Luas Fine - but tapped my card!

TheChizler

Just validated is ambiguous IMO, was it just validated a minute ago, in which case you need to try again, or just this second when you last tapped it, so it is currently valid? "Retry in 90 s" is much clearer.

verycool

TheChizler wrote: »

Just validated is ambiguous IMO, was it just validated a minute ago, in which case you need to try again, or just this second when you last tapped it, so it is currently valid? "Retry in 90 s" is much clearer.

"INVALID" is also easy one to decipher.

Seregwethrin

verycool wrote: »

"INVALID" is also easy one to decipher.

When will be valid again? I need to get to my destination. I have a leapcard, I have balance on it, it works.

plodder

Dardania wrote: »

In my opinion It’s not simple for the re-tagger’s use case.

It’s fine to display “just validated” if you want feedback if you tagged on correctly, but it’s not clear for someone who has tagged off and wants to tag on again, which IS a valid use case.

"just validated" is meaningless gobbledygook. If it means anything at all to someone who isn't familiar with the system then it would mean your card has been validated (again "validated" itself is not a particularly clear term either). If they want you to wait 90 seconds, why on earth doesn't it say "WAIT 90 sec". It's like it's a known wart in the system, and they'd really prefer not to draw attention to it.

oholly121

This happened to me a few years back:

The same scenario tapped my LEAP card machine beeped did not register.

A couple of points:

1. Unfortunately your not going to receive too much sympathy on a forum here most people are / will tell you to pay your fine and move on, by the looks of things you probably can / should appeal this, problem is its TRANSderv who you appeal this too, as in my case they just tell you they have investigated and your at fault blah blah blah ?
2. The LUAS security acted in exactly the same way with me too I was able to show them I had sufficient funds on my leap card to pay and there seems to be an issue at Busarus with the tag on machine, again like you was treated like a criminal and in fact had security make derogatory statements in front of passengers ( Which I also brought up on my appeal ) but where not properly investigated whatsoever.

You could try this:

Contact Transderv - show them what you have on your phone and your LEAP card transactions tell them you have paid and this is proven any and all further correspondence from them you would like in writing.

Reiterate that you have paid and can prove this

If this persists tell them you consider any and all further letters and or correspondents to be harassment

Point out with your evidence as provided you're more than happy to go to court

Most people here will tell you its only 40e you should pay and move on but no you like me encountered a defamatory scenario from TRANSdervs security and you should fight this.

If anyone from TRNSDERV is reading this your ticket inspectors know nothing about the law and routinely act in an insidious and defamatory fashion against ordinary folk going about their business in events like this one and mine

How about tackling the certain minority of passengers who we all know are guilty on a daily basis of not paying and simply walk on-to the LUAS with no repercussions how about tacking them...........

No, I thought not much more easier to act the big security guard and go after the ordinary folk right the ones who may pay "fines" its a joke

Del2005

oholly121 wrote: »

This happened to me a few years back:

The same scenario tapped my LEAP card machine beeped did not register.

A couple of points:

1. Unfortunately your not going to receive too much sympathy on a forum here most people are / will tell you to pay your fine and move on, by the looks of things you probably can / should appeal this, problem is its TRANSderv who you appeal this too, as in my case they just tell you they have investigated and your at fault blah blah blah ?
2. The LUAS security acted in exactly the same way with me too I was able to show them I had sufficient funds on my leap card to pay and there seems to be an issue at Busarus with the tag on machine, again like you was treated like a criminal and in fact had security make derogatory statements in front of passengers ( Which I also brought up on my appeal ) but where not properly investigated whatsoever.

You could try this:

Contact Transderv - show them what you have on your phone and your LEAP card transactions tell them you have paid and this is proven any and all further correspondence from them you would like in writing.

Reiterate that you have paid and can prove this

If this persists tell them you consider any and all further letters and or correspondents to be harassment

Point out with your evidence as provided you're more than happy to go to court

Most people here will tell you its only 40e you should pay and move on but no you like me encountered a defamatory scenario from TRANSdervs security and you should fight this.

If anyone from TRNSDERV is reading this your ticket inspectors know nothing about the law and routinely act in an insidious and defamatory fashion against ordinary folk going about their business in events like this one and mine

How about tackling the certain minority of passengers who we all know are guilty on a daily basis of not paying and simply walk on-to the LUAS with no repercussions how about tacking them...........

No, I thought not much more easier to act the big security guard and go after the ordinary folk right the ones who may pay "fines" its a joke

If you don't tag on correctly you'll always have loads of funds available The inspectors deal with people lying to them everyday of the week and they all use the same stories.

devnull

fxotoole wrote: »

The message on the screen is not “invalid”, it’s “just validated”. Pretty self explanatory.

And it comes with an error tone and a red light too.

Personally if I heard an error tone and saw the words just validated and a red light I'd think it would be pretty clear that I wasn't tagged on and perhaps I should check it before boarding a tram.

But if you really did see INVALID, which I've never seen a reader display ever, then you have knowingly boarded the tram without a valid ticket and as such it will be a fairly open and shut case for Transdev.

Be very hard to argue that you saw a message saying invalid but you thought you had a valid ticket.

Dardania

devnull wrote: »

fxotoole wrote: »

The message on the screen is not “invalid”, it’s “just validated”. Pretty self explanatory.

And it comes with an error tone and a red light too.

Personally if I heard an error tone and saw the words just validated and a red light I'd think it would be pretty clear that I wasn't tagged on and perhaps I should check it before boarding a tram.

But if you really did see INVALID, which I've never seen a reader display ever, then you have knowingly boarded the tram without a valid ticket and as such it will be a fairly open and shut case for Transdev.

Be very hard to argue that you saw a message saying invalid but you thought you had a valid ticket.

How I would argue it is thus:

The tag on action was deemed invalid, as the system took you to be already tagged on.

cython

Dardania wrote: »

How I would argue it is thus:

The tag on action was deemed invalid, as the system took you to be already tagged on.

So flat out lie about the fact that the previous validator interaction clearly showed a Tag Off message as outlined by the OP? :rolleyes:

I really don't know how the OP expected the system to count them as tagging on again when they hadn't tagged off to end their journey, which they had started relatively recently - journeys on Luas from one extreme to the other can easily exceed 60 mins, so it was not reasonable to assume that 65 mins later they would have been automatically tagged off, and that the next tag (on the same line, no less!) would register as a tag on. It all comes back to them taking a shortcut at SSG in not tagging off, but they seem unwilling to accept that fact still.

Dardania

cython wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

How I would argue it is thus:

The tag on action was deemed invalid, as the system took you to be already tagged on.

So flat out lie about the fact that the previous validator interaction clearly showed a Tag Off message as outlined by the OP? :rolleyes:

I really don't know how the OP expected the system to count them as tagging on again when they hadn't tagged off to end their journey, which they had started relatively recently - journeys on Luas from one extreme to the other can easily exceed 60 mins, so it was not reasonable to assume that 65 mins later they would have been automatically tagged off, and that the next tag (on the same line, no less!) would register as a tag on.  It all comes back to them taking a shortcut at SSG in not tagging off, but they seem unwilling to accept that fact still.

Well I wouldn't characterise it as lying or deceptive. I live in a Nordic country at the moment, and the practice here is to tag your travel card when you get on everywhere (which buys your ride ticket), and the display tells you when you last tagged on. That's all it does - it doesn't tag you off. It's purely informative. I think when you tag on to you next mode of connecting transport, you're mean to tag on again to adjust the price for the distance you're going.
I can understand someone, particularly a foreigner, having this practice of just tagging embedded in their muscle memory. How is someone without a detailed knowledge of the intricacies of a transport system supposed to understand what the different messages do or don't mean, unless they dedicate a disproportionate amount of brain cells to reading up in advance? Public transport is meant to be the easy solution...
We're arguing the same point over & back - you're arguing that the instructions are clear, I'm arguing that they're not. I think we're too firmly entrenched in our views that we're not going to see anyone else's sense. What I am going to do, however, is keep an eye out for whenever there's a consultation on ticketing or public transport integration - anything of that nature, and get my spoke in that the present approach could be a bit easier to understand, particularly with the feedback offered to users with tag on and off.

Del2005

Dardania wrote: »

Well I wouldn't characterise it as lying or deceptive. I live in a Nordic country at the moment, and the practice here is to tag your travel card when you get on everywhere (which buys your ride ticket), and the display tells you when you last tagged on. That's all it does - it doesn't tag you off. It's purely informative. I think when you tag on to you next mode of connecting transport, you're mean to tag on again to adjust the price for the distance you're going.
I can understand someone, particularly a foreigner, having this practice of just tagging embedded in their muscle memory. How is someone without a detailed knowledge of the intricacies of a transport system supposed to understand what the different messages do or don't mean, unless they dedicate a disproportionate amount of brain cells to reading up in advance? Public transport is meant to be the easy solution...
We're arguing the same point over & back - you're arguing that the instructions are clear, I'm arguing that they're not. I think we're too firmly entrenched in our views that we're not going to see anyone else's sense. What I am going to do, however, is keep an eye out for whenever there's a consultation on ticketing or public transport integration - anything of that nature, and get my spoke in that the present approach could be a bit easier to understand, particularly with the feedback offered to users with tag on and off.

Unless they do research then no one will know how to operate anything. I was in Greece recently and was using their public transport, which I didn't research, and there were signs everywhere saying to validate your ticket or get fined. I had a 24 hour ticket but I didn't know if I was supposed to tag on and off at every stop or just once. So their system wasn't clear on what I was supposed to do and they had no A4 pages on the machines spoon feeding information. Similarly was in Amsterdam years ago and just used to jump onto trams as there was no obvious way to pay. Yet both these countries have big tourism industries and neither spoon feeds the locals or tourists how to use the system.

So unless Irish people and foreign visitors to Ireland are special then our system is the same as any other countries, research beforehand or risk fines.

magicbastarder

to be fair, if you're able to negotiate an unfamiliar transport system where signs may not be in your first language, surely managing to understand the ticketing system is the easy part of that?

plodder

Del2005 wrote: »

Unless they do research then no one will know how to operate anything. I was in Greece recently and was using their public transport, which I didn't research, and there were signs everywhere saying to validate your ticket or get fined. I had a 24 hour ticket but I didn't know if I was supposed to tag on and off at every stop or just once. So their system wasn't clear on what I was supposed to do and they had no A4 pages on the machines spoon feeding information. Similarly was in Amsterdam years ago and just used to jump onto trams as there was no obvious way to pay. Yet both these countries have big tourism industries and neither spoon feeds the locals or tourists how to use the system.

So unless Irish people and foreign visitors to Ireland are special then our system is the same as any other countries, research beforehand or risk fines.

I'd say in all those countries you can find the information you need if you do the research in advance. Where can you find the information about Luas machines that "just validated" means you have to wait 90 seconds to tag-on?

Another example. The first time I used Luas, I got on with my leap card, expecting a machine to tag on (like the buses). My mistake, but thankfully no inspector and lesson learned. I just checked the Luas faq and there's nothing about that. I can find out how high the wires are, what their voltage is, but nothing that explicitly says you must tag on before you get on.

cython

Dardania wrote: »

Well I wouldn't characterise it as lying or deceptive. I live in a Nordic country at the moment, and the practice here is to tag your travel card when you get on everywhere (which buys your ride ticket), and the display tells you when you last tagged on. That's all it does - it doesn't tag you off. It's purely informative. I think when you tag on to you next mode of connecting transport, you're mean to tag on again to adjust the price for the distance you're going.
I can understand someone, particularly a foreigner, having this practice of just tagging embedded in their muscle memory. How is someone without a detailed knowledge of the intricacies of a transport system supposed to understand what the different messages do or don't mean, unless they dedicate a disproportionate amount of brain cells to reading up in advance? Public transport is meant to be the easy solution...
We're arguing the same point over & back - you're arguing that the instructions are clear, I'm arguing that they're not. I think we're too firmly entrenched in our views that we're not going to see anyone else's sense. What I am going to do, however, is keep an eye out for whenever there's a consultation on ticketing or public transport integration - anything of that nature, and get my spoke in that the present approach could be a bit easier to understand, particularly with the feedback offered to users with tag on and off.

OP posted the below. Are you proposing that they just claim the first time that they tagged at Westmoreland they were told it was invalid? Or perhaps they didn't observe the result of the first tag action? Either way, under the circumstances they have outlined, it involves a very clear deception.

As for the "intricacies" of the Luas, virtually (if not actually!) every door has a sign on the inside reminding passengers to tag off when they alight. As long as you speak English, it should be apparent that you need to tag off. The OP neglected to do this, and got caught out.

Seregwethrin wrote: »

Hi,

The unexpected circumstance happened like this:
* At 7:25PM (leapcard history is attached): I was going North to Broombridge from South on the Green line.
* Tram was only going to Parnell, so got off at Stephen's Green
* Good weather, had a nice walk up towards Stephen's Green, got into a toilet
* At: 8:28PM (debit card receipt is attached): bought a soft drink at the Tesco besides the Westmoreland
* At 8:30PM (leapcard history is attached): Tapped at Westmoreland again, machine beeped properly but said "Tag off" and gave me back +€0.25.
* Tapped again, machine beeped proper but said "INVALID"
* My broombridge tram came, got on that because my card works, I have balance on it, I tapped even twice, just paid €2.45 an hour ago, I need to go to my destination, there is nothing I can do more.

Dardania

cython wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

Well I wouldn't characterise it as lying or deceptive. I live in a Nordic country at the moment, and the practice here is to tag your travel card when you get on everywhere (which buys your ride ticket), and the display tells you when you last tagged on. That's all it does - it doesn't tag you off. It's purely informative. I think when you tag on to you next mode of connecting transport, you're mean to tag on again to adjust the price for the distance you're going.
I can understand someone, particularly a foreigner, having this practice of just tagging embedded in their muscle memory. How is someone without a detailed knowledge of the intricacies of a transport system supposed to understand what the different messages do or don't mean, unless they dedicate a disproportionate amount of brain cells to reading up in advance? Public transport is meant to be the easy solution...
We're arguing the same point over & back - you're arguing that the instructions are clear, I'm arguing that they're not. I think we're too firmly entrenched in our views that we're not going to see anyone else's sense. What I am going to do, however, is keep an eye out for whenever there's a consultation on ticketing or public transport integration - anything of that nature, and get my spoke in that the present approach could be a bit easier to understand, particularly with the feedback offered to users with tag on and off.

OP posted the below.  Are you proposing that they just claim the first time that they tagged at Westmoreland they were told it was invalid?  Or perhaps they didn't observe the result of the first tag action?  Either way, under the circumstances they have outlined, it involves a very clear deception.

As for the "intricacies" of the Luas, virtually (if not actually!) every door has a sign on the inside reminding passengers to tag off when they alight.  As long as you speak English, it should be apparent that you need to tag off.  The OP neglected to do this, and got caught out.  

Seregwethrin wrote: »

Hi,

The unexpected circumstance happened like this:
* At 7:25PM (leapcard history is attached): I was going North to Broombridge from South on the Green line.
* Tram was only going to Parnell, so got off at Stephen's Green
* Good weather, had a nice walk up towards Stephen's Green, got into a toilet
* At: 8:28PM (debit card receipt is attached): bought a soft drink at the Tesco besides the Westmoreland
* At 8:30PM (leapcard history is attached): Tapped at Westmoreland again, machine beeped properly but said "Tag off" and gave me back +€0.25.
* Tapped again, machine beeped proper but said "INVALID"
* My broombridge tram came, got on that because my card works, I have balance on it, I tapped even twice, just paid €2.45 an hour ago, I need to go to my destination, there is nothing I can do more.

There has to be intent to deceive, which I can't see. They tried tagging twice, satisfying the tag-off requirement and the tag-on requirement, as evidenced by OP's testimony at 8.30PM. If they had intended to deceive, they would only have tagged once. But in this case, no, OP tagged twice, after they noticed that they were tagged off.
I empathise with this point, as I have similarly been confused in the past about tagging off when I intended to tag-on. In my own case, I had time to wait and try again (successfully), but I can sympathise with someone being in a hurry and needing to get on the tram, particularly if it's not clearly communicated to them at point of making the mistake how long they have to wait before they can try again.

My extremely narrow point in this discussion is that there is an expected behaviour from users, which is not clearly communicated to users, particularly around the waiting for 90 seconds before one can tag back on. I take your point that there's communication to users as they leave the Luas that they should tag-off immediately - OP should have done that. But I reiterate my narrow point: that it is not clear to a user when they make the mistake how to "right" that mistake.
"Just validated" is not useful to a user trying to get their action back on track.
"Just validated, wait 90s to re-tag-on" would be clearer, not just to a user who made a mistake, but also in case someone tries to tag-off twice, without any intention of continuing their journey.
There is an interesting article that popped up a few months ago about the term "RTFM" - Read the Effing Manual: https://medium.com/compassionate-coding/its-time-to-retire-rtfm-31acdfef654f
They make the point in it "When you use RTFM, you’re saying, “Not only am I not going to help you, but I also want to make sure that you feel ashamed about your inability to help yourself.”"
I can see a similar concept at play here - the system is confusing to a minority of people, and rather than addressing the confusing shortfalls of the system, the errant users are shamed for not understanding the intricacies of the system, which can be found from: https://www.luas.ie/faq.html
I excerpt and highlight a pertinent passage:

[font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]How should I Touch On / Off my Leap Card after Luas Cross City opens[/font]
[font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]There is no change to the way you Touch On / Off your Leap Card on Luas. You should to Touch On before you get on the tram and Touch Off after you get off the tram.
If you are using both lines our best advice is to Touch On and Off for the 1st tram trip and then after you change lines Touch On and Off for the 2nd tram trip. By Touching On/Off for each tram trip you will get the best value fare for your overall journey, you will have a valid ticket and you will have the flexibility to change your mind about the 2nd part of your journey.
You can also Touch On before the 1st tram trip; change trams and Touch Off after the 2nd tram trip but be careful to not Touch Off or On by accident.

A working example of a trip using both lines from Balally to Heuston is outline below. To complete your journey you should;

- Touch On before you board the tram on the Green Line at Balally stop
- Touch Off after you get off the tram on the Green Line at O'Connell - GPO stop
- Touch On before you board the tram on the Red Line at Abbey Street stop
- Touch Off after you get off the tram on the Red Line at Heuston stop

Luas recommends that you Touch On and Off for the 1st tram trip and then after you change lines to Touch On and Off for the 2nd tram trip for the following reasons;

- You will get the best value fare for your overall journey on both lines
- You will have a valid ticket and will not get a Standard Fare of €45 increasing to €100 if not paid in two weeks
- You will have the flexibility to change your mind about or deter the 2nd part of your journey[/font]

In a good system design, it should not be possible for users to make an accident. This topic was discussed last year before LCC: https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2055947068/234. There are good reasons behind why they chose the solution they have, but again, my narrow point is: the messaging to users is not clear.

Incidentally, I can't find it anywhere on Luas.ie about this need to wait 90 seconds between tags if anyone makes the mistake. Has anyone else posted evidence that this exists? Or is it hearsay / common knowledge from people that have learned it the hard way?

TheChrisD

Seregwethrin wrote: »

Inspector also told me if I had never tapped that would be fine. So if you have a break on your journey or change trams, don't tap until... how much time? Who knows this?

So why couldn't he do the more sensible thing in this situation and cancel your tag off at Westmoreland seeing as your original ticket was technically still valid as it was within 90 minutes?

devnull

TheChrisD wrote: »

So why couldn't he do the more sensible thing in this situation and cancel your tag off at Westmoreland seeing as your original ticket was technically still valid as it was within 90 minutes?

Because if people tagged off early and could then have it cancelled when they are caught travelling beyond that fare zone, it encourages people to do that in the knowledge that if they are caught they can just spin the same line?

The problem is that the majority of people fare evading will spin any story to try and get away with not having to pay the fare they should and an inspector has no idea which ones are genuine and which ones are lying to try and get out of paying a fine.

cython

Dardania wrote: »

There has to be intent to deceive, which I can't see. They tried tagging twice, satisfying the tag-off requirement and the tag-on requirement, as evidenced by OP's testimony at 8.30PM. If they had intended to deceive, they would only have tagged once. But in this case, no, OP tagged twice, after they noticed that they were tagged off.

I never suggested there was an intent to deceive when the OP travelled. However to not mention these details, or to tell a different account of events, would be intentional deception within the appeals process regardless of how you try to spin it.

Dardania wrote: »

....
In a good system design, it should not be possible for users to make an accident. This topic was discussed last year before LCC: https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2055947068/234. There are good reasons behind why they chose the solution they have, but again, my narrow point is: the messaging to users is not clear.

Without calling the OPs intelligence into question, or any suggestion of them being a fool, on the subject of the bolded assertion you make, I think Douglas Adams put it best: "a common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools". In other words no matter the design of the system, there will always be some scope for someone to make a mistake in using virtually anything.

Dardania

cython wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

There has to be intent to deceive, which I can't see. They tried tagging twice, satisfying the tag-off requirement and the tag-on requirement, as evidenced by OP's testimony at 8.30PM. If they had intended to deceive, they would only have tagged once. But in this case, no, OP tagged twice, after they noticed that they were tagged off.

I never suggested there was an intent to deceive when the OP travelled. However to not mention these details, or to tell a different account of events, would be intentional deception within the appeals process regardless of how you try to spin it.

Dardania wrote: »

....
In a good system design, it should not be possible for users to make an accident. This topic was discussed last year before LCC: https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2055947068/234. There are good reasons behind why they chose the solution they have, but again, my narrow point is: the messaging to users is not clear.

Without calling the OPs intelligence into question, or any suggestion of them being a fool, on the subject of the bolded assertion you make, I think Douglas Adams put it best:  "a common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools".  In other words no matter the design of the system, there will always be some scope for someone to make a mistake in using virtually anything.

I agree that if the OP didn't mention pertinent details, it would be deceptive. Let's leave that topic there - we'll just go around in circles picking each other's text apart.

Regarding the Douglas Adams quote, I do agree - the variation I've heard is that in the race between mankind and nature to make things foolproof, nature is winning by producing (evolving) bigger fools. Indeed, when I and my colleagues design any system, we consider the DAU (the dumbest average user), and are cognisant that there are a percentage of people dumber than the average.
However, to use that argument as a justification for not trying to foresee and eliminate potential mistakes, to not iterate the system to eliminate mistakes - that in my opinion is unforgivable. That's non-empathetic, defeatist & intellectually-lazy. And frankly, not fair on the travelling public. Remember than wide accessibility was a design criteria for Luas - that doesn't stop at just making it wheelchair accessible - there are varying abilities out there. Can we expect dyslexic or partially literate members of the public to study masses of instructions? Should we exclude them from using the service because the systems programming is too hard to get right?
Do you concur with the potential issue in how the system is presently setup (that the situation of a user who tags off when they intended to tag on is not adequately accommodated)?

cython

Dardania wrote: »

I agree that if the OP didn't mention pertinent details, it would be deceptive. Let's leave that topic there - we'll just go around in circles picking each other's text apart.

Regarding the Douglas Adams quote, I do agree - the variation I've heard is that in the race between mankind and nature to make things foolproof, nature is winning by producing (evolving) bigger fools. Indeed, when I and my colleagues design any system, we consider the DAU (the dumbest average user), and are cognisant that there are a percentage of people dumber than the average.
However, to use that argument as a justification for not trying to foresee and eliminate potential mistakes, to not iterate the system to eliminate mistakes - that in my opinion is unforgivable. That's non-empathetic, defeatist & intellectually-lazy. And frankly, not fair on the travelling public. Remember than wide accessibility was a design criteria for Luas - that doesn't stop at just making it wheelchair accessible - there are varying abilities out there. Can we expect dyslexic or partially literate members of the public to study masses of instructions? Should we exclude them from using the service because the systems programming is too hard to get right?
Do you concur with the potential issue in how the system is presently setup (that the situation of a user who tags off when they intended to tag on is not adequately accommodated)?

The only real flaw that this highlighted to me was in the OP thinking they didn't have to tag off at SSG, and assuming they would have been automatically tagged off via timeout at Westmoreland. You have proposed the alternative that people tag on only, which in the Luas system has the net result that someone travelling from Bride's Glen to Sandyford is charged the same as someone travelling to Broombridge. This requires a completely different approach to fares in Dublin PT, and is not simply a software/system design issue.

Tag on/tag off as a system works pretty well, and is generally fairly straighforward. It's not ideal that DB is tag on only, however. One could also argue for validators for each action at stops (turnstiles in train stations are directional in this manner, I believe), but that becomes more infrastructure to maintain, and indeed for those who don't speak English, actually adds more complication. As for iterating the system to eliminate mistakes, if the vast majority of people find that a system works (which seems to be the case), then introducing changes to cater for the minority may only introduce more confusion among that majority, and cause more people to have issues as they are rolled out (ironically enlarging the minority, even if just temporarily!), should they be sufficiently large changes.

For my money, one of the biggest gaps in using Leap on Luas is that if you tag on at a stop, and subsequently tag off using the same validator within a couple of mins (obviously ore than 90 secs!) because you couldn't board, be it due to overcrowding or whatever, they only refund you a fraction, as if you had actually travelled - this is a bigger gap than anything outlined so far in this thread, IMHO, and should be easily fixed.

Add to that, a number of the changes proposed would essentially involve new hardware, meaning a massive cost to roll out to an existing network.

Dardania

cython wrote: »

Dardania wrote: »

I agree that if the OP didn't mention pertinent details, it would be deceptive. Let's leave that topic there - we'll just go around in circles picking each other's text apart.

Regarding the Douglas Adams quote, I do agree - the variation I've heard is that in the race between mankind and nature to make things foolproof, nature is winning by producing (evolving) bigger fools. Indeed, when I and my colleagues design any system, we consider the DAU (the dumbest average user), and are cognisant that there are a percentage of people dumber than the average.
However, to use that argument as a justification for not trying to foresee and eliminate potential mistakes, to not iterate the system to eliminate mistakes - that in my opinion is unforgivable. That's non-empathetic, defeatist & intellectually-lazy. And frankly, not fair on the travelling public. Remember than wide accessibility was a design criteria for Luas - that doesn't stop at just making it wheelchair accessible - there are varying abilities out there. Can we expect dyslexic or partially literate members of the public to study masses of instructions? Should we exclude them from using the service because the systems programming is too hard to get right?
Do you concur with the potential issue in how the system is presently setup (that the situation of a user who tags off when they intended to tag on is not adequately accommodated)?

The only real flaw that this highlighted to me was in the OP thinking they didn't have to tag off at SSG, and assuming they would have been automatically tagged off via timeout at Westmoreland.  You have proposed the alternative that people tag on only, which in the Luas system has the net result that someone travelling from Bride's Glen to Sandyford is charged the same as someone travelling to Broombridge.  This requires a completely different approach to fares in Dublin PT, and is not simply a software/system design issue.

Tag on/tag off as a system works pretty well, and is generally fairly straighforward.  It's not ideal that DB is tag on only, however.  One could also argue for validators for each action at stops (turnstiles in train stations are directional in this manner, I believe), but that becomes more infrastructure to maintain, and indeed for those who don't speak English, actually adds more complication.  As for iterating the system to eliminate mistakes, if the vast majority of people find that a system works (which seems to be the case), then introducing changes to cater for the minority may only introduce more confusion among that majority, and cause more people to have issues as they are rolled out (ironically enlarging the minority, even if just temporarily!), should they be sufficiently large changes.  

For my money, one of the biggest gaps in using Leap on Luas is that if you tag on at a stop, and subsequently tag off using the same validator within a couple of mins (obviously ore than 90 secs!) because you couldn't board, be it due to overcrowding or whatever, they only refund you a fraction, as if you had actually travelled - this is a bigger gap than anything outlined so far in this thread, IMHO, and should be easily fixed.  

Add to that, a number of the changes proposed would essentially involve new hardware, meaning a massive cost to roll out to an existing network.

Sounds like you're laying the blame firmly at OP's feet here, and not conceiving there might be a system flaw that leads to this errant behaviour....
You're right that iterating the design to eliminate edge cases might affect the vast majority of users. But it doesn't necessarily need to be so. One can iterate, solve edge cases, and not compromise normal users. It's just thoughtful, careful design...
DB is a big restriction here alright - the fact they're offline readers doesn't help either.

I think you missed my proposal to fix the issue that OP experienced. I'm not advocating changing that people tag on only. The reason I mentioned that was because that might be what people are accustomed to from other places, or indeed with DB. But it's not relevant to this discussion.

What I am proposing is that instead of the validator saying "just validated" it could say "Just validated, re-tag-on in 90s"
By my reading of this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVk9krPUMAA0Fno.jpg each line has space for 20 characters. The text I propose above is 32 characters. And can be split across 2 lines.
I feel that small mod would prevent future issues of this nature, without breaking any other functionality.

Your bolded issue...that is an issue, but to be fair, it should be solved by addressing the root cause with more system capacity, rather than better handling of refunds. I recall when DB (or was it NTA) rolled out electronic signs at bus stops - it felt like a technological solution to a simpler problem - just make the posted timetables accurate!

bk

Dardania wrote: »

What I am proposing is that instead of the validator saying "just validated" it could say "Just validated, re-tag-on in 90s"
By my reading of this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVk9krPUMAA0Fno.jpg each line has space for 20 characters. The text I propose above is 32 characters. And can be split across 2 lines.
I feel that small mod would prevent future issues of this nature, without breaking any other functionality.

Thing is, I'm not sure the OP is correct in the message they said they saw. I can't remember exactly what it says, but I remember the last time this happened to me, the message being quite obvious and I simply waited.

I most take a stroll down to a Luas stop and try it out.

Perhaps the OP was in a rush/distracted and didn't properly read the message or understand it (tired in the morning, etc.). It happens to all of us at the best of times.

I know that as a developer myself, you can put a warning in big flashing lights and people will still ignore it and do silly things * There is only so much hand holding you can do, in the end a little personal responsibility is required.

* BTW in software the approach to this problem today is to try and avoid any such situations in the first place, warn when it might happen and most importantly have a way of backing out the mistake once some idiot still manages to bypass all your warnings. However I can't think of a way you could apply this concept to public transport ticketing in this scenario.

cython

Dardania wrote: »

Sounds like you're laying the blame firmly at OP's feet here, and not conceiving there might be a system flaw that leads to this errant behaviour....

Frankly, yes I do lay this at the OP's feet. I mean they elected to:

1. Not tag off at SSG
2. Re-tag within 70 mins at Westmoreland on the same line (at which point they were clearly told they had now tagged off)
3. Travel when the last status they received RE their card was that they were tagged off

Ultimately they gambled by travelling, and this time they lost. Simply checking the state of their card at the TVM would have been a good next step that wasn't taken,.

Dardania wrote: »

You're right that iterating the design to eliminate edge cases might affect the vast majority of users. But it doesn't necessarily need to be so. One can iterate, solve edge cases, and not compromise normal users. It's just thoughtful, careful design...
DB is a big restriction here alright - the fact they're offline readers doesn't help either.

I would contend there is no edge case here to solve. Rather this is trying to account for someone who ignored the clearly posted instructions, and then found themselves caught by the system behaviour later.

Dardania wrote: »

I think you missed my proposal to fix the issue that OP experienced. I'm not advocating changing that people tag on only. The reason I mentioned that was because that might be what people are accustomed to from other places, or indeed with DB. But it's not relevant to this discussion.

What I am proposing is that instead of the validator saying "just validated" it could say "Just validated, re-tag-on in 90s"
By my reading of this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVk9krPUMAA0Fno.jpg each line has space for 20 characters. The text I propose above is 32 characters. And can be split across 2 lines.
I feel that small mod would prevent future issues of this nature, without breaking any other functionality.

I'll go one better if you want to do that, change line 2 to "Wait XX secs", and genericise for tag on/off while fitting on one screen. The issue with a scrolling message on a validator is that it slows it down for everyone else while the message is read, and is poor design in itself.

Dardania wrote: »

Your bolded issue...that is an issue, but to be fair, it should be solved by addressing the root cause with more system capacity, rather than better handling of refunds. I recall when DB (or was it NTA) rolled out electronic signs at bus stops - it felt like a technological solution to a simpler problem - just make the posted timetables accurate!

You seem to have missed the "or whatever" I mentioned - overcrowding is but one reason why someone may not travel. A delay to services only announced after tagging, etc. could be another. Change in circumstances/plans yet another (albeit less of the operator's problem). An increase in system capacity is arguably more difficult to deliver, and while it is always desirable, only addresses one of a number of the potential drivers behind the use case.

oholly121

Del2005 wrote: »

If you don't tag on correctly you'll always have loads of funds available The inspectors deal with people lying to them everyday of the week and they all use the same stories.

That’s a fair point but do you not think I’d you have funds on your card then an allowance should be made in the event this is proven

Funds could show an attempt or willingness to pay

cython

oholly121 wrote: »

That’s a fair point but do you not think I’d you have funds on your card then an allowance should be made in the event this is proven

Funds could show an attempt or willingness to pay

As he said though presence of funds on the card means nothing - the same funds could be on the card for 6 months because someone has been evading successfully for all that time. A recent top-up (like just before starting the journey, but then forgetting to tag on), however, might go some way towards demonstrating such a willingness. In particular if there's a regular pattern of of usage, and this can be demonstrated to be a slip/error through that.

devnull

oholly121 wrote: »

That’s a fair point but do you not think I’d you have funds on your card then an allowance should be made in the event this is proven. Funds could show an attempt or willingness to pay

They don't really, since someone might be topping up a card just to show that but have actually no intention of doing so.

This is especially common on a DART where any LEAP with positive balance can work the gates which is used for conditional validation fare evasion where one only scans their LEAP card if they see an inspector at the barriers.

Seregwethrin

There is no point in appealing to or communicating with Luas. On any communication channel they only explain how to pay which address you can forward a cheque to. As someone said here those are like just automated replies, I wonder if anyone ever appealed successfully.

goingnowhere

Luas has a very clear policy, even if all the equipment at a stop is broken, you cannot travel without a valid ticket.

It makes appeals impossible

Under His Eye

I am sure a judge would have a different view on that.

bk

Under His Eye wrote: »

I am sure a judge would have a different view on that.

So if all the tills were down in Tesco, you could just walk in and take whatever you want?

Sorry, doesn't work that way.