Fare Evasion Justifiable?

PRND · 19-12-2007 9:35am #1

Do people think that evading fares can be morally justified by stating that the penalty fare exists and if you are caught then you pay the penalty fare.

If the penalty fare is less than you ordinarily would have paid then you are up. If not you are down.

If the transport company is not checking frequently enough then you are more likely to be up than down.

What do others think of this pov?

Hagar · 19-12-2007 9:43am

I suppose you would justify burglary on the basis that if you get caught you pay the penalty so it's ok to do it.

Not paying fares is theft pure and simple.

Nevyn · 19-12-2007 9:49am

It's illegal and you can't expect this site to condone illegal acts.

zorkmundsson · 19-12-2007 9:52am

PRND wrote: »

Do people think that evading fares can be morally justified by stating that the penalty fare exists and if you are caught then you pay the penalty fare.

If the penalty fare is less than you ordinarily would have paid then you are up. If not you are down.

If the transport company is not checking frequently enough then you are more likely to be up than down.

What do others think of this pov?

depends what you mean by "justifiable".
if it means "morally sound", then no.
if it means "whatever has the potential to earn me money", then yes.

PRND · 19-12-2007 10:12am

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is whether the penalty fare legitimises evasion. I am not saying it does.

Fare evasion is theft. But with a penalty fare system you are able to draw a line under that theft. What if Dixon's said ipods are ?200 but if we catch you stealing one, we'll charge you ?400 but that will be the end of it. Would more people steal them?

It would appear that once you pay your penalty fare that you are back with a clean sheet.

So if it costs less to risk the occasional fare then why not?

Or should the transport companies pursue each fare evader like they would someone who stole a load of wire from one of their yards?

I'm just interested to hear peoples' thoughts.

Red Alert · 19-12-2007 10:34am

The penalty fare in a way is a let-off clause for you. They could in fact not have one at all and have you done for theft.

aphex™ · 19-12-2007 10:38am

I think I could justify it on the luas because the thing cost tax payers billions and added 40 mins to my day (traffic) when they were building the thing.

But it's easier to just pay it.

PRND · 19-12-2007 10:41am

Exactly!

A "let off".

Their bye-laws allow for someone to evade away to their heart's content, as long as they pay the penalty fare each time when caught.

So what's the incentive to pay?

I think they should either prosecute each person and let the judge decide the severity of the matter or else increase penalty fares and inspections so that it no longer becomes financially preferable to evade while working within the bye-laws of the company.

OTK · 19-12-2007 11:31am

The Luas fine is about 20 times the single fare. So, I'm sure many people will decide on a policy of non-payment if they judge that they have a <5% chance of being caught on any one journey. Also they may have the whole false address line ready. Based on my limited use of the luas, I think theat ticket checks take place more often than 5% of journeys.

The incentives to pay include- that you may go to court and be heavily fined or imprisoned if they catch you too many times - the embarrassment at being caught in front of other passengers - The stress of spending every journey watching for ticket checkers at every station as you approach.

Some young people will enjoy not paying as they are so bored it provides a little excitement.

Dragging people through the courts would be slow and inefficient. Maybe the ticket checker should be allowd to seize goods from your person to cover the fine. 'Give me your iPod'. I think that would work.

Slice · 19-12-2007 12:28pm

If you are caught without a ticket on the Luas the charge you incur is not even called a penalty fee; it's called a standard fare. Assuming you pay the standard fare that hardly makes you a criminal or for it to be classed in the same category as theft. Obviously the Luas operators don't see it as incriminating otherwise it would be called something other than a "fare"

meanmachine3 · 19-12-2007 12:38pm

this is actually a good post
from a bus drivers point of view it seems to me that fare evasion is one of the easiest ways to thieve of a company and that is exactly what it is. THEFT.
unfortunatley the penaltys are to soft. thats grand getting away with it for a while till about 3 inspectors get on a bus and i'm sure it's a bit of an amusement for the honest passengers to see which gob ****e gets caught and all the heads turned. surely this should be embarrassment enough. then again there are others who dont give a flying fluck.
i'll ask you all. whats the difference between evading a fare and robbing from your local supermarket or driving of with our paying for your petrol.

i've never been to the U.K. just wondering if any posters here have been there or any modernised country and are they more stricter than here when it comes to fare evasion?

Calina · 19-12-2007 12:52pm

There is no moral justification for fare evasion, regardless of how you try to convince yourself of it. The OP's efforts to provide a moral justification are completely lacking in supporting argument either practically, morally or philosophically.

Trying to justify it because there is a standard fare for getting caught or because your tax euros paid for the infrastructural costs is a strawman argument.

Fare Evasion Justifiable?

Comments