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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

S.I. No. 109/1984 and "No Ticket, No Travel, No Excuses"

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    the Law usually looks at what is reasonable.
    It is not reasonable to not use a machine to buy a ticket when requested.


  • Options
    #33
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    If people haven't done so, can I suggest they have a look at this thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056181086.

    The OP in that case boarded a DART after seeing the ticket office was closed, didn't try to use the ticket machine, was fined, but the fine was overturned on appeal. What's noticeable here is that the OP still paid the proper fare at this destination.

    It's hard to know for certain why IE overturned the fine in that case, but it would seem that at least in some cases a passenger isn't obliged to try and use the ticket machine.


  • Options
    #34
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Grolschevik wrote: »
    I do. Or at least see it as a reasonable equivalent in most circumstances. I'm betting a District judge would, too.
    I doubt a Judge would see it as reasonable because they see reasons every day why people would not use these machines from people being illitrate to others not having change and not being able to use technology.
    That's fair enough: if it can't sell you your ticket because of limited availability etc, then ok. And you would have to seek out an RPU officer at the first opportunity to explain this and pay your fare retrospectively. If they fine you, I think you'd still need to make that argument in court, or at least in an appeal to the RPU.



    As above; fair enough.



    Agree. What I disagree with is the apparent argument that, just because the ticket guy has closed up for few minutes to go to the jacks, the fact that you can only buy a ticket from a machine automatically leads to "Woo hoo! Free train day!".

    If the machine doesn't sell your ticket, won't take your card, is broken or you cannot read, then if the office is closed, get on the train by all means and explain and pay at your destination.
    The problem is that the Updating you mentioned in a previous post obviously does not happen regularly as when people board without tickets they are not believed by RPU and are criminalised and embarrassed on the spot. I boarded a train in Newbridge once and the ticket checker/seller was about to issue fines a family of about 9 people until I backed up their claim that the booking office in Newbridge was closed. The ticket checker asked me privately was i sure it was closed and i noted that the hatch was blocked off and a sheet of paper with the days remaining train times were posted up on the window blocking anyone from seeing into the office. He suggested to the family that next time they use the vending machine but i quickly piped up that it was broken and accepting credit cards only.
    I think you're wrong here, taking a far too literal interpretation of the statute. If you have an intention to evade, you're committing an offence. Refusal to use a machine on principle, because of a poorly worded bye-law, looks to me to be an intention to evade.

    I look forward to you testing your theory in the courts.
    If you refuse to use the machine out of principle because you are not obliged by any statute to use it than you are trying to evade paying your fare? wow! do you work for RPU or Irish Rail in some capacity because that is the way they see everything passenger related? Guilty until proven innocent!

    What is the point of handing out punitive fines as well as charging the full fare to persons who present themselves at the ticket barrier at Heuston or Connolly to buy a ticket which they could not buy from the booking office at the station they boarded at?
    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Why do I suspect that will be left to others.....;)
    I have never used those ticket machines to buy a ticket and possibly never will(I have used them to collect online tickets) Myself and a lot of others hate putting money into machines like this as when something goes wrong it is too easy for the incompetants in Irish Rail to tell you it is nothing to do with them and you have to write in to X Y and Z to beg them to give your money back!


  • Options
    #35
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,965 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    If people haven't done so, can I suggest they have a look at this thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056181086.

    The OP in that case boarded a DART after seeing the ticket office was closed, didn't try to use the ticket machine, was fined, but the fine was overturned on appeal. What's noticeable here is that the OP still paid the proper fare at this destination.

    It's hard to know for certain why IE overturned the fine in that case, but it would seem that at least in some cases a passenger isn't obliged to try and use the ticket machine.

    I remember that case from a year ago.

    To be honest, we don't know why the fixed penalty notice was overturned, if indeed that it was, as it's just OP's word to go on. It's best to take any assumption about it at arms length though there is some comfort in the fact that an appeal may well work at times. That said, the OP was a minor which may have a bearing on the case in question.


  • Options
    #36
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    I remember that case from a year ago.

    To be honest, we don't know why the fixed penalty notice was overturned, if indeed that it was, as it's just OP's word to go on. It's best to take any assumption about it at arms length though there is some comfort in the fact that an appeal may well work at times. That said, the OP was a minor which may have a bearing on the case in question.
    Typical Irish Rail response, "The passenger is lying!".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    If people haven't done so, can I suggest they have a look at this thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056181086.

    The OP in that case boarded a DART after seeing the ticket office was closed, didn't try to use the ticket machine, was fined, but the fine was overturned on appeal. What's noticeable here is that the OP still paid the proper fare at this destination.

    It's hard to know for certain why IE overturned the fine in that case, but it would seem that at least in some cases a passenger isn't obliged to try and use the ticket machine.

    I'd say the fine was overturned because the fare was paid at the destination...
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    I doubt a Judge would see it as reasonable because they see reasons every day why people would not use these machines from people being illitrate to others not having change and not being able to use technology.

    Every day they also see people chancing their arm (eg trying to get out of a speeding fine because their name was spelled incorrectly). And it doesn't wash with them.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    If you refuse to use the machine out of principle because you are not obliged by any statute to use it than you are trying to evade paying your fare? wow! do you work for RPU or Irish Rail in some capacity because that is the way they see everything passenger related? Guilty until proven innocent!

    Yes. If you refuse to buy a ticket when you have an opportunity to buy a ticket, that counts as fare evasion in my book.

    And why is it that people always assume that those who disagree with them must therefore work for whatever vested interest is under discussion?
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    What is the point of handing out punitive fines as well as charging the full fare to persons who present themselves at the ticket barrier at Heuston or Connolly to buy a ticket which they could not buy from the booking office at the station they boarded at?

    In my opinion, that shouldn't happen, if you can prove that you were unable to buy a ticket.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    I have never used those ticket machines to buy a ticket and possibly never will(I have used them to collect online tickets) Myself and a lot of others hate putting money into machines like this as when something goes wrong it is too easy for the incompetants in Irish Rail to tell you it is nothing to do with them and you have to write in to X Y and Z to beg them to give your money back!

    So do you regularly board without having a valid ticket and pay at the other end? Or do you make alternative booking arrangements?

    Also, that's bordering on a paranoid vending machine phobia! Does it extend to parking machines and coffee machines too?


  • Options
    #38
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,651 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Grolschevik wrote: »
    I do. Or at least see it as a reasonable equivalent in most circumstances. I'm betting a District judge would, too.

    I completely disagree.
    Grolschevik wrote: »
    That's fair enough: if it can't sell you your ticket because of limited availability etc, then ok. And you would have to seek out an RPU officer at the first opportunity to explain this and pay your fare retrospectively. If they fine you, I think you'd still need to make that argument in court, or at least in an appeal to the RPU.

    Seeing as trains do not generally *have* RPU officers, it is not reasonable to expect someone to "seek out" one. Paying at the destination station was deemed entirely acceptable until IE went on a desperate revenue scavenging operation recently.

    Grolschevik wrote: »
    I think you're wrong here, taking a far too literal interpretation of the statute.

    I think its you trying to take an interpretation of what is quite clearly written here.

    TVMs existed at a huge quantity of stations at the time of the statute. That is an irrefutable fact.

    This would play a major role in proving that a machine does not compromise an "office" - there is no play for interpretation based on TVMs being newer than the statute.


  • Options
    #39
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    MYOB wrote: »
    I completely disagree.

    Right, well we're not going to get anywhere here then. It'll have to be tested in court eventually, or maybe they'll just get around to rewording the statute!


Advertisement