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?

2

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    The position on photography on the luas railway is spelled out in 6(f) of the Luas bye laws.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭KD345


    The position on photography on the luas railway is spelled out in 6(f) of the Luas bye laws.

    Not really.
    A person shall not on a light rail vehicle or a light railway without permission given by or on behalf of an operator - use any camera or video recorder or any form of equipment for recording sound or images so as to interfere with any other person

    I hardly think taking a photo of a flower arrangement is interfering with other people.

    I can't see where the bylaws affect public streets where Luas stops. Abbey Street, Busaras, Mayor Square, Chancery Street, Smithfield, Museum are all public streets where Luas stop. Surely these are exempt from Luas bylaws?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,206 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    All Luas platforms are RPA property, they are not owned by the local authority.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,930 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    So explain to us then how the outbound platforms at Abbey Street and Jervis fit into that situation?

    They are on the public footpaths.

    Are the public footpaths at those locations no longer public property?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,206 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    There is a right of way through the platforms

    the main concern with photography is it gets in the way of people and also introduces a safety issue as you are not fully aware of what is going on especially behind you.


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


    All Luas platforms are RPA property, they are not owned by the local authority.
    There is a right of way through the platforms

    the main concern with photography is it gets in the way of people and also introduces a safety issue as you are not fully aware of what is going on especially behind you.

    Non-issue. 100,000s of photos are taken in more confined underground spaces on metro systems and on other tram systems without it being an issue.

    They however seem to go over board and go far beyond the letter or spirit of the law in curtailing an act which is again and again protected the European courts.

    Private property can be a public place.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    KD345 wrote: »
    Not really.



    I hardly think taking a photo of a flower arrangement is interfering with other people.

    I can't see where the bylaws affect public streets where Luas stops. Abbey Street, Busaras, Mayor Square, Chancery Street, Smithfield, Museum are all public streets where Luas stop. Surely these are exempt from Luas bylaws?

    Sorry, I am agreeing with you. Photography is definitely not forbidden on the Luas railway.


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


    Sorry, I am agreeing with you. Photography is definitely not forbidden on the Luas railway.

    The stance of the RPA and Veolia Transdev is that it is forbidden, and they are enforcing it that way. But they seem to go beyond the letter and spirit of the law.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    They can take whatever stand they want, but it is not forbidden. If they want it to be forbidden, they should get the bye law changed to reflect that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,491 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    monument wrote: »
    The stance of the RPA and Veolia Transdev is that it is forbidden, and they are enforcing it that way. But they seem to go beyond the letter and spirit of the law.

    http://www.luas.ie/luas-byelaws.html
    Restricted behaviour

    6. (1) A person shall not on a light rail vehicle or a light railway without permission given by or on behalf of an operator –

    (f) use any camera or video recorder or any form of equipment for recording sound or images so as to interfere with any other person,

    If we take the important bits "A person shall not ... use [a] camera ...to interfere with any other person". That said RPA / Veolia / RPA / STT can take any stance they want and make whatever requests they want (just like a garda asking "Where are you heading?"). Enforcing it is another matter.

    That said, they can ban certain behaviours under other sections.


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


    Agreed that it is not forbidden in the bylaws -- was just pointing out that they stop people and act as if it is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭KD345


    monument wrote: »
    Agreed that it is not forbidden in the bylaws -- was just pointing out that they stop people and act as if it is.

    Considering the amount of bylaws being broken every day regarding fares/alcohol/smoking/drugs/litter, you would hope that photography is far down on their list of priorities.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭An Udaras


    5 pages in and we still haven't discovered if the LUAS staff have anymore power then to simply demand your name & address? And if you don't provide they have no power then to simple follow you and call guards...

    Am I missing something here?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,245 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    An Udaras wrote: »
    5 pages in and we still haven't discovered if the LUAS staff have anymore power then to simply demand your name & address? And if you don't provide they have no power then to simple follow you and call guards...

    Am I missing something here?

    Have you actually read any of the replies on the thread yet? This has been covered already and on numerous similar threads on here over time.

    2005 Railway Safety Act is the most recent act that covers ticket fines and the legal obligations of railway staff and passengers.

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

    Luas Bylaws for your information, once again. A link to same can be found on www.luas.ie

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/si/0100.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭An Udaras


    An Udaras wrote: »
    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?

    Please read post 41 above Losty before saying I haven't read the thread fully..

    Just because a member of Veolia is considered a Authorised Person under the LUAS Byelaws does not mean they arevappointed or empowered as Authorised Officers under railway safety act of 2005.

    If you can show evidence or knowledge that a LUAS Authorised person is also an Authorised officer with statute powers to detain an individual then you will have answered my question other then that your post just sounds arrogant Losty.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,245 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    An Udaras wrote: »
    Please read post 41 above Losty before saying I haven't read the thread fully..

    Just because a member of Veolia is considered a Authorised Person under the LUAS Byelaws does not mean they arevappointed or empowered as Authorised Officers under railway safety act of 2005.

    If you can show evidence or knowledge that a LUAS Authorised person is also an Authorised officer with statute powers to detain an individual then you will have answered my question other then that your post just sounds arrogant Losty.

    But it is there; read the 2005 act and the 2004 SI and you have have your answer. From the Bylaws...

    2. In these Bye-laws -
    “authorised person” means any officer, employee or agent of an operator acting in the execution of his or her duty upon or in connection with a light railway or any member of the Garda Síochána whose attendance is requested on a light railway by an authorised person;

    In the 2005 act, sections 129 and 133 describe just who can be considered authorised officers, as they refer to them. Bear in mind that they are different acts and fines can be issued under one or other act so some terms will be slightly different.


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


    So does an authorised person as per the luas bye-laws have the same powers to detain a person as a guard or an authorised officer as per the light railways order? As far as I can see the luas authorised person does not have any right to touch or detain anyone even on a tram or platform while the light railways order authorised officer has the power to detain any person who has committed an offense. But I could be wrong!

    To clarify further, STT and other Veolia staff can detain you if you damage property or attack other passengers etc by effecting a citizens arrest which could leave them "personally liable" but only a person authorised under the provisions of the light railways order has powers to detain you for fare evasion but they are in fact detaining you for trespassing on the light railway as you have no right to be on the platforms or trams without a ticket.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭An Udaras


    I am of the same opinion as foggy.

    There is specific requirements set down for the appointment of Authourised Officers under the Act of 2005. This differs greatly from a definition of a Authorised person under LUAS Byelaws.

    It is my understanding that an officer of a company does not mean Authorised Officer under an act.

    It would be great if LUAS had these empowered,trained and supported Autorised Officers with specific statute powers of arrest & detention for a heap of Railway Offences including byelaw enforcement and I am sure regular LUAS users would benefit from their existence instead uniformed security guards.

    Regular arrests & proactive enforcement of Byelaws could be a godsend, but with the exception of Garda patrols it does not seem to happen on the LUAS which would lead me to believe they that LUAS staff are not Authorised officers by virtue of the act of 2005 only empowered to enact/enforce parts of Byelaws mainly relating to tickets.


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


    There is also the distinction of those authorised under Luas Bye-Laws being called "authorised persons" and those authorised under the light railways order being called "authorised officers"


    I would imagine that the reason Luas and other transport companies don't use more trained and authorised "officers" is to avoid personal injury and wrongful arrest claims which would be brought against the company whereas now if detained wrongfully or injured by an authorised person you bring your personal injury case against the individual who could also face charges for kidnap and assault.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,245 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    An Udaras wrote: »
    I am of the same opinion as foggy.

    There is specific requirements set down for the appointment of Authourised Officers under the Act of 2005. This differs greatly from a definition of a Authorised person under LUAS Byelaws.

    It is my understanding that an officer of a company does not mean Authorised Officer under an act.

    It would be great if LUAS had these empowered,trained and supported Autorised Officers with specific statute powers of arrest & detention for a heap of Railway Offences including byelaw enforcement and I am sure regular LUAS users would benefit from their existence instead uniformed security guards.

    Regular arrests & proactive enforcement of Byelaws could be a godsend, but with the exception of Garda patrols it does not seem to happen on the LUAS which would lead me to believe they that LUAS staff are not Authorised officers by virtue of the act of 2005 only empowered to enact/enforce parts of Byelaws mainly relating to tickets.

    Well if you are that worried about this all perhaps you should consult a solicitor for their opinion. Luas and Irish Rail get court convictions based on the relevant laws and bylaws and the powers legally bestowed on them so judges and solicitors seem to be happy with them as they are :)


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


    Luas and Irish Rail get court convictions based on the relevant laws and bylaws and the powers legally bestowed on them so judges and solicitors seem to be happy with them as they are :)

    Depsite the smug answer, it's not really answering the question that's being asked.
    Q1. Does he have the power either way to issue you a fine on the spot?

    Q2. If you are outside of the tram when inspected, can you say you had a ticket and left it on the tram?

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

    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?

    The first one is unequivocally yes, the second one was found (and admitted by RPA) to be false because the SIs don't yet give them that authority, the third is a fair question and has nothing to do with court cases or judges and the fourth hasn't yet been answered, not even by you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    markpb wrote: »
    Depsite the smug answer, it's not really answering the question that's being asked.

    At this point in proceedings I would suggest that the question is unanswerable on these forums.

    It is obvious,to me at least,that it now needs to be robustly decided in a Court of Law.

    Whether this actually occurs or not is another matter ?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭An Udaras


    An Udaras wrote: »
    5 pages in and we still haven't discovered if the LUAS staff have anymore power then to simply demand your name & address? And if you don't provide they have no power then to simple follow you and call guards...

    Am I missing something here?

    So Losty my post still stands? Nobody really knows..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭KD345


    And we're still no clearer on how public streets are property of RPA.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    KD345 wrote: »
    And we're still no clearer on how public streets are property of RPA.

    I was told by an RPA head that they CPO'd the station area, including the public pavements at Jervis and Abbey - so it is actually their property now.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭An Udaras


    Well if you are that worried about this all perhaps you should consult a solicitor for their opinion. Luas and Irish Rail get court convictions based on the relevant laws and bylaws and the powers legally bestowed on them so judges and solicitors seem to be happy with them as they are :)

    I have no need to contact a solicitor I was curious to debate the differences on this forum with regular user/interested parties which by the past few pages people are clearly unsure about.

    My contributions have been relating to if a LUAS employee asks for your name and address and person fails and/or refuses and simply walks off what can they do bar following the offender and calling the guards (unlikely for €2 ticket fare) which may go against the company health & safety policy if they end up being separated from colleagues or are assaulted away from the LUAS


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭KD345


    I was told by an RPA head that they CPO'd the station area, including the public pavements at Jervis and Abbey - so it is actually their property now.

    What is a "station area"?

    There are no signs or markings whatsoever on Abbey Street to inform passengers that they have left the general footpath and entered a "station area". The flow of the pavement on Abbey Street goes past some ticket machines (complete with resident junkie beggars) and continues beyond.

    There are also no signs at Spencer Dock, Mayor Square, Georges Dock, Chancery Street (Four Courts), Hammond Lane (Smithfield) and Benburb Street (Museum) that it is private property.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,478 ✭✭✭✭cson


    Standard Fares seem to be issued based upon whether you look like you can pay the fine or not. In my experience issuance of Standard Fares are far more prevalent on the Green Line. I've really lost count of the number of times they just don't bother/just kick off individuals of a certain disposition on the Red Line.

    Interestingly this did occur to me yesterday while I was taking a Tallaght-City Centre trip. I'd didn't have a phone at the time as it had been nicked and I'd left my wallet at home and just had a small sum of cash. Basically nothing to prove who I was other than my word. Now I did pay the €2.40 into town but I genuinely think I probably could have decided not to and got away with it if I wanted because;

    [1] I could just give any name and address - obviously had nothing on me to prove it.

    [2] I infrequently travel the Luas either direction. I wouldn't be 'known' in the same way people who dodge it the whole time would be

    [3] I've a little bit of French; could have just started reaming it off and boom we have a language barrier difficulty.

    For [1] and [3] I just can't see any Inspector going to the effort required to issue the notice. I mean it would effectively involve getting the STT guys to either **** me off the train or detain me til the Gardai got there [if I refused] or to accompany me to my house to get my ID. I mean I could lead him a merry dance of the City and do a runner at some stage.

    From what I can see; if you don't do it often and travel without a phone or ID [or can conceal these - I assume they have no power to search you and would have to wait for Gardai and even then they have certain rules pertaining to when they can search you] then if you play it right you'll get away with it. Not that I condone it though. ;)

    Btw; I'm in two minds as to the STT guys. Its good to see a security presence on public transport but from what I've seen they're gonna get into trouble one of the days by the way they carry on. And by trouble I mean massive civil litigation suit.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭An Udaras


    What way do STT guys act CSON?

    Why do the ticket inspectors need your phone for?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,478 ✭✭✭✭cson


    An Udaras wrote: »
    What way do STT guys act CSON?

    They act with more authority than their station confers. Point in case being where I've seen them physically remove a kid for having his feet on the seat in front of him; kid ignores STT guy, he just literally picks him up and throws him off the tram.

    Do that to the wrong kid and you've a massive assault civil suit in the making. Be that as it may the STT guy has the power to remove someone from the tram, exercising it in this way is unlikely to be viewed favourably by the judiciary.
    An Udaras wrote: »
    Why do the ticket inspectors need your phone for?

    See earlier in the thread. Can apparently be used as a means of identifying you.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    cson wrote: »
    They act with more authority than their station confers. Point in case being where I've seen them physically remove a kid for having his feet on the seat in front of him; kid ignores STT guy, he just literally picks him up and throws him off the tram.

    Do that to the wrong kid and you've a massive assault civil suit in the making. Be that as it may the STT guy has the power to remove someone from the tram, exercising it in this way is unlikely to be viewed favourably by the judiciary.

    Why not form a transit police force?
    In 1993, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani took office and quickly enlisted the transit police (which merged with the NYPD in 1996) to use innovative means to get the vandals and the punks out of the subway. The basic idea, based on what is known as the "Broken Windows" theory, was to crack down hard on petty crimes -- defacement of property and turnstile jumping, for instance -- to create an appearance of order that would gradually deter more serious would-be criminals. The approach was remarkably successful, and in 1999 Mayor Giuliani reported some impressive statistics: "Crime in our subway system has declined dramatically in the first four months of this year, continuing a multi-year decline that is even steeper than the City's overall crime decline. Robberies declined 17 percent from last year to this year… grand larcenies by 12 percent… assaults by 18 percent. Reported robbery in the subways has now declined by 68 percent over the last six years."


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Yup, in New York, not having a ticket is considered a serious crime. People who are caught are often handcuffed and made stand in front of the ticket gates as people pas by until the police van arrives to take them for processing.

    That is what we need here. Too many people here in Ireland don't seem to think it is a real crime, while in reality it is just as bad as stealing some jewellery from a store.

    If you did this, entitled people who can actually afford the ticket, but just chance their arm, would completely stop doing it, because they would fear being arrested and embarrassed standing there as people pass.

    While scumbags wouldn't fear being arrested or embarrassed, they don't want their time wasted either. They want to get to their next drug deal, etc. as quickly as possible too. Have them stand at the station for an hour until the police van arrives, then have the van slowly go from station to station picking more people up, so you could waste a scumbags whole day.

    Policing is very much about psychology, unfortunately in Ireland the Irish police are very bad at that.


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


    MadsL wrote: »
    Why not form a transit police force?
    The country is broke, we can't afford the police force we already have and due to ineffective legislation the Gardai are not able to do much anyway so you think throwing money at it like sugar will cure the rot? That was the old Celtic tiger way and it never worked!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    bk wrote: »
    Yup, in New York, not having a ticket is considered a serious crime. People who are caught are often handcuffed and made stand in front of the ticket gates as people pas by until the police van arrives to take them for processing.

    That is what we need here. Too many people here in Ireland don't seem to think it is a real crime, while in reality it is just as bad as stealing some jewellery from a store.

    If you did this, entitled people who can actually afford the ticket, but just chance their arm, would completely stop doing it, because they would fear being arrested and embarrassed standing there as people pass.

    While scumbags wouldn't fear being arrested or embarrassed, they don't want their time wasted either. They want to get to their next drug deal, etc. as quickly as possible too. Have them stand at the station for an hour until the police van arrives, then have the van slowly go from station to station picking more people up, so you could waste a scumbags whole day.

    Policing is very much about psychology, unfortunately in Ireland the Irish police are very bad at that.

    Well spotted bk.

    Anybody who watches the daily tableau on Luas or any of Dublins Public Transport services will fairly rapidly note that the hard-core regular transgressor is ALWAYS in a hurry.

    There are a whole bunch of reasons for this,but most of them centre around illegality of some sort.

    Quite a bit of a drug/substance abusers time is spent on the phone arranging a pick-up or an onward deal-drop,often quite openly via mobile phone,other reasons can be connected with accquiring/disposing stolen property or other crime related aspects of the day to day life of the great-unwashed.

    It has been my experience that there are Two elements which most of the usual-suspects find VERY undesireable (Ergo:Very Desireable for the rest of us).

    These are:

    Being Photographed,particularly a full-face with hoodie/baseball cap off.

    Being delayed.

    It's more than obvious that the "punishments" which we in the normal world think to be fitting,simply hold no deterrent factor for the committed non-complier.

    Therefore,a degree of out-of-box thinking could achieve some worthwhile results IMO.

    I was quite impressed by the sentence handed down to one young rebellious gentleman at Athlone District Court in October 2011 by Judge Seamus Hughes.

    http://www.herald.ie/news/teenager-who-spat-on-garda-car-now-has-to-wash-it-for-six-months-2914876.html

    Now,if I were a Minister for Justice who presided over an essentially dysfunctional Prison and Parole system which regularly sees individuals with 100+ convictions subsequently appearing on ever more serious charges,I'd be very keen to get this type of sentencing added to or replacing some of the totally inneffective elements we currently apply.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    The country is broke, we can't afford the police force we already have and due to ineffective legislation the Gardai are not able to do much anyway so you think throwing money at it like sugar will cure the rot? That was the old Celtic tiger way and it never worked!

    We throw away money by making crime pay. Did it occur that we could subside this by making fines hefty and payable on the stop. Here is the process in the Czech Republic who run an honour system but heavily penalise offenders. They operate on all forms of public transport. Inspectors operate in teams of 2 - 8 people and are plainclothed and show a small badge to identify themselves or pull on an armband once in position at an exit.
    Public transport tickets must be purchased before travelling. Tickets must be validated at the start of the journey. You will be fined on the spot if you are travelling with an invalid ticket. The fine, usually 800 crowns (around £26.00), is paid directly to the ticket inspector and a receipt should be issued. Ticket inspectors will not normally excuse passengers who claim not to have known that tickets must be validated before travel. If you cannot pay the fine on the spot, ticket inspectors will often call the Police and you may be arrested; the fine increases to 1000 Crowns (around £33.00) if you do not pay immediately.

    Isn't this preferable to the 'Celtic Tiger' system of 'Don't be doing that, off you go?'


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


    MadsL wrote: »
    We throw away money by making crime pay. Did it occur that we could subside this by making fines hefty and payable on the stop. Here is the process in the Czech Republic who run an honour system but heavily penalise offenders. They operate on all forms of public transport. Inspectors operate in teams of 2 - 8 people and are plainclothed and show a small badge to identify themselves or pull on an armband once in position at an exit.



    Isn't this preferable to the 'Celtic Tiger' system of 'Don't be doing that, off you go?'
    Very honourable of the Czech republic but here in Ireland there would be too much temptation for the inspectors to pocket the cash rather than hand it in. There would be fake receipt books all over the place possibly more than even the fake social welfare passes!


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


    bk wrote: »
    Yup, in New York, not having a ticket is considered a serious crime. People who are caught are often handcuffed and made stand in front of the ticket gates as people pas by until the police van arrives to take them for processing.

    That is what we need here. Too many people here in Ireland don't seem to think it is a real crime, while in reality it is just as bad as stealing some jewellery from a store.

    If you did this, entitled people who can actually afford the ticket, but just chance their arm, would completely stop doing it, because they would fear being arrested and embarrassed standing there as people pass.

    While scumbags wouldn't fear being arrested or embarrassed, they don't want their time wasted either. They want to get to their next drug deal, etc. as quickly as possible too. Have them stand at the station for an hour until the police van arrives, then have the van slowly go from station to station picking more people up, so you could waste a scumbags whole day.

    Policing is very much about psychology, unfortunately in Ireland the Irish police are very bad at that.

    Great post.

    For the past few weeks I have been taking the DART that gets into Howth Junction/Donaghmeade at around 6.10pm. This is the height of rush hour. You would think that an inspector would be there to check that passengers have tickets wouldn't you? Nope. Have not seen one yet in the 3 weeks that I have been riding this route. The amount of scumbags (with their hoodies pulled up over their faces to avoid the CCTV cameras naturally) who just jump over the barrier, easy as you please, has to be seen to be believed. The barriers are waist high and very easy to leap over. Utterly crazy set up imo.

    The funny thing is that the station property and tracks are surrounded by 10 ft high metal fences with spikes on top of the railings. It would be a very brave and stupid fare dodger that would try to scale them. Yet the official entrance to the station itself has ticket barriers that a 2 year old could climb over. WTF? These ticket barriers should be 10 ft high imo & with spikes that would make Ghengis Khan himself drool.

    I also think that the ticket turnstiles themselves should be constructed in such a way that people can not rush through behind someone else. Just one body at a time should be able to fit thru the turnstile. The brains behind the Aviva and Croke Park have such systems in place & they are able to get 40,000-80,000 punters into their stadia without much drama. There is no way that an unticketed person could squeeze in behind me at Croker or the Aviva. It happens all the time to me at DART stations. Why on earth can the DART powers that be not come up with a similar system?

    If it takes a wee bit longer to enter and exit a train station as a result, I am totally, totally ok with that if it means that everyone who rides the Dart has to buy a ticket. The DART is a very, very expensive transport system to run. If EVERYONE who rode it bought an actual ticket to do so then perhaps those of us who play by the rules wouldn't then be saddled with those shaggin' fare increases every shaggin' year !


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Very honourable of the Czech republic but here in Ireland there would be too much temptation for the inspectors to pocket the cash rather than hand it in. There would be fake receipt books all over the place possibly more than even the fake social welfare passes!

    Nice to see how much faith you put in people. There are lots of solutions to corruption in the fines system, I can think of ten off the top of my head.

    1. Behind the ear cameras
    2. patrol in teams
    3. Full search coming off-shift (no money allowed on your person during working hours)
    4. Online receipts (click to confirm required or the fine doubles) - tracks multiple offenders
    5. Working in teams with whole team sacked if pocketing occurs
    6. Receipt books are Laser, Credit Card machines not paper or escorted to Payzone to lodge money.
    7. Random bribary checks by other plainclothes checkers.
    8. CCTV on Luas checked regularly
    9. receipt posted to address given by 'finee'
    10. Atari Jaguar

    Your move.


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


    MadsL wrote: »
    Nice to see how much faith you put in people. There are lots of solutions to corruption in the fines system, I can think of ten off the top of my head.

    1. Behind the ear cameras
    2. patrol in teams
    3. Full search coming off-shift (no money allowed on your person during working hours)
    4. Online receipts (click to confirm required or the fine doubles) - tracks multiple offenders
    5. Working in teams with whole team sacked if pocketing occurs
    6. Receipt books are Laser, Credit Card machines not paper or escorted to Payzone to lodge money.
    7. Random bribary checks by other plainclothes checkers.
    8. CCTV on Luas checked regularly
    9. receipt posted to address given by 'finee'
    10. Atari Jaguar

    Your move.
    How much is all this going to cost a country that is broke?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    How much is all this going to cost a country that is broke?

    You are asking the wrong question, the questions "how much does fare evasion cost now?" Followed by "how much do we need to make the fine to pay for the cost of policing it?"

    By your logic, we should stop enforcing the law full stop as the country is 'broke'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭An Udaras


    Atari jaguar? Haha random much... ;)

    How about just employing competent and vetted staff? Institute a zero torelance policy in regards to theft or fraud in the role. Get an Revenue Protection agent/ticket inspector to record every official encounter/enforcement duty on a PDA for reference. Issue a receipt aswell as it being logged electronically.

    Should counter the risk of staff dishonestly taking fines :)

    The Dublin Airport Authority which is a state owned company just like CIE/IR/RPA has it's own Police Service in each of their airports which proactively police & secure the airport from low level of crimes right upto responding to violent incidents and dangerous situation.

    Their very existence helps deter low level of crime occurring and criminals/offenders will generally avoid like the plaque a well policed area like an airport. I'm sure you could apply this logic to our railways,tramways and buses :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Very honourable of the Czech republic but here in Ireland there would be too much temptation for the inspectors to pocket the cash rather than hand it in. There would be fake receipt books all over the place possibly more than even the fake social welfare passes!

    Quite a sad post really,if only for the somewhat tortured thought processes it reveals.

    However it surely must be nearly time to put an end to this ceaseless sniping at Public Transport Staff by Foggy_Lad.

    Earlier on Foggy had the.....good grace (?) to clarify a post in which he appeared to ascribe the term "thief within" as being descriptive of PT staff.

    At this point,and in the absence of ANY.....not just some,a bit,a rumour,a sense of...but ANY evidence of this conduct,except in a posters tortured mind could Foggy_Lad be prevailed upon to stick to the factual accounts of his ongoing battles against the overwhelming odds presented by Irelands Public Transport Staff ?

    All that being said,and having seen Prague Revenue Teams in full flow,I would be all in favour of sub-contracting our revenue protection duties to them !!

    Simples....fine payable on-the-spot or increased on a daily basis if not,also the involvement of Gardai to ensure the validity of details supplied in the event of credit being sought.

    It's often illustrative to observe the foreign methodology at work...

    I was travelling back from Nice Centre to Nice Airport some years ago when a 6 man Revenue team boarded,collaring two gents with invalid tickets.....much shrugging and negotation about the penalty fare UNTIL the term POLICE was mentioned,whereupon one of the individuals accompanied by an Inspector,hit an ATM and withdrew enough cash to pay the standard fare...all in front of a captive audience of some 70 people....the value of THAT is inestimable !! ;)


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    An Udaras wrote: »
    Atari jaguar? Haha random much... ;)

    you-must-be-new-here-willy-wonka.jpg
    An Udaras wrote: »

    How about just employing competent and vetted staff? Institute a zero torelance policy in regards to theft or fraud in the role. Get an Revenue Protection agent/ticket inspector to record every official encounter/enforcement duty on a PDA for reference. Issue a receipt aswell as it being logged electronically.

    Should counter the risk of staff dishonestly taking fines :)

    That's pretty much what I wrote (admittedly in shorthand)
    An Udaras wrote: »
    The Dublin Airport Authority which is a state owned company just like CIE/IR/RPA has it's own Police Service in each of their airports which proactively police & secure the airport from low level of crimes right upto responding to violent incidents and dangerous situation.

    Their very existence helps deter low level of crime occurring and criminals/offenders will generally avoid like the plaque a well policed area like an airport. I'm sure you could apply this logic to our railways,tramways and buses :D

    Agree entirely. If you add up the total cost of crime in Dublin, you could deal with much of it at the petty level using Giulianis model. I expect that the drop in crime rates would compensate for the cost of policing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Lighter note: One of my favourite films, Kontroll - all about metro 'kontrol' in Budapest. Won a ton of awards.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373981/awards



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


    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-fines-of-up-to-600-for-abuse-of-luas-workers-3021709.html

    "New by-laws set out a range of offences which can incur fines of up to €600, including spitting "in, at or from" a tram, being drunk, smoking or taking a bicycle on board.

    They also include rules where ticket inspectors can demand the production of a valid ticket from a passenger on a tram, leaving a tram or standing on a platform after disembarking. Those without tickets must pay a fine of €45."


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


    "New by-laws set out a range of offences which can incur fines of up to €600, including spitting "in, at or from" a tram, being drunk, smoking or taking a bicycle on board.

    Presumably they mean drunk & disorderly as opposed to just drunk :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭ceannair06


    Would it be worth interjecting here "JUST PAY THE DAMN FARE".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,170 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    ceannair06 wrote: »
    Would it be worth interjecting here "JUST PAY THE DAMN FARE".
    in fairness if you are doing 20 heroin deals a day and you pay each fare to each deal, you're looking at over 50quid a day on luas fares.....by not paying you remove that overhead and maintain higher profits...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,987 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    SBP € Luas security guards seek powers to arrest disruptive passengers, 11 October 2015 by Michael Brennan
    http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Luas+security+guards+seek+powers+to+arrest+disruptive+passengers/id/a507f74e-b297-4169-b38c-848b92f545a5

    partly based on Finian McGrath PQ https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-09-22a.4155&s=luas+speaker%3A184#g4156.q
    I have made inquiries from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) , who operate Luas under contract with Transdev. I understand that Transdev are considering a number of options to improve security on Luas including the practicalities, advantages and disadvantages of appointing security staff as Authorised Officers pursuant to section 66B of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001. I am informed that the matter of appointing security staff is still under consideration and, at this stage, a final decision has not yet been made.
    article says Transdev owner of Luas don't want it,

    Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/55/section/66/enacted/en/html#sec66
    66.—(1) The Minister, the Agency or a railway undertaking, with the consent of the Agency, may make bye-laws for the management, control, operation and the regulation of a railway, that has been built pursuant to a railway order, and in relation to the repair, improvement, extension and development thereof and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in relation to any one or more of the following matters—

    (b) the prevention of the commission of nuisances in or upon railway vehicles,

    but where is the law about Authorised Offices, or examples of Statutory Instruments Authorising such Officer for transport ever? (S.I. No. 576/2006 - Railway Safety Act 2005 (Fixed Payment Notice) Regulations 2006 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/si/576/made/en/print )

    PQ Clare Daly https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-09-22a.4238&s=%22Authorised+Officers%22+luas#g4240.r

    oh its in section 129 of the Railway Safety Act 2005 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/31/section/129/enacted/en/html
    Powers of authorised officers.

    129.—The following section is inserted after section 22 of the Transport Act 1950 :

    “authorised officer” means a person appointed under this section or a member of the Garda Síochána whose attendance is requested by an authorised officer or by the B


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,756 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    It would cost them quiet a bit of cash I expect but it's needed, sooner the DoJ realize Transport police are needed the better.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement