Official DB policy for turning off engines because of fare dodgers

ongarboy

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/woman-humiliated-by-bus-driver-awarded-10-500-1.2175394

Interesting case in attached link where passenger was compensated after humiliating ordeal caused by bus driver who didn't believe she had paid the correct fare. I fully agree that the passenger was very badly treated in this case.

However, what are people's opinions on bus drivers who turn off the engine when they feel there are unruly or evading passengers on board? It has happened to me a few times where we have stopped for minutes when someone was smoking upstairs or someone dodged their fare. While I don't condone such behaviour by such passengers, is it fair on the rest of the passengers to endure delays? Is that official DB policy that drivers should not proceed until the fare dodger has paid?

It's infuriating, but in the current politically correct climate and the soft attitudes taken by the justice system, I don't see that they have any other options.

punisher5112

New ticket/pass checking unit been rolled out to catch these.

It was a bad way the driver handled it.

If some scumbag is on the bus and smoking been abusive and so on would you tolerate that in your job I am sure you would not so fair play to the drivers for standing up to them and hopefully making your journey as a passenger a little bit more tolerable.

Too many getting away with rubbish going ons for years.

cdebru

punisher5112 wrote: »

New ticket/pass checking unit been rolled out to catch these.

It was a bad way the driver handled it.

If some scumbag is on the bus and smoking been abusive and so on would you tolerate that in your job I am sure you would not so fair play to the drivers for standing up to them and hopefully making your journey as a passenger a little bit more tolerable.

Too many getting away with rubbish going ons for years.

Without knowing all the details I would have to disagree, the passenger said that the same driver had previously told her she was underpaying her fare, on that occasion he presumably didn't do anything other than inform her, he witnesses her do it again and he this time asks her to leave the bus, ignoring the fact of whether she was or wasn't paying the correct fare for a minute and just going on the basis that he at least believed she was underpaying then a word followed by asking her to leave the next time is reasonable.

Dravokivich

I think the incident in this case is an exceptional one, more so than the norm.

If there is something disruptive occurring on the bus and the driver requires Garda assistance, they should stop and turn off the engine.

I have only been using DB sporadically over the last 2 years, but I've rarely ever seen this needed to be done for the many years I've used the service overall.

bricks

The card reader charges here 2.50 Euro, looking on the db website its gone up to 2.60 Euro now but I can't see any option for 3.05 Euro on a leap card.

How could the bus driver not know the basics?
Or was there a higher fare for leap cards back when this case was raised?

Also why would the driver bother getting involved if she used the reader on the left anyway. Is the bus driver still working from DB?

This story is like something out of 'Lost' it leaves so many unanswered questions

punisher5112

cdebru wrote: »

Without knowing all the details I would have to disagree, the passenger said that the same driver had previously told her she was underpaying her fare, on that occasion he presumably didn't do anything other than inform her, he witnesses her do it again and he this time asks her to leave the bus, ignoring the fact of whether she was or wasn't paying the correct fare for a minute and just going on the basis that he at least believed she was underpaying then a word followed by asking her to leave the next time is reasonable.

Have no idea what you are disagreeing with as I said it was badly handled by driver and was giving an answer for how the poster said about the bus been held up.

Re read above post op said they were held up themselves....

cdebru

punisher5112 wrote: »

Have no idea what you are disagreeing with as I said it was badly handled by driver and was giving an answer for how the poster said about the bus been held up.

Re read above post op said they were held up themselves....

How was it badly handled ? He asked someone who he believed had over ridden her fare to leave the bus having previously informed her that she was over riding her fare on a different occasion, she refused he knocked off the engine she left.
Other than for whatever reason whether he made a mistake or someone else made a mistake he shouldn't have asked her to leave. but it is a pretty standard way of getting a fare evader off the bus. I don't see how you can say he handled it badly, ignoring the fact she was defamed which may or may not be his fault.

punisher5112

cdebru wrote: »

How was it badly handled ? He asked someone who he believed had over ridden her fare to leave the bus having previously informed her that she was over riding her fare on a different occasion, she refused he knocked off the engine she left.
Other than for whatever reason whether he made a mistake or someone else made a mistake he shouldn't have asked her to leave. but it is a pretty standard way of getting a fare evader off the bus. I don't see how you can say he handled it badly, ignoring the fact she was defamed which may or may not be his fault.

I will say it again I was commenting on op.

Not the €10500 case.

Look at post.

I agree it was wrong I never disputed that.

cdebru

bricks wrote: »

The card reader charges here 2.50 Euro, looking on the db website its gone up to 2.60 Euro now but I can't see any option for 3.05 Euro on a leap card.

How could the bus driver not know the basics?
Or was there a higher fare for leap cards back when this case was raised?

Also why would the driver bother getting involved if she used the reader on the left anyway. Is the bus driver still working from DB?

This story is like something out of 'Lost' it leaves so many unanswered questions

Outer suburban fares were in operation on the 33 at the time if you just used the reader on the right it would charge you the normal €2.50, but the fare for the 33 was up to €4 on the leap card depending on how far you travelled.
But you are right lots of unanswered questions

cdebru

punisher5112 wrote: »

I will say it again I was commenting on op.

Not the €10500 case.

Look at post.

I agree it was wrong I never disputed that.

But the OP is about the 10.5k case and you say the driver handled it badly if you weren't talking about the 10.5k case what driver handled what badly, ??

punisher5112

cdebru wrote: »

But the OP is about the 10.5k case and you say the driver handled it badly if you weren't talking about the 10.5k case what driver handled what badly, ??

Read second part of their post.

I said driver handled the news case wrong by the looks of it but there is little information in the article.

Boulevardier

I got a bit of the same treatment from a driver whom I accused of dawdling. He was driving along at a glacial pace in light traffic. When I told him (politely) that I thought he was going slower than necessary, he accused me of harassment, stopped the bus and announced to the passengers that he was calling the guards.

Being the wimp that I am, I caved. Hopefully if it happens again, I won't.

frankoreagan

Have never been on a bus that's been stopped by the driver for unruly behavior. Gangs of youths smoking hash and listening to a boombox, drunk lads roaring at the top of their voice all the way into town, even a fight where an off duty garda eventually had to intervene and tell the driver to stop. Funny that the driver in this case was brave enough to stand up to a woman on her way to work though!

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

Without knowing all the details I would have to disagree, the passenger said that the same driver had previously told her she was underpaying her fare, on that occasion he presumably didn't do anything other than inform her, he witnesses her do it again and he this time asks her to leave the bus, ignoring the fact of whether she was or wasn't paying the correct fare for a minute and just going on the basis that he at least believed she was underpaying then a word followed by asking her to leave the next time is reasonable.

Reasonable yes but only if she had been paying the wrong fare, even at that the driver saw her and knew where she was going so why not tell her that her leap fare was not enough and that she must use the drivers machine in future and pay an extra euro per journey. Either way the driver is at fault for humiliating the woman and either making a mistake with the fare or the terrible way he handled the situation or maybe he was just being a dick?

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

Reasonable yes but only if she had been paying the wrong fare, even at that the driver saw her and knew where she was going so why not tell her that her leap fare was not enough and that she must use the drivers machine in future and pay an extra euro per journey. Either way the driver is at fault for humiliating the woman and either making a mistake with the fare or the terrible way he handled the situation or maybe he was just being a dick?

Eh were you not the one criticizing driver for no chasing up fare evaders only a few days ago, that they were too lazy to do their job, but now this guy is a dick, is there a way to ask someone to leave a bus for not paying the correct fare without humiliating them ?
When she is boarding she could accuse him if harassing her that she only intended to go to x y or z and she was the only one picked out etc etc.

I dont see what the terrible way he handled it is, in his eyes she was evading her fare after previously being told and he asked her to leave the bus, she refused and he knocked off the engine pretty standard procedure, the only problem is for whatever reason she shouldn't have been asked to leave the bus, that's the only **** up the rest is pretty standard.

cdebru

frankoreagan wrote: »

Have never been on a bus that's been stopped by the driver for unruly behavior. Gangs of youths smoking hash and listening to a boombox, drunk lads roaring at the top of their voice all the way into town, even a fight where an off duty garda eventually had to intervene and tell the driver to stop. Funny that the driver in this case was brave enough to stand up to a woman on her way to work though!

Yawn I guess he was lucky she wasn't black and a lesbian or you would have added racist and homophobe.

howiya

cdebru wrote: »

Outer suburban fares were in operation on the 33 at the time if you just used the reader on the right it would charge you the normal €2.50, but the fare for the 33 was up to €4 on the leap card depending on how far you travelled.
But you are right lots of unanswered questions

I wonder is this what happened. If the reader only deducts €2.50 then she cannot have underpaid.

The reader should either be smart enough to deduct the correct fare from the point at which she boarded the bus or be turned off on routes that operated outer suburban fares at the time.

LXFlyer

howiya wrote: »

I wonder is this what happened. If the reader only deducts €2.50 then she cannot have underpaid.

The reader should either be smart enough to deduct the correct fare from the point at which she boarded the bus or be turned off on routes that operated outer suburban fares at the time.

Sorry but that is nonsense.

The website and all of the literature available was quite clear from the outset that the righthand reader only deducts €2.50.

The onus was (and still is) on the customer to go to the driver for a different fare, just like on every other DB route.

The onus is on the customer to pay the correct fare. Anyone living in North County Dublin on the 33/33a routes would know that special fares applied - they always have done.

The fare chart that I linked to above was linked to from the 33 timetable.

L1011

I disagree - if they think a dumb reader charging the maximum by default is OK it should have always done so - not with exceptions.

howiya

lxflyer wrote: »

Sorry but that is nonsense.

The website and all of the literature available was quite clear from the outset that the righthand reader only deducts €2.50.

The onus was (and still is) on the customer to go to the driver for a different fare, just like on every other DB route.

The onus is on the customer to pay the correct fare. Anyone living in North County Dublin on the 33/33a routes would know that special fares applied - they always have done.

The fare chart that I linked to above was linked to from the 33 timetable.

The reader deducts the maximum fare for all other routes. It is nonsense to suggest that a company should employ technology not capable of the same on a minority of its routes.

Dravokivich

howiya wrote: »

The reader deducts the maximum fare for all other routes. It is nonsense to suggest that a company should employ technology not capable of the same on a minority of its routes.

It's done by service type, not route. All the standard service types the right hand validator is set to the maximum applicable fare for most of them, which is 2.50. For Nitelink it's 5.00 and so on. It has nothing to do with the specific route.

It's not for a lack of wanting to either as there are 2 things happening with Dublin Bus at the moment.

- The current Ticketing machines have very low memory, if there are adjustments per route, it needs to be loaded onto all of them. This impacts on their performance as well.

- NTA are revising Dublin Buses fare structures each year. Instead of having upto 5 stage ranges, I think we've only got 3 now? It seems there's going to be more work into reducing it again. So there's no point in going ahead and wasting time with doing the maximum fare charged on a per route basis.

howiya

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's done by service type, not route. All the standard service types the right hand validator is set to the maximum applicable fare for most of them, which is 2.50. For Nitelink it's 5.00 and so on. It has nothing to do with the specific route.

It's not for a lack of wanting to either as there are 2 things happening with Dublin Bus at the moment.

- The current Ticketing machines have very low memory, if there are adjustments per route, it needs to be loaded onto all of them. This impacts on their performance as well.

- NTA are revising Dublin Buses fare structures each year. Instead of having upto 5 stage ranges, I think we've only got 3 now? It seems there's going to be more work into reducing it again. So there's no point in going ahead and wasting time with doing the maximum fare charged on a per route basis.

None of which is a passengers fault. If the machine isn't capable of taking the correct fare then it should be turned off to ensure all passengers have the correct fare deducted by the driver.

LXFlyer

howiya wrote: »

None of which is a passengers fault. If the machine isn't capable of taking the correct fare then it should be turned off to ensure all passengers have the correct fare deducted by the driver.

The point I was making is that is that it does not mean that the person has not underpaid as you suggested.

Dravokivich

howiya wrote: »

None of which is a passengers fault. If the machine isn't capable of taking the correct fare then it should be turned off to ensure all passengers have the correct fare deducted by the driver.

Huh? It's no secret how and why that validator operates as it does. It's expected the majority of users will be paying that fare. It has no means of knowing where you are going to get off. So what's the point in it adjusting for the route? It doesn't even know where it is.

howiya

lxflyer wrote: »

The point I was making is that is that it does not mean that the person has not underpaid as you suggested.

I'm not suggesting that she did not under pay. A court has already ruled that she did not under pay and did nothing wrong.

If she used the right hand side reader, she paid the maximum that Dublin Bus' technology would allow her to. This would tally with the ruling in the court that she did nothing wrong.

If she asked to have the €2.50 deducted at the driver's terminal and the driver recognised her as reported, he could have asked her to state her destination and he could have corrected her rather than waiting to pounce at the end of the stage.

howiya

Dravokivich wrote: »

Huh? It's no secret how and why that validator operates as it does. It's expected the majority of users will be paying that fare. It has no means of knowing where you are going to get off. So what's the point in it adjusting for the route? It doesn't even know where it is.

If you are travelling a journey that is worth less than the maximum fare you engage with the driver.

If your fare is the maximum fare you use the reader on the right hand side. If Dublin Bus wanted to charge a higher fare on a particular route then the technology should be able to cope. We're not in the 90s anymore.

Perhaps this is the reason they did away with the outer suburban fare.

Dravokivich

Even if there is technology out there that may be capable of doing it. There's no point in implementing it with the changes coming into Dublin Bus and its Fare Structures only for those changes to be redundant shortly after.

As it is now, with the one fare set on that validator depending on service type, means everyone using it should know what to expect across the network. Instead of trying to figure out what's different on separate routes.

LXFlyer

howiya wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that she did not under pay. A court has already ruled that she did not under pay and did nothing wrong.

If she used the right hand side reader, she paid the maximum that Dublin Bus' technology would allow her to. This would tally with the ruling in the court that she did nothing wrong.

If she asked to have the €2.50 deducted at the driver's terminal and the driver recognised her as reported, he could have asked her to state her destination and he could have corrected her rather than waiting to pounce at the end of the stage.

I'm not commenting on the specific case but at that time if someone's fare was an outer suburban one they had to go to the driver and get it there and not use the righthand validator.

If they used the righthand validator and therefore paid a lower fare than the appropriate one, then they would be guilty of paying the wrong fare.

Simple as that.

Trying to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

It was a set of circumstances that applied to those routes with outer suburban fares and you can try and paint it whatever way you like, but you are wrong in your assertion.

howiya

lxflyer wrote: »

I'm not commenting on the specific case but at that time if someone's fare was an outer suburban one they had to go to the driver and get it there and not use the righthand validator.

If they used the righthand validator and therefore paid a lower fare than the appropriate one, then they would be guilty of paying the wrong fare.

Simple as that.

Trying to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

It was a set of circumstances that applied to those routes with outer suburban fares and you can try and paint it whatever way you like, but you are wrong in your assertion.

I am commenting on the specific case. I have suggested a set of circumstances which may have happened. She was not guilty of paying the wrong fare. Feel free to paint it whatever way you like.

foggy_lad

lxflyer wrote: »

I'm not commenting on the specific case but at that time if someone's fare was an outer suburban one they had to go to the driver and get it there and not use the righthand validator.

Where on each outer suburban bus were these very specific instructions placed? was there a large notice at the entrance or on the validator?

If they used the righthand validator and therefore paid a lower fare than the appropriate one, then they would be guilty of paying the wrong fare.

Simple as that.

Trying to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

It was a set of circumstances that applied to those routes with outer suburban fares and you can try and paint it whatever way you like, but you are wrong in your assertion.

The whole message being sent out by Leap and the NTA at the time was one of ease of use and simply validate when entering the bus without having to approach the driver. There were no notices on board buses telling people that they must see the driver on some routes if they were paying the maximum fare!

cdebru

howiya wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that she did not under pay. A court has already ruled that she did not under pay and did nothing wrong.

If she used the right hand side reader, she paid the maximum that Dublin Bus' technology would allow her to. This would tally with the ruling in the court that she did nothing wrong.

If she asked to have the €2.50 deducted at the driver's terminal and the driver recognised her as reported, he could have asked her to state her destination and he could have corrected her rather than waiting to pounce at the end of the stage.

In fairness the report didn't say she did or didn't under pay it said she did nothing wrong, which could mean as you say she used the side validator it took the standard €2.50 as that is the procedure on virtually all services it would not be unreasonable to assume you could do that on the 33 as well ( although she was told previously she couldn't)
It is also interesting that the fare structure that existed then has been scrapped and that woman could board and travel all the way to the city for her €2.60 today.

It was illogical that someone traveling from rush to airside which is about 15km had to pay more than someone traveling nearly twice that distance from clarehall to jobstown, that is why I said yesterday that perhaps DB didn't defend it because the fare structure was indefensible.

You do of course realize that this would if this was the case mean that the driver did absolutely nothing wrong, he was merely enforcing the fare structure that was there no matter how unfair or illogical it may have been. In fact perhaps unknowingly he did a great service to the residents of north county Dublin by highlighting the very unfair fare structure they had endured for decades.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

Where on each outer suburban bus were these very specific instructions placed? was there a large notice at the entrance or on the validator?

The whole message being sent out by Leap and the NTA at the time was one of ease of use and simply validate when entering the bus without having to approach the driver. There were no notices on board buses telling people that they must see the driver on some routes if they were paying the maximum fare!

Interesting that today you are all coming around to the idea that the system may have been at fault rather than the driver did anything wrong, IF this was the case the driver was 100% correct it was the system that DB couldn't defend in court.

howiya

cdebru wrote: »

In fairness the report didn't say she did or didn't under pay it said she did nothing wrong, which could mean as you say she used the side validator it took the standard €2.50 as that is the procedure on virtually all services it would not be unreasonable to assume you could do that on the 33 as well ( although she was told previously she couldn't)
It is also interesting that the fare structure that existed then has been scrapped and that woman could board and travel all the way to the city for her €2.60 today.

It was illogical that someone traveling from rush to airside which is about 15km had to pay more than someone traveling nearly twice that distance from clarehall to jobstown, that is why I said yesterday that perhaps DB didn't defend it because the fare structure was indefensible.

You do of course realize that this would if this was the case mean that the driver did absolutely nothing wrong, he was merely enforcing the fare structure that was there no matter how unfair or illogical it may have been. In fact perhaps unknowingly he did a great service to the residents of north county Dublin by highlighting the very unfair fare structure they had endured for decades.

I put forward two scenarios. Both of which don't reflect great on the driver's judgement.

1) If the driver knew she used the reader then he/she would have known she couldn't have paid any extra and wrongly defamed her.

2) If she paid the driver and he/she didn't correct the passenger as to the correct fare for her destination, then it looks like the driver set out deliberately to humiliate her given that she was already known to the driver.

Dravokivich

howiya wrote: »

I put forward two scenarios. Both of which don't reflect great on the driver's judgement.

1) If the driver knew she used the reader then he/she would have known she couldn't have paid any extra and wrongly defamed her.

2) If she paid the driver and he/she didn't correct the passenger as to the correct fare for her destination, then it looks like the driver set out deliberately to humiliate her given that she was already known to the driver.

1) not really. All media relating to leap card usage with credit on dublin bus state to go to the driver for anything other than the 2.50 fare. Whether it was ignorance or arrogance, if she was due to pay more than 2.50 and went there, she is under paying.

2) Not really either, as a passenger can under declare how far they intend to go, in the hope that a driver will forget about them. I suspect that is a more common tactic used for under paying a fare too, next to using kids tickets.

howiya

Dravokivich wrote: »

1) not really. All media relating to leap card usage with credit on dublin bus state to go to the driver for anything other than the 2.50 fare. Whether it was ignorance or arrogance, if she was due to pay more than 2.50 and went there, she is under paying.

2) Not really either, as a passenger can under declare how far they intend to go, in the hope that a driver will forget about them. I suspect that is a more common tactic used for under paying a fare too, next to using kids tickets.

The woman has been found to have done nothing wrong in a court.

foggy_lad

She did nothing wrong as ruled by the judge so she paid the correct fare as paying an incorrect fare would be wrong!

What matters here is not where this woman boarded but the treatment meted out by the driver by "holding the bus to ransom" as part of his humiliation of the woman. The judge ruled that the woman was humiliated by the driver which is wrong.

Dravokivich

howiya wrote: »

The woman has been found to have done nothing wrong in a court.

What ever. You were trying to create scenarios. I provided commentary on them. You don't expect something to comeback against them?

howiya

Dravokivich wrote: »

What ever. You were trying to create scenarios. I provided commentary on them. You don't expect something to comeback against them?

Your commentary disregards one of the few facts we know for certain in the case that we are discussing.

cdebru

howiya wrote: »

I put forward two scenarios. Both of which don't reflect great on the driver's judgement.

1) If the driver knew she used the reader then he/she would have known she couldn't have paid any extra and wrongly defamed her.

2) If she paid the driver and he/she didn't correct the passenger as to the correct fare for her destination, then it looks like the driver set out deliberately to humiliate her given that she was already known to the driver.

Wow 100% wrong on both counts

1 The passenger is the person responsible for ensuring they have a valid ticket for the journey they are taking, if you use the side reader and it is incapable of charging you correctly then you dont use the side reader, you must use the drivers ticket machine to obtain the correct fare. It was entirely possible to pay the correct fare.

2 again incorrect if a passenger states a destination then they get a ticket for that destination, if they state an amount then they get a ticket for that amount, again it is the passengers responsibility to ensure they have the correct ticket for their intended journey that is a condition of travel. If a passenger states X it is not up to the driver to cross quiz them like but dont you normally go to Y, if the passenger states €2.50 it again is not up to the driver to ask or tell them their normal journey costs X or Y.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

She did nothing wrong as ruled by the judge so she paid the correct fare as paying an incorrect fare would be wrong!

What matters here is not where this woman boarded but the treatment meted out by the driver by "holding the bus to ransom" as part of his humiliation of the woman. The judge ruled that the woman was humiliated by the driver which is wrong.

First we have no idea if the judge heard any evidence as regards to what the correct fare was, now if DB didn't offer any evidence then it would be taken that the plaintiffs evidence is the fact as there is no contrary evidence challenging it.

As to the ransom nonsense it is clearly from someone who is not that familiar with public transport or how it works.

How do you remove a fare evader then ? If you ask can you leave the bus, your ticket has expired and they say no I'm not leaving nor will I pay anymore I'm staying on this bus till I get to where I want to go, what should a staff member of any company do in those circumstances ?

Come on I'm sure you geniuses here can work out how you tackle a fare evader, should they just be carried ? Is that fair on other passengers who pay their fare ?

It is standard procedure if a passenger is asked to leave a bus and they refuse that the bus is stopped, the next stage if they refuse to leave is to call for Garda assistance to remove the person from the bus. Now if you have a better suggestion I'd love to hear it.

howiya

cdebru wrote: »

Wow 100% wrong on both counts

1 The passenger is the person responsible for ensuring they have a valid ticket for the journey they are taking, if you use the side reader and it is incapable of charging you correctly then you dont use the side reader, you must use the drivers ticket machine to obtain the correct fare. It was entirely possible to pay the correct fare.

2 again incorrect if a passenger states a destination then they get a ticket for that destination, if they state an amount then they get a ticket for that amount, again it is the passengers responsibility to ensure they have the correct ticket for their intended journey that is a condition of travel. If a passenger states X it is not up to the driver to cross quiz them like but dont you normally go to Y, if the passenger states €2.50 it again is not up to the driver to ask or tell them their normal journey costs X or Y.

The court case or what we know of it is based around the driver knowing the passenger from a previous interaction on the same route. If you were talking in general terms I would agree with you.

The driver obviously watched the passenger and paid great attention to her from the moment she got on the bus which could imply it was a premeditated attempt to humiliate her.

The driver made a serious error of judgement in defaming her.

She went to court because the apology did not state she had done nothing wrong and presumably for more money. The judge found that she had done nothing wrong and stated that the driver humiliated her.

Dravokivich

howiya wrote: »

Your commentary disregards one of the few facts we know for certain in the case that we are discussing.

Eh no. My commentary was in regards to what using those 2 scenarios mean.

You've been talking generally against the equipment. I've been responding about what the equipment does and how the passenger should be using it. Along what actions would typically have lead to under paying the fare.

howiya

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh no. My commentary was in regards to what using those 2 scenarios mean.

You've been talking generally against the equipment. I've been responding about what the equipment does and how the passenger should be using it. Along what actions would typically have lead to under paying the fare.

Sorry if "If she" isn't sufficient context to alert you to the fact that I've been talking about the specific case

Dravokivich

howiya wrote: »

Sorry if "If she" isn't sufficient context to alert you to the fact that I've been talking about the specific case

Youve been saying "if she" did under pay, its because she had no means to pay the correct fare, or know she wasnt. And saying the equipment is at fault there. Then yiu went and threw a general rude drivers perspective onto it.

All i did was say how it should be done correctly, while someone can still underpay in doing so.

Feel free to make more of it than that if you want sure...

Icepick

the compensation is exaggerated

But the main problem here is that drivers sell tickets in the first place.

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

First we have no idea if the judge heard any evidence as regards to what the correct fare was, now if DB didn't offer any evidence then it would be taken that the plaintiffs evidence is the fact as there is no contrary evidence challenging it.

As to the ransom nonsense it is clearly from someone who is not that familiar with public transport or how it works.

<snip>

First the Judge ruled on whatever evidence was presented, If Dublin Bus or the driver did not present evidence then that is their problem, they were most certainly afforded the opportunity to present the best case they could!

The judge heard the case and ruled that the passenger had done nothing wrong which means that she had paid the fare as not paying the fare would be wrong!

The judge also specifically mentioned the humiliation that the passenger suffered at the hands of the driver who used the other passengers as leverage and in doing so defamed the woman.

The company may well have been at fault in this but one thing that there can now be no doubt about is that the driver defamed the woman and humiliated her resulting in a successful claim. if you want to argue it then you should be in front of the Judge thrashing it out with him!

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

First the Judge ruled on whatever evidence was presented, If Dublin Bus or the driver did not present evidence then that is their problem, they were most certainly afforded the opportunity to present the best case they could!

The judge heard the case and ruled that the passenger had done nothing wrong which means that she had paid the fare as not paying the fare would be wrong!

The judge also specifically mentioned the humiliation that the passenger suffered at the hands of the driver who used the other passengers as leverage and in doing so defamed the woman.

The company may well have been at fault in this but one thing that there can now be no doubt about is that the driver defamed the woman and humiliated her resulting in a successful claim. if you want to argue it then you should be in front of the Judge thrashing it out with him!

I see you snipped my post, presumably because you can't answer it, how do you remove a fare evader without " holding the bus to ransom" or humiliating the fare evader ?

Has it crossed your mind that perhaps DB didn't defend the case because the driver who would be their only witness is no longer an employee, maybe no longer in the country, who knows maybe no longer on the planet ?

L1011

cdebru wrote: »

I see you snipped my post, presumably because you can't answer it, how do you remove a fare evader without " holding the bus to ransom" or humiliating the fare evader ?

Has it crossed your mind that perhaps DB didn't defend the case because the driver who would be their only witness is no longer an employee, maybe no longer in the country, who knows maybe no longer on the planet ?

The fact that they offered a hefty sum well in advance of court suggests that it's quite likely they knew exactly what had happened

n97 mini

cdebru wrote: »

Has it crossed your mind that perhaps DB didn't defend the case because the driver who would be their only witness is no longer an employee,

I would hope he's no longer an employee. If a driver in a private company like Aircoach say turned off the engine to embarrass a customer into getting off, while holding everyone else up, I doubt he'd still be with the company.

ongarboy

lxflyer wrote: »

Sorry but that is nonsense.

The website and all of the literature available was quite clear from the outset that the righthand reader only deducts €2.50.

The onus was (and still is) on the customer to go to the driver for a different fare, just like on every other DB route.

The onus is on the customer to pay the correct fare. Anyone living in North County Dublin on the 33/33a routes would know that special fares applied - they always have done.

The fare chart that I linked to above was linked to from the 33 timetable.

Am I missing something from the leap card website?

Taken from leapcard.ie below. "for longer journeys over 13 stages use the right hand validator". If the plaintiff's journey costs more than the flat fare, shouldn't this be stipulated in the website that some stages will exceed the flat fare and should be notified to the bus driver? I for one certainly always thought the right hand validator was used for the maximum fare for any distance travelled longer than 13 stages and the website seems to confirm this. Very misleading if the reality is otherwise.

Travel Credit

For City Centre, short (1 - 3 stages), medium (4 - 7 stages) and long (8 - 13 stages) journeys tell the driver your destination and hold your Leap Card to the target on the driver's ticket machine and the correct fare will be deducted from your Travel Credit. For longer journeys (over 13 stages) Touch On at the Leap Card Validator on the right hand side as you enter the bus and the flat fare will be deducted from your Travel Credit.