Luas Fine

kaizeriiish

i'm 16 years old and i got a fined for having a child's ticket.
i just recently appealed but no news of them writing back.
what do i do?

corktina

were you fined for not having the relevant ID with you?

On what grounds did you appeal?

Losty Dublin

kaizeriiish wrote: »

i'm 16 years old and i got a fined for having a child's ticket.
i just recently appealed but no news of them writing back.
what do i do?

If you only just sent in the appeal in the last few days, give it a week or two as it won't be sorted out immediately. If it was any longer than 3 weeks of a wait then perhaps give them a call and ask them if a decision has been made on your appeal; don't forget to have your case details to hand.

Mind you, if you are 16 years old and you used a ticket that is intended for those passengers who are under 16 years of age, you really have very little grounds for a successful appeal in your case.

kaizeriiish

corktina wrote: »

were you fined for not having the relevant ID with you?

On what grounds did you appeal?

No i was fined because i was 16.
Didnt even realised the child ticket age range from 0 to 15
i appealed at info@luas.ie
i appealed because of false information given and i heard that you can appeal for a genuine mstake.
at the moment, they are deciding whether i should be fine or not
not to mention, i've been on the luas since i became 16 and i get check at least 3 times a week and no ticket inspector gave me a fine.AND yes, they all did ask for my age and i did say 16. and said nothing

kaizeriiish

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If you only just sent in the appeal in the last few days, give it a week or two as it won't be sorted out immediately. If it was any longer than 3 weeks of a wait then perhaps give them a call and ask them if a decision has been made on your appeal; don't forget to have your case details to hand.

Mind you, if you are 16 years old and you used a ticket that is intended for those passengers who are under 16 years of age, you really have very little grounds for a successful appeal in your case.

i just sended the appeal today, cuz i got the fine today.
and 3 weeks? i havnt paid the fine yet and it said i have 14 days for it..
so i guess i cnt really wait that long.

and i was given false information by a ticket inspector.
this was before xmas keep in mind but i was told it was 0-16
and i'm surprise to see now its 0-15.
it probably changed.
but still, at 16? isnt the debate here 0-16 are classified as child? and now i dunno what 16 are classified now.

LXFlyer

kaizeriiish wrote: »

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If you only just sent in the appeal in the last few days, give it a week or two as it won't be sorted out immediately. If it was any longer than 3 weeks of a wait then perhaps give them a call and ask them if a decision has been made on your appeal; don't forget to have your case details to hand.

Mind you, if you are 16 years old and you used a ticket that is intended for those passengers who are under 16 years of age, you really have very little grounds for a successful appeal in your case.

i just sended the appeal today, cuz i got the fine today.
and 3 weeks? i havnt paid the fine yet and it said i have 14 days for it..
so i guess i cnt really wait that long.

and i was given false information by a ticket inspector.
this was before xmas keep in mind but i was told it was 0-16
and i'm surprise to see now its 0-15.
it probably changed.
but still, at 16? isnt the debate here 0-16 are classified as child? and now i dunno what 16 are classified now.

On buses, trains and trams in Ireland once you hit the age of 16 you are an adult. Full stop.

corktina

youve no grounds for appeal. Pay the fine is my advice.

Losty Dublin

kaizeriiish wrote: »

i just sended the appeal today, cuz i got the fine today.
and 3 weeks? i havnt paid the fine yet and it said i have 14 days for it..
so i guess i cnt really wait that long.

and i was given false information by a ticket inspector.
this was before xmas keep in mind but i was told it was 0-16
and i'm surprise to see now its 0-15.
it probably changed.
but still, at 16? isnt the debate here 0-16 are classified as child? and now i dunno what 16 are classified now.

There is no way an inspector told you that 16 years was and is ok for you to travel as a child as it has never been the case to begin with; it's always been under 16. And even on the very odd chance that you were told this, you are still overage for a childs fare so their answer is going to be in the negative.

Save yourself the hassle here and pay the fine and be done with but you haven't a chance in winning this one. But if you are insistant on appealing then write in to them, an e mail will just be ignored or brushed aside.

corktina

my daughter was refuswed service to buy a bottle of wine in Lidl the other day...she's 23

kaizeriiish

pfffft its 16 and under in that train

in luas its 0-15.

lucernarian

I think that nowadays, it's inappropriate for CIE to define a child as one under the age of 16.

I suspect the logic in picking that age was because 16 was the age where people could go out and start working on a full-time basis and CIE didn't need to offer concessionary fares for an age group that could earn a living.

I really don't think that many 16 year olds or even 18 year olds have the means to support themselves financially and I feel there should be a young person's fare up to perhaps the age of 23 (Up to that age, parents have some financial responsibility for the education costs of children according to a supreme court ruling 10 years ago and by extension, grants for 3rd level education must take the parents income into account until the age of 23 is reached).

I'm not sure being a student is a good enough reason for why I might pay a cheaper fare than someone who's the same age as me but who happens to have finished college or education.

As for being 17 and buying a child's ticket, I might think the rule's unfair and archaic but I still would own up if I was caught out. When I turned 16, I got myself a student travelcard anyway and that did soften the blow. 2nd level students can also apply for a travelcard, through the post.

kaizeriiish

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I think that nowadays, it's inappropriate for CIE to define a child as one under the age of 16.

I suspect the logic in picking that age was because 16 was the age where people could go out and start working on a full-time basis and CIE didn't need to offer concessionary fares for an age group that could earn a living.

I really don't think that many 16 year olds or even 18 year olds have the means to support themselves financially and I feel there should be a young person's fare up to perhaps the age of 23 (Up to that age, parents have some financial responsibility for the education costs of children according to a supreme court ruling 10 years ago and by extension, grants for 3rd level education must take the parents income into account until the age of 23 is reached).

I'm not sure being a student is a good enough reason for why I might pay a cheaper fare than someone who's the same age as me but who happens to have finished college or education.

As for being 17 and buying a child's ticket, I might think the rule's unfair and archaic but I still would own up if I was caught out. When I turned 16, I got myself a student travelcard anyway and that did soften the blow. 2nd level students can also apply for a travelcard, through the post.

i completey agree, even me being 16 fined because i was supposed to be an adult, and unaware that at that age i'm classify as an adult.

KD345

kaizeriiish wrote: »

i completey agree, even me being 16 fined because i was supposed to be an adult, and unaware that at that age i'm classify as an adult.

Whether you agree with the fare policy or not is irrelevant. You should have paid the correct fare and you didn't.

It's clearly stated on Luas, Dublin Bus and Irish Rail that a child fare ends at 15 years of age. You are 16.

On Aer Lingus I think the child fare ends at 12. The child price at my local cinema ends at 14 etc.

When I was 16 I started paying adult fares on the bus. Of course it's a pain, but it's part of growing up. You are not a child anymore.

My advice is to pay the fine and put it down to a lesson learned.

XxMCRxBabyxX

corktina wrote: »

my daughter was refuswed service to buy a bottle of wine in Lidl the other day...she's 23

Did she have ID? If not that's why.

I've been with a 30 year old who was refused before. LIDL and ALDI are really strict on this, no ID, nor service no matter how old you may look

Losty Dublin

kaizeriiish wrote: »

i completey agree, even me being 16 fined because i was supposed to be an adult, and unaware that at that age i'm classify as an adult.

It's not that they consider you an adult; it's that you are too old for a child fare. At 16, you are old enough to work (Not to say that you do, mind) and you are old enough to take some responsibility for your actions. If you are using public transport regularly, you should perhaps consider getting a student card via your school or college.

Mind you, if you were trying to buy drink I am sure that you would be more than delighted to be mistaked for an 18 year old; you can't have it both ways now, can you?

charlemont

Pay em nothing, Boss, do you think Bertie Ahern or Charlie Haughey would pay up ?, Not a chance. Fingleton etc...:D

corktina

Pretty sure they arent under 16 either.

lucernarian

Losty Dublin wrote: »

It's not that they consider you an adult; it's that you are too old for a child fare. At 16, you are old enough to work (Not to say that you do, mind) and you are old enough to take some responsibility for your actions. If you are using public transport regularly, you should perhaps consider getting a student card via your school or college.

Mind you, if you were trying to buy drink I am sure that you would be more than delighted to be mistaked for an 18 year old; you can't have it both ways now, can you?

That's not a fair comparison, if someone is 17 and now out of school, they have to pay an adult fare even if they're still living at home and are looking for work. They get limited dole payments and that's fair enough as they are living at home for free but I really don't see why they are regarded as being in the same position to pay as an actual adult who has a full time job and may not be as dependent on public transport because they can afford a car and the (cheaper) insurance to drive it. That's one reason why I think providing a general "young persons" concessionary ticket would be desirable.

That "if" is also not fair, you can't generalise like that and assume that someone would take advantage of looking older and try to buy drink while still underage (and break the law in doing so). I didn't start drinking until 18 and I don't see how two wrongs make a right. I think it's wrong that teenagers are treated as if they have the same financial means as an adult out of college or anyone who has a full-time job. I also think it's wrong that underage kids can and do break the law to get their hands on some tesco cider. One doesn't excuse the other.

Losty Dublin

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

That's not a fair comparison, if someone is 17 and now out of school, they have to pay an adult fare even if they're still living at home and are looking for work. They get limited dole payments and that's fair enough as they are living at home for free but I really don't see why they are regarded as being in the same position to pay as an actual adult who has a full time job and may not be as dependent on public transport because they can afford a car and the (cheaper) insurance to drive it. That's one reason why I think providing a general "young persons" concessionary ticket would be desirable.

That "if" is also not fair, you can't generalise like that and assume that someone would take advantage of looking older and try to buy drink while still underage (and break the law in doing so). I didn't start drinking until 18 and I don't see how two wrongs make a right. I think it's wrong that teenagers are treated as if they have the same financial means as an adult out of college or anyone who has a full-time job. I also think it's wrong that underage kids can and do break the law to get their hands on some tesco cider. One doesn't excuse the other.

But there are already youth discounts in the form of student fare cards so there are concessions for the majority of unwaged young people.

As for the last point, you are right in saying two wrongs don't make a right but you know well it happens

lucernarian

Losty Dublin wrote: »

But there are already youth discounts in the form of student fare cards so there are concessions for the majority of unwaged young people.

As for the last point, you are right in saying two wrongs don't make a right but you know well it happens

I don't give a rat's proverbials if it happens, I know I didn't do it and I don't see how some 17 year old interested in premature liver cirrosis has any bearing on why a law abiding citizen should have to pay higher transport fares!

My earlier point was that student tickets aren't a fair or equitable way of providing cheaper transport for young people when some people may not want to go to college, or else left college early but is still in a low-paid job and are faced with extremely high costs to buy a car or indeed to buy a good bike. Why are college students any more deserving of discounted public transport than the people I mention above? Why should a commercial outfit be given the privilege of issuing identity cards to prove that a ticket bearer is a student when a "young persons" ticket could simply be defined by age (with identity through the widespread passport or garda age card), and keep the student travelcard for "mature-entry" students?

Losty Dublin

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I don't give a rat's proverbials if it happens, I know I didn't do it and I don't see how some 17 year old interested in premature liver cirrosis has any bearing on why a law abiding citizen should have to pay higher transport fares!

My earlier point was that student tickets aren't a fair or equitable way of providing cheaper transport for young people when some people may not want to go to college, or else left college early but is still in a low-paid job and are faced with extremely high costs to buy a car or indeed to buy a good bike. Why are college students any more deserving of discounted public transport than the people I mention above? Why should a commercial outfit be given the privilege of issuing identity cards to prove that a ticket bearer is a student when a "young persons" ticket could simply be defined by age (with identity through the widespread passport or garda age card), and keep the student travelcard for "mature-entry" students?

I used it to show that some people who use the underage card when caught fare dodging like to have their cake and eat it when it comes to how old/young they are.

I don't know what way you want to propose to deal with youth fares but the student card is tried and trusted worldwide and is quite a reasonable way to offer discounts to younger people. Ok, some young people don't study or work but if you offer them a discount scheme then older people who don't study or work as well are hard done by; what about them?

lucernarian

Oh I know why you used the comparison with underage purchasing of intoxicating liquor, and it is a true reflection of many young people but that has no bearing on the merits or otherwise of the current idea with CIE that children of 16 years age are suddenly financially independent adults who can pay the same fare as their parents.

Older adults are in a better position to get a well-paid permanent position than someone fresh out of secondary school. They also have had more time to learn how to drive, to apply for licenses and after all that (and crucially) can avail of far cheaper car insurance for any given car than a 18 year old can manage.

And with bikes, older adults are more likely to have a taxable, regular income which will allow them to benefit from the bike to work scheme.

I think it's harder for someone out of college or school to take the first step of a career than it is for someone later on who's in between jobs. Though I think there's grounds to offer free travel to some long-term unemployed who are taking part in some FÁS schemes or particularly any courses involved in upskilling and which may be taught further away from their home.

And it's a bit rich to say that student cards are trusted worldwide in the context of this discussion, seeing as CIE companies (not 100% certain about Bus Eireann) do not accept ISIC cards, widely recognised internationally, as proof of being a student!

Jammyc

People argue about age when it suits them.

"I should get child fare, 17 is basically a child"
"I should be allowed to get into that film, 17 is basically an adult"
"I look old enough to get served so I won't be asked to prove that I'm 18+"

lucernarian

Jammyc wrote: »

People argue about age when it suits them.

"I should get child fare, 17 is basically a child"
"I should be allowed to get into that film, 17 is basically an adult"
"I look old enough to get served so I won't be asked to prove that I'm 18+"

Like I said earlier, some 17 year olds breaking the law have nothing to do with whether 16-18 year olds in general ought to have some sort of concessionary fare.

LXFlyer

Given the financial constraints we are in I cannot see that happening.

Losty Dublin

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Oh I know why you used the comparison with underage purchasing of intoxicating liquor, and it is a true reflection of many young people but that has no bearing on the merits or otherwise of the current idea with CIE that children of 16 years age are suddenly financially independent adults who can pay the same fare as their parents.

Older adults are in a better position to get a well-paid permanent position than someone fresh out of secondary school. They also have had more time to learn how to drive, to apply for licenses and after all that (and crucially) can avail of far cheaper car insurance for any given car than a 18 year old can manage.

As they are with any other services, shops, etc but they aren't offering any discounts either as a rule.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I think it's harder for someone out of college or school to take the first step of a career than it is for someone later on who's in between jobs. Though I think there's grounds to offer free travel to some long-term unemployed who are taking part in some FÁS schemes or particularly any courses involved in upskilling and which may be taught further away from their home.

AFAIK Many CE/FAS schemes cover a certain amount for susbsitence and travel fees.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

And it's a bit rich to say that student cards are trusted worldwide in the context of this discussion, seeing as CIE companies (not 100% certain about Bus Eireann) do not accept ISIC cards, widely recognised internationally, as proof of being a student!

I never referred to any specific scheme, what I actually said was that the student card concept is what is commonly done in countries to offer discounts to young people, many of whom would reasonably be expected to be in education.

lucernarian

I'm not sure what your overall conclusion is, your response seems more like an attempt to disprove my own points rather than actually put forward a different opinion.

The first point doesn't really hold up because in many cases, other age groups or types of customer also don't get discounts for other goods and services yet there is a clear precedent for the elderly (who do get some discounts from various businesses and vendors) and the disabled and in certain cases the unemployed to enjoy reduced travel costs. The issue of providing cheaper goods and services in general is not the same issue as specifically providing cheaper travel to a certain socioeconomic group. It is indeed a matter of opinion as to whether providing cheaper public transport for certain people is a worthy social policy objective, but if you accept that it is a worthy objective, then there are grounds for providing cheaper transport for young people (in the legal sense, 16-18 year olds) in the same way that other groups enjoy reduced or free transport costs.

The second point is just a statement of fact so I'll leave that as it is.

Wrt the third point, I can see for myself that you didn't refer to any specific scheme;) This discussion is about the consequences of CIE companies, not companies in other countries, treating 16/17 year olds as financially independent adults. And in this country, the transport companies in question do not accept even an internationally recognised student ID card. Which puts into question the motivations behind the so-called "student travelcard" and the reasoning behind why only those young people who are in ongoing education may avail of the travelcard.

Plazaman

Kedo93 wrote: »

Right well this afternoon whilst heading into town, there was no ticket-man at the window in Harmonstown station(no surprise there!) so I had to use the ticket machine. I bought a return child ticket to Tara Station and yes I know the child ticket says for ages 16 and under but I honestly thought being 17, there was no fuss. Anyway I ended up being hauled by an inspector on the other side and getting a 100 euro fine for for an Invalid Ticket. Personally, I think this is ridiculously unfair. I mean, I did buy a ticket after all. Being 16 or 17,whats the difference? At the end of the day I'm under 18, hence a CHILD. why call it a child ticket if only 16 and under classify. Anyway I'm just a little cheesed off so don't mind my endless ranting. I just want to know what do you all think of this.
Was I right to get the fine or was the inspector just a bitter owl man?

I'm no mathematician but 1 full year I would think.

17 is not 16 or under.

DWCommuter

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I'm not sure what your overall conclusion is, your response seems more like an attempt to disprove my own points rather than actually put forward a different opinion.

The first point doesn't really hold up because in many cases, other age groups or types of customer also don't get discounts for other goods and services yet there is a clear precedent for the elderly (who do get some discounts from various businesses and vendors) and the disabled and in certain cases the unemployed to enjoy reduced travel costs. The issue of providing cheaper goods and services in general is not the same issue as specifically providing cheaper travel to a certain socioeconomic group. It is indeed a matter of opinion as to whether providing cheaper public transport for certain people is a worthy social policy objective, but if you accept that it is a worthy objective, then there are grounds for providing cheaper transport for young people (in the legal sense, 16-18 year olds) in the same way that other groups enjoy reduced or free transport costs.

The second point is just a statement of fact so I'll leave that as it is.

Wrt the third point, I can see for myself that you didn't refer to any specific scheme;) This discussion is about the consequences of CIE companies, not companies in other countries, treating 16/17 year olds as financially independent adults. And in this country, the transport companies in question do not accept even an internationally recognised student ID card. Which puts into question the motivations behind the so-called "student travelcard" and the reasoning behind why only those young people who are in ongoing education may avail of the travelcard.

Great post full of interesting opinions. Alas, even in debate some people just can't comprehend the obvious and step back from the CIE stance to examine why the system is both outdated and rediculous. An example.

A secondary school student of 15 years of age at Junior Cert level can avail of the child fare. Overnight they become 16 years of age and they must either pay adult fare or use the student travel card system, which is still more expensive than the child fare. However, their circumstances have not changed. They are still in secondary school.

XxMCRxBabyxX

DWCommuter wrote: »

Great post full of interesting opinions. Alas, even in debate some people just can't comprehend the obvious and step back from the CIE stance to examine why the system is both outdated and rediculous. An example.

A secondary school student of 15 years of age at Junior Cert level can avail of the child fare. Overnight they become 16 years of age and they must either pay adult fare or use the student travel card system, which is still more expensive than the child fare. However, their circumstances have not changed. They are still in secondary school.

I don't think that it's outdated at all tbh.

It's quite simple really. At 15 you cannot drop out of school and get a full time job. At 16 you can. And if you decide to stay in education you can get a student card and are entitled to discounts. And even if they don't drop out, a 16 year old can have a part time job whereas a 15 year old can't so the 16 year old will have access to more money.

It's an international thing really. Nearly everywhere charges adult prices from 16 and reduces them for students.

What's the difference between a 16 year old not in school looking for a job and 1 36 year old not in school looking for a job. Why should they have to pay different fares just because one is younger even though they are in the exact same situation?

LXFlyer

DWCommuter wrote: »

Great post full of interesting opinions. Alas, even in debate some people just can't comprehend the obvious and step back from the CIE stance to examine why the system is both outdated and rediculous. An example.

A secondary school student of 15 years of age at Junior Cert level can avail of the child fare. Overnight they become 16 years of age and they must either pay adult fare or use the student travel card system, which is still more expensive than the child fare. However, their circumstances have not changed. They are still in secondary school.

All well and good, but it still fails to answer the question of who will make up the funding shortfall to the companies that such a change would result in?

The government in the form of the Minister have made it quite clear that there are going to be serious cuts in the PSO support next year. Any measures that actually cut revenue are not just going to cut any ice.

schemingbohemia

DWCommuter wrote: »

Great post full of interesting opinions. Alas, even in debate some people just can't comprehend the obvious and step back from the CIE stance to examine why the system is both outdated and rediculous. An example.

A secondary school student of 15 years of age at Junior Cert level can avail of the child fare. Overnight they become 16 years of age and they must either pay adult fare or use the student travel card system, which is still more expensive than the child fare. However, their circumstances have not changed. They are still in secondary school.

Quelle surprise that in a thread about LUAS fines you bash CIE :rolleyes:

It's a fairly widespread international standard to charge adult or student fares for people once they reach the age of 16.

corktina

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Quelle surprise that in a thread about LUAS fines you bash CIE :rolleyes:

It's a fairly widespread international standard to charge adult or student fares for people once they reach the age of 16.

although you are right this is a LUAS thread, I cant see that DW is bashing CIE in that post....

Jammyc

I think they're CIE bashing because the thread title changed yesterday? Untill it was titled Luas Fine, I was also under the impression that it was on a train that the OP was fined.

schemingbohemia

corktina wrote: »

although you are right this is a LUAS thread, I cant see that DW is bashing CIE in that post....

How about where he states that the CIE Stance is both outdated and redicolous (sic)? Hardly complimentary.

LXFlyer

Perhaps this is the way to go:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/14308.aspx

Jammyc

Why bother with that though? You can get a student travel card while in secondary school!

corktina

schemingbohemia wrote: »

How about where he states that the CIE Stance is both outdated and redicolous (sic)? Hardly complimentary.

thats not what he says . he says "Alas, even in debate some people just can't comprehend the obvious and step back from the CIE stance to examine why the system is both outdated and rediculous." he says the SYSTEM is outdated and rediculous, which it is, and as someone else pointed out, most train companies seem to have the same "under 16" Rule.

lucernarian

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I don't think that it's outdated at all tbh.

It's quite simple really. At 15 you cannot drop out of school and get a full time job. At 16 you can. And if you decide to stay in education you can get a student card and are entitled to discounts. And even if they don't drop out, a 16 year old can have a part time job whereas a 15 year old can't so the 16 year old will have access to more money.

It's an international thing really. Nearly everywhere charges adult prices from 16 and reduces them for students.

What's the difference between a 16 year old not in school looking for a job and 1 36 year old not in school looking for a job. Why should they have to pay different fares just because one is younger even though they are in the exact same situation?

Oh do wake up and smell the coffee, what parents in their right minds would kick their 16 year old kids out their house and tell them to go get a job in full expectation that they could support themselves like a fully-grown adult can?! Exact same situation my ass. Can a 16 year old claim the dole for example? Didn't think so.

XxMCRxBabyxX

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Oh do wake up and smell the coffee, what parents in their right minds would kick their 16 year old kids out their house and tell them to go get a job in full expectation that they could support themselves like a fully-grown adult can?! Exact same situation my ass. Can a 16 year old claim the dole for example? Didn't think so.

Do tell me where I mentioned anything about 16 year olds getting kicked out of their houses?

All I said is that they could get full time jobs. A 15 year old cannot, thus the distinction in prices. That' is not opinion, it's fact

Whether they get a job or not is arbitrary. The point is that they can.

I still stand by everything that I have said. If they want the discount stay in education and get a student card. Or just deal with the facts.

Explain why this is an international cut off point if you have such a problem with it then?

lucernarian

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Do tell me where I mentioned anything about 16 year olds getting kicked out of their houses?

All I said is that they could get full time jobs. A 15 year old cannot, thus the distinction in prices. That' is not opinion, it's fact

Whether they get a job or not is arbitrary. The point is that they can.

I still stand by everything that I have said. If they want the discount stay in education and get a student card. Or just deal with the facts.

Explain why this is an international cut off point if you have such a problem with it then?

You never did of course, why do you ask? It's obvious to anyone who can read that you never said that.

And what do you mean by "international cut off point"? It's hardly as if there's an international treaty specifically governing fare pricing for children and young adults on public transport. There is precedence in what I had called for earlier in what happens in France with some transport companies. And here's an example from our neighbours across the water. As I cannot see an international norm for 16 year olds being treated as adults if they are not students, I cannot explain it.

I don't see how you can stand by everything you said, when you were factually wrong in some respects. As well as making it clear that the 16 year old and 36 year old were not in the "exact same situation" financially or regarding income protection if unemployed, I forgot to point out that 14 and 15 year olds are legally allowed to work a small number of hours per week with extra restrictions on working hours and it not interfering with school time etc. It's incorrect to say a 15 year old cannot work if we're going to be making legalistic and pedantic arguments.

XxMCRxBabyxX

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

You never did of course, why do you ask? It's obvious to anyone who can read that you never said that.

And what do you mean by "international cut off point"? It's hardly as if there's an international treaty specifically governing fare pricing for children and young adults on public transport. There is precedence in what I had called for earlier in what happens in France with some transport companies. And here's an example from our neighbours across the water. As I cannot see an international norm for 16 year olds being treated as adults if they are not students, I cannot explain it.

I don't see how you can stand by everything you said, when you were factually wrong in some respects. As well as making it clear that the 16 year old and 36 year old were not in the "exact same situation" financially or regarding income protection if unemployed, I forgot to point out that 14 and 15 year olds are legally allowed to work a small number of hours per week with extra restrictions on working hours and it not interfering with school time etc. It's incorrect to say a 15 year old cannot work if we're going to be making legalistic and pedantic arguments.

I said work full time...
If you are going to be like that get your facts straight.

You haven't proved anything as far as I can see. Both can work full time therefore both can make the same amount of money so both can pay the same fare.

If anyone is being pedantic it is you. I mentioned no treaty. It is an international norm
And one card that has to be paid for does not prove anything. Look up train fares and you will see that all stop child fares at 15 and most charge student or adult prices from that age onwards

lucernarian

You made this statement:

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

And even if they don't drop out, a 16 year old can have a part time job whereas a 15 year old can't the 16 year old will have access to more money.

Before you look even more foolish, try not to simplify this whole issue into a few lines about 16 year olds being able to get a job. This thread wouldn't be here with many differing opinions if the issue was as simple as you suggest.

The comparison between 16 year olds and 36 year olds that you repeatedly make is absurd because it completely ignores that 16 to 18 year olds are not entitled to unemployment benefit of any sort (unless there are 17 year olds with enough PRSI stamps to claim jobseekers benefit?!) and given the recognised and widespread problem of emigration and unemployment in this country, would suggest that 16 or 17 year olds who are out of school and cannot find employment through no direct fault of their own are uniquely disadvantaged in this country when trying to pay for public transport. You do know that there is widespread unemployment with 16 to 25 year olds in this country?

As for supposed international norms, in the last few posts two different schemes which offer concessionary fares for young people (16 years or older) have been linked to, both of which are in a different country and both of which are open to all those between 16-18 or 16-25, regardless of being in full-time education. Could you explain that one for me?

DWCommuter

The definition of a child is a person under 18 years of age who is not or has not been married.

The definition of a child is a person under 18 years of age who is not or has not been married.

DWCommuter

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Quelle surprise that in a thread about LUAS fines you bash CIE :rolleyes:

It's a fairly widespread international standard to charge adult or student fares for people once they reach the age of 16.

Your anger has been addressed in this thread. Please read carefully before you attempt to single me out.

dowlingm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

It's a fairly widespread international standard to charge adult or student fares for people once they reach the age of 16.

In Toronto a child is from 2-12 ($0.75 cash fare).
From 13 you have to have a student card ($2.00 cash fare). Adult fare is $3.00. Infants under 24 months go free.

XxMCRxBabyxX

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

You made this statement:


Before you look even more foolish, try not to simplify this whole issue into a few lines about 16 year olds being able to get a job. This thread wouldn't be here with many differing opinions if the issue was as simple as you suggest.

The comparison between 16 year olds and 36 year olds that you repeatedly make is absurd because it completely ignores that 16 to 18 year olds are not entitled to unemployment benefit of any sort (unless there are 17 year olds with enough PRSI stamps to claim jobseekers benefit?!) and given the recognised and widespread problem of emigration and unemployment in this country, would suggest that 16 or 17 year olds who are out of school and cannot find employment through no direct fault of their own are uniquely disadvantaged in this country when trying to pay for public transport. You do know that there is widespread unemployment with 16 to 25 year olds in this country?

As for supposed international norms, in the last few posts two different schemes which offer concessionary fares for young people (16 years or older) have been linked to, both of which are in a different country and both of which are open to all those between 16-18 or 16-25, regardless of being in full-time education. Could you explain that one for me?

Apologies for the typo then. I meant full.

And I am not bothered dealing with your aggression anymore. The point is that a 16 year old can get a full time job therefore they can pay an adult fare. That's the basis of the decision to charge adult fares both here in Ireland and in many countries abroad.

QED

Victor

Stop bickering please.

lucernarian

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

And I am not bothered dealing with your aggression anymore. The point is that a 16 year old can get a full time job therefore they can pay an adult fare. That's the basis of the decision to charge adult fares both here in Ireland and in many countries abroad.

After considering the points made by me and some other people, do you think it's a fair basis to charge adult fares for some 16 year olds?

It was pointed out in this thread a long time ago the likely reason for the transition to adult fares was the prospect of 16 year olds being able to work full-time. Re-stating that does not change anything nor is the reason offered an iron-cast matter of fact unless you are also a CIE/RPA representative with competency in the decision making in this area. And dare I say it, the ultimate reasons for this cutoff and the approach afterwards is based on historical factors and financial priorities.

LXFlyer

Looking at a range of countries, child fares seem to stop at 12, 14 or 16 but never above that age.

City bus fares tend not to have youth discounts (with the exception of the Oystercard option that I posted above) other than student travel passes.

Most rail companies tend to offer youth/student discounts to the age of 25, in the form of travelpasses in metropolitan areas and discounts off full fare intercity journeys.

SparkyTech

Apply for a student travelcard, at least that way you will be entitled to purchace student weekley rates