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

What powers do the Luas ticket inspectors actually have?

245

Comments

  • #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 Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭✭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 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: 90,656 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 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 Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭✭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 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 Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


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


  • #48
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭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 Posts: 78,234 ✭✭✭✭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
  • #52
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


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


  • #53
    KD345
    Registered Users Posts: 1,178 ✭✭✭KD345


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    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?


  • #54
    goingnowhere
    Registered Users Posts: 4,131 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


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


  • #55
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,539 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #56
    goingnowhere
    Registered Users Posts: 4,131 ✭✭✭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.


  • #57
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    goingnowhere wrote: »
    All Luas platforms are RPA property, they are not owned by the local authority.
    goingnowhere wrote: »
    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.


  • #58
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭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.


  • #59
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    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.


  • #60
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭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
  • #61
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,234 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement