  • #5
    PCPhoto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,584 ✭✭✭PCPhoto


    I would wonder who proposed or ammended these bye-laws ?

    My opinion would be that LUAS inspectors are on a par with security in terms of what they can do ..... not a whole lot.

    once they touch you its considered assault ... even blocking your path if you are walking away is considered false imprisonment as they are impeding your freedom of movement..... they have no powers of detention as far as I'm concerned.

    in the same way that a security guard cannot demand someone go back into the shop (they can request it and if you refuse they can make their accusations - at this point they open themselves to defamation actions)


  • #6
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    mydiscworld wrote: »
    Just read another thread about an upaid Luas fine resulting in a court summons.

    It got me thinking: What powers do the Luas ticket inspectors actually have?

    Let's say you haven't a valid ticket and are stopped by an inspector

    a) inside the tram, or

    b) outside the tram.


    Q1. Does he have the power either way to issue you a fine on the spot?

    No and yes. They don't issue fines but what they can issue is a standard fare or fixed penalty, this they can do as "authorised officers".
    mydiscworld wrote: »
    Q2. I commonly see them checking newly alighted passengers. If you are outside of the tram when inspected, can you say you had a ticket and left it on the tram?

    As answered already, yes they can.
    mydiscworld wrote: »
    Q3. And how does he know you will give him a correct name & address anyway?

    He can compel you for ID but has no power to search you. And even if he had your full name, most people wouldn't have proof of address on them.

    As mentioned again, they can and do double check same precisely to make sure they haven't got duff information for what may turn into a summons at court. A simple phone call will do if need be.
    mydiscworld wrote: »
    Q4. If you do not cooperate, such as giving no details or trying to just walk off, can they do a sort of citizen's arrest, similar to what a security guard would do to a shoplifter, and wait for the Gardaí to arrive?

    Yes they can if need be. Don't forget that they travel in numbers, are radioed and they carry phones so Garda assistance won't be far away should they need it. It's also an offence to not give details to them or to give incorrect details, by the way.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    All these dodges are very clever and could work fine if you use the Luas once in a blue moon. But if you use the Luas any way regularly, the inspectors are going to get to know you. Sooner or later your pic will end up on record and even the new inspectors will be watching out for you. Then it is a matter of time until they get you arrested or find out your real name and address.


  • #8
    mydiscworld
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 797 ✭✭✭mydiscworld


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    As mentioned again, they can and do double check same precisely to make sure they haven't got duff information for what may turn into a summons at court. A simple phone call will do if need be.

    But as we have said above, they may have your correct name & phone number, but how could they ascertain your true address?

    I take antoinolachtnai's point. You might get away with it a few times, but eventually you'd be caught out.

    And rightly so.


  • #9
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    mydiscworld wrote: »
    But as we have said above, they may have your correct name & phone number, but how could they ascertain your true address?

    Having a landline number at home or work would be a good first step, I'd imagine. Thom's Directory or the Electoral Register are two other accurate reference points as well; I'm sure that they have their tricks.


  • #10
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    Having a landline number at home or work would be a good first step, I'd imagine. Thom's Directory or the Electoral Register are two other accurate reference points as well; I'm sure that they have their tricks.

    I doubt many people give their landline number (even if I had one, it wouldn't occur to me) and even fewer would give a work number. I'd imagine the best they can hope for is a mobile number - I presume they could get a court order requiring the operator to disclose the registered address (if there is one).


  • #11
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    All these dodges are very clever and could work fine if you use the Luas once in a blue moon. But if you use the Luas any way regularly, the inspectors are going to get to know you. Sooner or later your pic will end up on record and even the new inspectors will be watching out for you. Then it is a matter of time until they get you arrested or find out your real name and address.


    That reminds me of a story I heard recently off an Irish Rail staff member I know. A guy boarded at Mallow with a student ticket and no ID card and was landed with a Standard Fare and asked for his details. He refused to give his details and when the train pulled into Cork he high tailed it, hopped over the barrier and pegged it into a taxi, giving the RPU guy the finger with a cheesy big grin on his chops.

    You can imagine his disgust a day later when he got a knock on his door over and stuck him with a penalty fare plus a call out charge that the gardai levied on him as well, he being tracked down via the taxi driver that he hailed :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    RichieD
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭RichieD


    markpb wrote: »
    If they have reason to fine you, they will ask for proof of ID. If you don't have any, they will ask for a phone number and then call that number to make sure it's yours and working.

    Thats not very effective to be honest. I always pay on the Luas but still I think it would be easy enough to get away with not paying.

    Why not just give them a fake name/address and your real mobile number? They'll call and see it rings and assume you're telling the truth.

    Having worked for several telecoms company, they wont give any customers information unless they have a written request from an authorised Gardai.
    Its going to be months before they figure out the fine went to a fake address etc.

    Even if they did eventually get your details from the phone company, you can just say 'I lost that phone months ago'. After getting the fine you can even call the phone company and get them to change the registration details of the phone and change it back any time (assuming pre-pay).

    Another thing, there's no way to prove that someone actually gave that mobile number anyway. How do we know it even rang or the inspector didnt get a digit wrong? Why not just say "you must have gotten that phone number wrong", inspector says "But I seen it ring!" "Prove it!"

    Yes I have so much ****ing time travelling each day on Luas/Bus/Dart that I actually have time to think about these things.


  • #13
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    markpb wrote: »
    I doubt many people give their landline number (even if I had one, it wouldn't occur to me) and even fewer would give a work number. I'd imagine the best they can hope for is a mobile number - I presume they could get a court order requiring the operator to disclose the registered address (if there is one).


    Its a question of them being satisfied that they have got the correct details from you, though. As I said, they know what to look and ask for.


  • #14
    RichieD
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭RichieD


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    Having a landline number at home or work would be a good first step, I'd imagine. Thom's Directory or the Electoral Register are two other accurate reference points as well; I'm sure that they have their tricks.

    Why would you give a landline number?

    Why not just give the name and address of a neighbour or someone you went to school with?


  • #15
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    RichieD wrote: »
    Why would you give a landline number?

    Why not just give the name and address of a neighbour or someone you went to school with?

    I presume they would ring landline numbers straight away to try to check that the person living there knows the person they've collared.


  • #16
    RichieD
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭RichieD


    markpb wrote: »
    I presume they would ring landline numbers straight away to try to check that the person living there knows the person they've collared.

    Exactly, so any fare dodger wont give them a landline number. .


  • #17
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    RichieD wrote: »
    Exactly, so any fare dodger wont give them a landline number. .

    Richie, they aren't asking for your phone number per se, they are looking for proof that you gave them a correct address. Your home or work landline would a good help but as I stated, there are other ways they can check up on you as required.


  • #18
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    markpb wrote: »
    The bylaws around this were changed a few months ago. You can now be checked on a tram or on a platform after leaving a tram.

    When were the bylaws enacted? When first posted to the RPA's site they lacked critical info such as bylaw number and date.


  • #19
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    monument wrote: »
    When were the bylaws enacted? When first posted to the RPA's site they lacked critical info such as bylaw number and date.

    Their site is still a little lacking in information. Currently it says
    S.I. No. of 2011

    LIGHT RAILWAY (REGULATION OF TRAVEL AND USE) BYE-LAWS 2011

    The number and date are missing and a quick check of the Irish Statute Book doesn't show the SI at all. Time for a quick email to the RPA I think.


  • #20
    the groutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    the new bylaws covering platforms won't cover the City Centre as the "platforms" there are public streets,


  • #21
    robd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭robd


    the groutch wrote: »
    the new bylaws covering platforms won't cover the City Centre as the "platforms" there are public streets,

    Only if a judge decides that they are while presiding over a case, in which case the law would need to be amended again. I think a judge would interpret the raised level where the Luas stops as being a light rail platform with the public path/street running behind it.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    robd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 951 ✭✭✭robd


    PCPhoto wrote: »
    I would wonder who proposed or ammended these bye-laws ?

    My opinion would be that LUAS inspectors are on a par with security in terms of what they can do ..... not a whole lot.

    once they touch you its considered assault ... even blocking your path if you are walking away is considered false imprisonment as they are impeding your freedom of movement..... they have no powers of detention as far as I'm concerned.

    in the same way that a security guard cannot demand someone go back into the shop (they can request it and if you refuse they can make their accusations - at this point they open themselves to defamation actions)

    That's ridiculous. Touching you is not assault. Detaining you is not false imprisonment. I suggest you try to steal something from a shop in front of a security guard and see what happens if you really think this.

    Thread on STT who have similar powers to inspectors. They are entitled to arrest you and deliver you into the hands of a Garda. So more than just the power of detention. They can actual arrest you for refusing to provide satisfactory details in the case of issuing a standard are.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056066645

    The bye law amendment granting these powers is here
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0031/sec0129.html#sec129

    The act covers all manners of breaking laws of transport act. So fare evasion, assault, anti-social behavior, etc.

    If people really think that they can walk away etc. from a standard fare ticket, then try it and take a test case in court. The arguments about walking away and assault if you are touched or detained are ridiculous.


  • #23
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    robd wrote: »
    That's ridiculous. Touching you is not assault. Detaining you is not false imprisonment. I suggest you try to steal something from a shop in front of a security guard and see what happens if you really think this.

    The problem here is that he never said anything about stealing something or using a railway or light railway without paying. And even if he did or you think he was implying it, a court has the final say.

    Touching you can be assault -- furthermore even acting in a threatening manner towards another person can be assault. And detention or imprisonment can be deemed unlawful or false by a court.

    Gardai and security guards may be given leeway of different amounts, but both still need to know exactly what they are doing. People have also been very successful in libel claims for wrongly being accused of shoplifting.


  • #24
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    markpb wrote: »
    Time for a quick email to the RPA I think.

    Fair play to the RPA for getting back to me so quickly
    Unfortunately due to a misunderstanding in our marketing department the proposed new bye laws were not clearly marked as draft and the existing byelaws were mistakenly removed.

    We will revise this section of the website later today to clearly identify the existing bye laws and the proposed new bye laws.

    We await the consent of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in relation to the introduction of the proposed new bye-laws before they are assigned a statutory instrument number.


  • #25
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    mydiscworld wrote: »
    Q2. I commonly see them checking newly alighted passengers. If you are outside of the tram when inspected, can you say you had a ticket and left it on the tram?
    That is littering, which carries a fine.
    After all, you were not found on the tram without a valid ticket, so no evidence you didn't have one, and you're now on a public road, so surely he can't stop you walking off?
    No, you are on a Luas platform.
    Q4. If you do not cooperate, such as giving no details or trying to just walk off, can they do a sort of citizen's arrest, similar to what a security guard would do to a shoplifter, and wait for the Gardaí to arrive?
    Authorised officers can arrest for certain offences and hand you over to the Garda.
    RichieD wrote: »
    Why not just give them a fake name/address and your real mobile number? They'll call and see it rings and assume you're telling the truth.
    Because people are creatures of habit, making mostly the same journeys day in, day out. The will find you eventually. Oh, and no doubt when the summons gets returned, you'll receive a phone call to tell you that an arrest warrant will be sought if you don't pay
    Another thing, there's no way to prove that someone actually gave that mobile number anyway. How do we know it even rang or the inspector didnt get a digit wrong? Why not just say "you must have gotten that phone number wrong", inspector says "But I seen it ring!" "Prove it!"
    Judges aren't idiots. they are much more likely to take the word of a trained CSO following a procedure than Joe Bloggs.
    RichieD wrote: »
    Why not just give the name and address of a neighbour or someone you went to school with?
    Because that would be wrong.


  • #26
    TheChrisD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,672 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    robd wrote: »
    I think a judge would interpret the raised level where the Luas stops as being a light rail platform with the public path/street running behind it.

    That'd be pretty hard to describe and enforce - especially at Jervis, and at Abbey St. towards Tallaght/Saggart.
    image.png




  • #27
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,984 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    TheChrisD wrote: »
    That'd be pretty hard to describe and enforce - especially at Jervis, and at Abbey St. towards Tallaght/Saggart.

    People seem to think the legal system is like what you see on TV. That if you find some small loophole you will get off.

    For non serious cases it isn't like that, go before a stressed and overworked judge and try that on and see how far you will get.

    A judge will simply ask, did you pay the fare. If you answer honestly that you didn't, he will still fine you, despite the manner that you were identified.

    If you lie, he will probably give you an even bigger fine as he won't believe you and judges are pretty good at spotting spoofers.

    All this talk of technicalities is pretty pointless when you are facing a judge, which is a pretty stressful situation to be in for most people.

    Better off avoiding it at all and just pay the damn fare like a good honest moral citizen.


  • #28
    PCPhoto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,584 ✭✭✭PCPhoto


    robd wrote: »
    That's ridiculous. Touching you is not assault. Detaining you is not false imprisonment. I suggest you try to steal something from a shop in front of a security guard and see what happens if you really think this.

    If people really think that they can walk away etc. from a standard fare ticket, then try it and take a test case in court. The arguments about walking away and assault if you are touched or detained are ridiculous.

    Firstly I think it has already been pointed out to you that physical contact (ie. Touching) can be considered assault.

    Detaining someone without good reason is false imprisonment and qualified privilage will allow this to an extent, but there is a high risk of legal action if your reason is not a valid one.

    Also I never said walk away without paying for a fare .... I'm discussing the powers that the "Security" have on or around a LUAS - if you have a valid ticket and they ask you to produce it ... you can refuse to show it and keep walking - they then have to prove you do not have a ticket or let you walk...otherwise they could face a civil action if they decide to detain you....of course you could argue qualified privilage and they would be entitled to do so but it would be in the hands of the judge.


  • #29
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    PCPhoto wrote: »
    Firstly I think it has already been pointed out to you that physical contact (ie. Touching) can be considered assault.

    Detaining someone without good reason is false imprisonment and qualified privilage will allow this to an extent, but there is a high risk of legal action if your reason is not a valid one.

    Also I never said walk away without paying for a fare .... I'm discussing the powers that the "Security" have on or around a LUAS - if you have a valid ticket and they ask you to produce it ... you can refuse to show it and keep walking - they then have to prove you do not have a ticket or let you walk...otherwise they could face a civil action if they decide to detain you....of course you could argue qualified privilage and they would be entitled to do so but it would be in the hands of the judge.

    If you evade your fare and/or refuse to give your details when asked to, you have committed crimes as per Irish Law. Is that not grounds enough for detaining somebody pending the arrival of a Garda if you decide to peg it away?


  • #30
    dog with a bone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18 ✭dog with a bone


    LUAS is an open system, the platforms are considered controlled infrastructure.
    Walk off the platform onto the street and no LUAS employee is permitted to address you.
    No LUAS staff member is permitted to detain you or touch you when on a platform.
    STT Security can only detain you if you have commited a criminal offence against the person such as an assault.
    Have a ticket or not, walk off the platform and nothing can be done to you. Off course cctv is available but dispute about ticket validity is not something thats worth contesting and digging up cctv footage to present to cctv so they can put a citywide alert for you!
    The ticket inspectors are there as a deterrent, that about all. Normally ticket inspectors operate in bunches of 4 or more and just chat to each other and wander around the city all day.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    All is not clear about the platforms -- in a number of locations platforms are pedestrian routes, footways / footpaths, parts of public roads and well established rights of ways.

    A lot of people on here and elsewhere on boards talking about legal matters as if everything is black and white when it's really all shades of gray. Nobody has broken any law until a court says they have -- people often confuse the law and what they think it is.

    As for lower courts with lower crimes -- as is often said here, a huge amount depends on the individual judge, but they actually do deal with legalities (ie getting off speeding fines, parking fines on points of law etc) and, by their very nature, they can be very more reasoned than the appeals processes run by the transport companies. But, as people also correctly say, going to court risks greater fines etc.

    We don't actual have a very clear picture on this -- we have a lot of rhetoric and guesses, half educated or otherwise (at least part of my posts are a mix of these). Some people also seem to get annoyed that people have different views -- it's strangely a common problem on this site where you should expect different views.


  • #32
    An Udaras
    Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭An Udaras


    robd wrote: »
    That's ridiculous. Touching you is not assault. Detaining you is not false imprisonment. I suggest you try to steal something from a shop in front of a security guard and see what happens if you really think this.

    Thread on STT who have similar powers to inspectors. They are entitled to arrest you and deliver you into the hands of a Garda. So more than just the power of detention. They can actual arrest you for refusing to provide satisfactory details in the case of issuing a standard are.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056066645

    The bye law amendment granting these powers is here
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0031/sec0129.html#sec129

    The act covers all manners of breaking laws of transport act. So fare evasion, assault, anti-social behavior, etc.

    If people really think that they can walk away etc. from a standard fare ticket, then try it and take a test case in court. The arguments about walking away and assault if you are touched or detained are ridiculous.

    Just confirm STT are not empowered or recognized as Authourised Officers under any legislations.

    The LUAS operator Veolia can appoint some of it's staff as Authorised Persons/Officers for Revenue Protection purposes just like Irish Rail but to confirm STT are not.

    STT security guards wear PSA IDs on there uniform and may arrest persons per Section 4 Criminal Law Act 1997 (Any Person Arrests "Arrestable Offences" or for other powers under Common Law) like any citizen or any Shop security.

    They of course exposé themselves to the potential for civil litigation & bad PR for a wrongful arrest. This is why I believe it not common for STT to do more then physically move a person from a station or request the Gardai.


  • #33
    Dietsquirt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭Dietsquirt


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    No and yes. They don't issue fines but what they can issue is a standard fare or fixed penalty, this they can do as "authorised officers".



    As answered already, yes they can.



    As mentioned again, they can and do double check same precisely to make sure they haven't got duff information for what may turn into a summons at court. A simple phone call will do if need be.



    Yes they can if need be. Don't forget that they travel in numbers, are radioed and they carry phones so Garda assistance won't be far away should they need it. It's also an offence to not give details to them or to give incorrect details, by the way.

    Just get off at the next stop?! They (inspectors or security) can't stop/trap you on the Luas. If they ask you for details, either stay silent or tell them not to worry about and that you'll get off at the next stop.

    NOTHING THEY CAN DO


  • #34
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Dietsquirt wrote: »
    Just get off at the next stop?! They (inspectors or security) can't stop/trap you on the Luas. If they ask you for details, either stay silent or tell them not to worry about and that you'll get off at the next stop.

    NOTHING THEY CAN DO

    Can they not?

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0031/sec0129.html

    Your move :cool:


  • #35
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    Can they not?

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0031/sec0129.html

    Your move :cool:
    The important part of what you have quoted is
    using such reasonable force as the circumstances require,
    If the crime is a simple non-payment of the fare then tackling someone to the ground or even laying a hand on them is not reasonable force and could of course lead to all sorts of civil cases against the authorised officers of the company as well as charges of excessive force causing injury or wounding or actual or grievous bodily harm!


  • #36
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    If the crime is a simple non-payment of the fare then tackling someone to the ground or even laying a hand on them is not reasonable force and could of course lead to all sorts of civil cases against the authorised officers of the company as well as charges of excessive force causing injury or wounding or actual or grievous bodily harm
    I don't see a definition of terms here; only opinions.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    An Udaras
    Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭An Udaras


    Dietsquirt wrote: »
    Just get off at the next stop?! They (inspectors or security) can't stop/trap you on the Luas. If they ask you for details, either stay silent or tell them not to worry about and that you'll get off at the next stop.

    NOTHING THEY CAN DO

    TROLL ALERT....

    On a interesting note I heard from a friend that Irish Rail advice against its staff effecting arrests or physically detaining Violent persons under above Act as it could become a health & safety issue after an a safety assessment was completed as they are not issued Stab Vest,Batons or Handcuffs and a police style conflict management training etc..


  • #38
    t1mm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 437 ✭✭t1mm


    Taken from luas.ie (http://www.luas.ie/luas-byelaws.html)
    Standard fare

    4. (1) A passenger, on entering a light rail vehicle, who is not in possession of a valid ticket, is liable to pay the standard fare.

    (2) A passenger who is on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket shall pay the standard fare to an authorised person immediately or, at the discretion of the authorised person and where the authorised person is satisfied as to the name and address of the passenger, within a period of 14 days of having so entered the light rail vehicle, to the operator concerned.

    (3) An authorised person shall issue the relevant ticket to a passenger who has paid the standard fare and such a ticket entitles the passenger to travel to the next terminus.

    (4) Where a passenger is found on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket by an authorised person and the passenger refuses to pay the standard fare immediately, the authorised person may request the passenger to leave the light rail vehicle at the next stop and the passenger shall comply with such a request.

    (5) In this Bye-law “standard fare” means a fare of €45.

    I'll admit I only skimmed over their bye-laws, however this paragraph seems to say that the security can't do anything if you don't pay, and simply refuse to give them details.


  • #39
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    t1mm wrote: »
    I'll admit I only skimmed over their bye-laws, however this paragraph seems to say that the security can't do anything if you don't pay, and simply refuse to give them details.
    may

    It doesn't mean that this is the sole remedy.

    And you would still owe them €45


  • #40
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    t1mm wrote: »
    Taken from luas.ie (http://www.luas.ie/luas-byelaws.html)
    (4) Where a passenger is found on a light rail vehicle without a valid ticket by an authorised person and the passenger refuses to pay the standard fare immediately, the authorised person may request the passenger to leave the light rail vehicle at the next stop and the passenger shall comply with such a request.

    I'll admit I only skimmed over their bye-laws, however this paragraph seems to say that the security can't do anything if you don't pay, and simply refuse to give them details.
    What that section means is that they can request you to leave the tram at the next stop so they can deal with your offence of not having a ticket.

    If you refuse to pay the standard fare immediately they need to take your details and check your identity so they get you off the tram to do this. Also because you are not paying the standard fare they can refuse to allow you to travel any further on the tram, for those who pay the fare immediately they are allowed to continue on to their destination.


  • #41
    An Udaras
    Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭An Udaras


    Interesting point.. Are LUAS/Veolia staff appointed solely as Authorised Persons under the Byelaws? Or are they empowered as Authorised Officers per Railway Safety Act 2005. Other wise I can't see any powers to detain?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    Over in Germany, they're regarding fare evasion to now be at "epidemic" levels. Instead of scrapping the unworkable honour system though (it's spread across almost all of the public transport system), they're looking to raise the fines.


  • #43
    ProudDUB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,569 ✭✭✭✭ProudDUB


    I'm curious to know how Luas inspectors can consider some city centre stops "their" property whereby they have an automatic right to stop you, and demand to see your ticket. Obviously, if you are on the Luas itself, or standing on a specially constructed platform or station that is not part of any other road or path, you are on their property. Inspectors have rights there.

    But at the south bound bound Abbey St and Jervis stops, passengers are let out on the path, onto Abbey St itself, directly in front of the 2 Euro shop and a Spar. There are no special platforms or disembarking points. How can a public street that anyone can walk on, be deemed "their" property that inspectors have specific rights on?

    I am no fair dodger. I am just curious, as last summer I was taking a photo of a gorgeous flower arrangement (the ones put up by the Corpo) near where the Luas stops on Abbey St. One of the black clad Luas security heavies told me to put my camera away as I was on private property & photography was not allowed. It only occured to me later on, no I effing wasn't. I was standing on bleedin' Abbey Street !


  • #44
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    The Luas bylaws apply to the operation of the system and various offences on or around it's infrastructure. These apply to platforms as well as the track so they have the right to move you on as need be. That said, they are extremely strict on photography and harshly so IMO.


  • #45
    ProudDUB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,569 ✭✭✭✭ProudDUB


    I get that, but my point was that on the Tallaght/Saggart bound Luas trams, the tram lets passengers out onto the actual path of Abbey St itself. There is no separate platform for Luas passengers, and one separate pathway for members of the public to walk on. It is all the one common area.

    I was not standing on the tram tracks themselves. I was not standing on the platform (that trams going towards The Point have) that is in the middle of the road that is there for Luas passengers and no one else. I was standing on a public path, on a public street, taking a picture of a flower arrangement that was put there by Dublin Corporation. I wasn't even riding the Luas.

    The nearest things to me were a doorway to a shop, the shops rubbish bags that were set outside for the Corpo bin men to pick up overnight, a Corpo Bruscar bin, and the massive Corpo flower arrangement that I was taking the picture of. I have a hard time seeing how I could be deemed to be standing on private property.


  • #46
    An Udaras
    Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭An Udaras


    Are STT Security guards considered authorised persons under the Byelaws? If so how do they prove this to a effected person? Otherwise you can politely ignore them.


  • #47
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,163 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    If you are a scumbag just tell them to F** off....i see it all the time...


  • #48
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    If RPA has had portions of what looks like public roadway/footpath transferred to them by Dublin City Council, those patches of ground should be coloured differently if they are such that having a physical barrier is impractical, and a sign noting the difference between the public right of way and the tramstop explaining this colouration.


  • #49
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    An Udaras wrote: »
    Are STT Security guards considered authorised persons under the Byelaws? If so how do they prove this to a effected person? Otherwise you can politely ignore them.
    Are security guards generally allowed to wear balaclavas or to have their face/identity concealed? I ask because lately i have seen several of these STT security persons with their faces covered by some kind of balaclava type head gear which looks like it comes as part of their uniform.


  • #50
    An Udaras
    Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭An Udaras


    I don't think it's illegal only legal requirement a security guard must have is that his/her PSA identity card is clearly on display.

    Now the argument is there that if their covering there face with a balaclave then it makes hard for a member of the public to identify if the card holder is the wearer cause their face in obsructed.

    Has any LUAS travelers any experience with the STT employees?


  • #51
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    ProudDUB wrote: »
    I am just curious, as last summer I was taking a photo of a gorgeous flower arrangement (the ones put up by the Corpo) near where the Luas stops on Abbey St. One of the black clad Luas security heavies told me to put my camera away as I was on private property & photography was not allowed. It only occured to me later on, no I effing wasn't. I was standing on bleedin' Abbey Street !
    If you just had a hand held camera and weren't obstructing the platform, I think that was over-zealousness on their behalf. Using a tri-pod and or obstructing the platform would be another matter.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement