nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

Stephen15

So since the last thread on this got closed and dosen't appear to be reopening any time soon. Heres a new one for you.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Yer Da sells Avon

CramCycle wrote: »

it may not be written down anywhere but DB drivers are not stupid, if they don't collect fares, the company and their negotiation platform in times of trouble will struggle.

It's the customer's responsibility to pay their fare. It's the driver's responsibility to facilitate this, not to chase them, and certainly not to inconvenience other passengers by switching the engine off. It is the company's responsibility to provide adequate revenue protection measures.

Stephen15

I think the whole payment/non-payment of fare and should the driver take responsibility debate is sort of dragging the thread off topic a bit don't ya think.

XPS_Zero

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Im sorry that that would happen, but drivers are also there to protect the interests of the company they work for. You just cant let people trample all over you. They just come back to do it again and again.
The incidents I choose to fight are well chosen. Off peek. You see the same people trying to bluff and lie to you. Some even will make fun of it while departing.
Im not looking for trouble by any means.
But if I let lowlifes take the mick out of me, or the company I work for, It would eat at me all day after.

If people dont have money to travel or no credit on their leap, and ask to travel in a civil manner, I would never leave them stuck either.

I think proper inspectors need to be back out on the road again. The way it used to be.

It's not just protecting the interest of the company but of the taxpayer, remember the company is subsidized by tax revenue via the NTA and DSP. It's also a simple matter of justice, these people should at least feel some shame in taking advantage of someones good nature to screw with them, and when they don't, it should come back on them.

Stephen15 wrote: »

So I take by sounds of things you as a driver care more about the companies revenue than the company does because by the sounds and looks of thing DB or the NTA on GAI services don't care about people not paying the correct fare if they did then they'd have large numbers of revenue protection officers checking buses on a regular basis.

It just seems that by trying to confront lowlife scum you get more hassle than it's really worth especially when they outnumber you.

Revenue inspectors doing more than they appear to atm (which is hop no more than a few miles from the garage or CC and never venture out into the deep routes) and a flat fare charge would minimize this.
IT's one of the hazards inherit in a public owned company, when you know you get a cheque cut no matter what happens you have less pressure to weed out issues like this, you'll still get paid, your company will still get paid, it all keeps rolling, so the waste and loss does not affect you. I remember working in stock control in tesco and the acceptable loss budget was so out of whack they had to limit available hours and overtime, and everyone was on us to get it sorted so they could go back to the old system. In a public owned company you just demand a bigger subsidy and usually get it.
These are the kind of problems a competition model tries to tackle. Some ideas will work others not, we'll ditch what does not and try new things, but just shrugging and giving up is no answer.
Sometimes competition or privatization might be worse, so we don't have it as a remedy option, like with the black financial hole that is IE, and have to try something else, but it's basic incentives.

superg wrote: »

It really isn't. Dublin Bus bye laws put the onus on the customer to ensure they have a valid ticket for travel.

You can certainly ask to see their ticket if you like the hassle of chasing people when the company isn't arsed about it. We've had drivers here complaining about abuse etc, I bet the ones who just drive the bus don't get any, I never did.

Revenue protection is the inspectors job.

There is a difference between suspecting someone is fare evading and seeing the same small number of faces doing it over and over and over on your route with the same tired bogus stories. It's human nature to get sick of that after a while.

There is a segment of society , small in number but big in effect, (literally) laughing all the way to the bank screwing the rest of us peons who actually obey the rules and everyone's always been afraid, at political and societal level to tackle them until recently. They brought in some welfare rules a few years ago to tackle them (oh yeh it's in many cases the same people as long long long term SW recepitants on job seekers) and ended up doing more collateral damage than damage to this group itself because of the stupid way they designed the rules (when you see claims in the paper about how many who ''refused work'' from jobseekers were penalized take it with a grain of salt there is way more to that story than papers made it look).

Kh1993 wrote: »

Changed my tune? What a bizarre post from a supposed moderator. I have no care for Bus Eireann, I don’t use them and have no idea of them. Accusing me of changing my tune is a baseless personal attack which I demand you withdraw immediately.

Suggesting your argument is inconsistent is not a personal attack, get out of your safe space man jeez :rolleyes:

Personally I have noticed, as I said, no major change in service other than a driver wearing a different uniform so I'm not convinced this will be any improvement for passengers in day to day operations. What it will do is prevent a total network shut down in the next strike like the utter farce we had with BE dragging the other operators down, once competition has been expanded to the full network. That alone would make this switch worth in IMO , but I don't see how day to day improvements are gonna really happen even long after we've left the "teething problems" period.

.G.

XPS_Zero wrote: »

There is a difference between suspecting someone is fare evading and seeing the same small number of faces doing it over and over and over on your route with the same tired bogus stories. It's human nature to get sick of that after a while.

If the company had no interest in protecting its own revenue I didn't either. I was paid to drive the bus safely and that's what I did.

And of course take whatever fares were offered to me!

CramCycle

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

It's the customer's responsibility to pay their fare. It's the driver's responsibility to facilitate this, not to chase them, and certainly not to inconvenience other passengers by switching the engine off. It is the company's responsibility to provide adequate revenue protection measures.

So your saying if everyone who got on the 145 tomorrow didn't pay, the driver shouldn't bat an eyelid?
Forgetting the jobsworth argument about it not being their job, and I could be wrong here. If you don't pay your fare, your not insured for travel. If a driver knows this, they may be in trouble for knowingly allowing uninsured passengers to continue. Those who sneak on or underpay, that's a different story but a driver who knowingly continues in this situation could be putting himself and the company at risk.

I could be incorrect here.

AlekSmart

CramCycle wrote: »

So your saying if everyone who got on the 145 tomorrow didn't pay, the driver shouldn't bat an eyelid?
Forgetting the jobsworth argument about it not being their job, and I could be wrong here. If you don't pay your fare, your not insured for travel. If a driver knows this, they may be in trouble for knowingly allowing uninsured passengers to continue. Those who sneak on or underpay, that's a different story but a driver who knowingly continues in this situation could be putting himself and the company at risk.

I could be incorrect here.

I'm afraid so CC.

3rd Party Road Traffic Act Insurance is compulsory for all Mechanically Propelled Vehicles,and it is not dependent upon the payment of fares or any other T's & C's of the Operator concerned.

It can be used as a mitigating defence in a Court,but in most 3rd Party scenario's,the court would not be concerning itself with issues much beyond the actual event which caused the injuries being sued for.

Busdrivers are expected (to the best of their ability) to ensure,that all passengers are in possession of a ticket or valid travel document.

It is the passengers responsibility (per the By-Laws) to be in possession of a Valid Ticket for the journey being undertaken.

dfx-

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

They don't deserve a free pass, but teething problems are inevitable, although I know that's no consolation to passengers. The important thing is that they learn from their mistakes very quickly, as they have on the southside. Delays are also inevitable at this time of year (a return of Operation Freeflow is badly needed), but they'll figure out how to manage them better, control gaps between buses, utilise spare drivers, etc as they gather more information.

A calm, measured, well-thought-out email (to customercomment@goaheadireland.ie), detailing the exact nature of the delay, would be a lot more effective (and helpful to both yourself and Go-Ahead) than tossing off a series of angry tweets at whoever happens to be operating the social media account.

This is the third or fourth implementation date, why are they still having teething issues starting routes? Is there anything to be said for implementing them when they're actually ready to operate them without teething issues? Who is checking whether they are ready?

On a 27B yesterday evening, first sight of the GA buses in Coolock. One of them, a brand new bus 182-D, in the dark, in service but you wouldn't know it because the front, side and rear displays were blank. Maybe it was a magical mystery tour.:)

devnull

dfx- wrote: »

This is the third or fourth implementation date, why are they still having teething issues starting routes? Is there anything to be said for implementing them when they're actually ready to operate them without teething issues? Who is checking whether they are ready?

But teething issues on routes operated by drivers who have never operated them before or on brand new routes have always been issues, not just for Go-Ahead, but for Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann, Aircoach and others and the idea that you can just launch a route on day one and everything will be hunky dory every single time is just simply not going to happen and that has been my experience as a whole across UK and Ireland.

If it was that simple then after all these years Dublin Bus should have nailed it, but long gaps in service and multiple missed departures on the 40E yesterday because of traffic jams and what looks like may well end up proving to be insufficient running time, shows that this is not an issue just restricted to services operated by Go-Ahead. I'm not going to say that means DB were not ready because that would be ridiculous.

On a 27B yesterday evening, first sight of the GA buses in Coolock. One of them, a brand new bus 182-D, in the dark, in service but you wouldn't know it because the front, side and rear displays were blank. Maybe it was a magical mystery tour.:)

To me that sounds like a vehicle that may well have been suffering from some kind of technical fault. Although one has to ask, how do you know that it was in service if there were no lights, and no destination displays? Perhaps it was being used as a training bus?

Kh1993

As per GA Twitter, 50min delays again today on 17a, 15 and 20 on other routes.

I’m sorry, traffic is light at 3 in the afternoon, they are unable to run their timetable at the moment, simple as. They’re either missing drivers, buses or they’ve an unrealistic timetable.

devnull

Kh1993 wrote: »

As per GA Twitter, 50min delays again today on 17a, 15 and 20 on other routes.

I’m sorry, traffic is light at 3 in the afternoon, they are unable to run their timetable at the moment, simple as. They’re either missing drivers, buses or they’ve an unrealistic timetable.

By that it sounds like insufficient running times on the 17A unless there was some incident on the routes that has caused a backlog and knock on delays.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the 17A and the 40E at least get new timetables with longer running times - the current ones seem to be too optimistic, especially at peak times.

Kh1993

Struggling to see how the NTA ok’d this. They’ve left themselves so thin, I really hope there’s additional resources there soon. Buses bunching up is one thing, missing 4-5 consecutive departures is another.

They knew from DB exactly how many buses needed (DB upped the bus PVR on the 17a and made running times longer about 2 years ago which ironed out any issues - mind you, in 10 years using it, never experienced 5 missed departures in a row at peak).

devnull

Kh1993 wrote: »

Struggling to see how the NTA ok’d this. They’ve left themselves so thin, I really hope there’s additional resources there soon. Buses bunching up is one thing, missing 4-5 consecutive departures is another.

They knew from DB exactly how many buses needed (DB upped the bus PVR on the 17a and made running times longer about 2 years ago which ironed out any issues - mind you, in 10 years using it, never experienced 5 missed departures in a row at peak).

Questions certainly need to be asked about how the timetables were arrived at, looking at the running times indicated on the timetables (with appreciation that the public timetables may not reflect the driver schedules) the 17A looks pretty optimistic at peak times and as does the 40E, so certainly I think the NTA needs to be looking at what kind of timetables they are allowing to be implemented.

To be fair though the 17A was chronically unreliable when it was first extended to Blanchardstown Centre, wasn't a good experience at all, but it did improve when the timetable was tweaked as you said.

Captain Chaos

Kh1993 wrote: »

As per GA Twitter, 50min delays again today on 17a, 15 and 20 on other routes.

I’m sorry, traffic is light at 3 in the afternoon, they are unable to run their timetable at the moment, simple as. They’re either missing drivers, buses or they’ve an unrealistic timetable.

I know for the 17A at this time of year at 3pm in afternoon the traffic is mental along most of the route. The 17A route falls apart once the primary schools finish.

devnull

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I know for the 17A at this time of year at 3pm in afternoon the traffic is mental along most of the route. The 17A route falls apart once the primary schools finish.

Yes - but honestly having looked at the timetable, it does seem a little over-optimistic - I didn't think it would be that late though - I would be very surprised if the timetable is not recast in the next few weeks, like some of the other Go-Ahead ones have been, or at least throw some extra resources at it.

Question is though did Go-Ahead tell the NTA the timetable was achievable and they will run it based on their own figures, or did the NTA pretty much say that here is the timetable that you have to run and be done with it?

Stephen15

Kh1993 wrote: »

Struggling to see how the NTA ok’d this. They’ve left themselves so thin, I really hope there’s additional resources there soon. Buses bunching up is one thing, missing 4-5 consecutive departures is another.

The NTA were the ones who made the timetable not the ones who approved it. It's seems likely to me that a lot of the dry runs Go-Ahead did were done over the summer when traffic was very likely lighter than it is now a bit of an amateur mistake I know and it should have been taken into account when the timetables were being however things will probably have to be changed in a few weeks time.

I think Go-Ahead need another depot sooner rather than later on the Northside remember buses have to come all the way from Ballymount to start the routes meaning buses are susceptible to delays going across the M50 everyday especially northbound. They could do with a depot in the DL or Bray area too.

They knew from DB exactly how many buses needed (DB upped the bus PVR on the 17a and made running times longer about 2 years ago which ironed out any issues - mind you, in 10 years using it, never experienced 5 missed departures in a row at peak).

I'm not sure if GAI are actually giving routes a dedicated PVR allocation or if they're just randomly assigning buses on a day by day basis. I know for fact that in DL they are regularly sending out say an inbound 75 back out on the 63 or the 45a and vice versa.

[Deleted User]

Stephen15 wrote: »

I think Go-Ahead need another depot sooner rather than later on the Northside remember buses have to come all the way from Ballymount to start the routes meaning buses are susceptible to delays going across the M50 everyday especially northbound. They could do with a depot in the DL or Bray area too.

I just want to jump on this issue in particular because it's not going to happen I don't thing.

Go-ahead had issues with their original depot I can't see them putting one in bray/DL
Another in the Northside
Another in edenderry
Another in Kildare etc.

I've a funny feeling that's not happening and I think a lot of their operations will remain at Ballymount

Possibly with the exception of Edenderry giving the distance to get there.

Stephen15

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

I just want to jump on this issue in particular because it's not going to happen I don't thing.

Go-ahead had issues with their original depot I can't see them putting one in bray/DL
Another in the Northside
Another in edenderry
Another in Kildare etc.

I've a funny feeling that's not happening and I think a lot of their operations will remain at Ballymount

Possibly with the exception of Edenderry giving the distance to get there.

They can probably just about get away with operating their DL operations out if Ballymount especially as termini such as Kilternan and Cherrywood are all easy to get to on the M50 but they may be better able to get something out in Bray even if it's just something small for the 184 and 185 likewise in the Swords area for the 102, 33a and 33b. It's dosen't have to be huge maybe just a depot that can take about 5 or 6 buses.

I thought they were planning to build a full depot out in Naas for their ex-BE operations and Ballymount will only be for their Dublin City operations.

Yer Da sells Avon

CramCycle wrote: »

So your saying if everyone who got on the 145 tomorrow didn't pay, the driver shouldn't bat an eyelid?

I'm saying that if the driver asks a passenger to pay, and they refuse to do so, there is nothing to be gained from causing inconvenience/upset to other passengers by having a row, switching the engine off, etc. It's the driver's responsibility to make sure that the company is aware of such incidents. And then it's up to the company to act upon that information.

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I'm saying that if the driver asks a passenger to pay, and they refuse to do so, there is nothing to be gained from causing inconvenience/upset to other passengers by having a row, switching the engine off, etc. It's the driver's responsibility to make sure that the company is aware of such incidents. And then it's up to the company to act upon that information.

Is that the case though.

When Dublin Bus got rid of ticket conductors and dual doors in the 80's, they moved to a model of a single door and the driver selling the tickets.

And here is the important part, drivers got a pay increase for the extra duty of selling tickets. So I'd have thought that ensuring all passengers have paid the correct fare is an important part of their job.

I don't know if it is actually in the T&C's of drivers contracts. But it certainly seemed to have been the intention of Dublin Bus management when they got rid of the ticket conductors in the 80's

Qrt

devnull wrote: »

To be fair though the 17A was chronically unreliable when it was first extended to Blanchardstown Centre

Where was the old terminus?

devnull

Qrt wrote: »

Where was the old terminus?

Finglas, can't remember exactly where for sure.

May have been at the top of Cardiffsbridge Road, where there's a Tesco Metro and a Spar..

StreetLight

devnull wrote: »

Finglas, can't remember exactly where for sure.

May have been at the top of Cardiffsbridge Road, where there's a Tesco Metro and a Spar..

Spot on, that's where it was. There's a triangular formation at the curve in the road, which served as the turn-around point.

Stephen15

bk wrote: »

When Dublin Bus got rid of ticket conductors and dual doors in the 80's, they moved to a model of a single door and the driver selling the tickets.

But the drivers role was just to sell tickets not enforcement of people non payment that however may be a discretionary rule. The non payment of fare is likely a good excuse to refuse someone travel as someone who refuses to pay and then gives abuse to the driver when challenged is likely going to cause trouble on the bus anyway whether it be through smoking, drinking, vandalism or anti social behaviour towards other passengers or staff.

And here is the important part, drivers got a pay increase for the extra duty of selling tickets. So I'd have thought that ensuring all passengers have paid the correct fare is an important part of their job.

I don't think it part of the job officially speaking but drivers do have the authority to refuse travel. I remember reading one the recent NBRU statement about an attack on a Bus Eireann driver and it stated that BE drivers had to ensure passengers paid the correct fare naturally enough as BE fares a lot larger on long distance routes but this is not a requirement of DB drivers.

I don't know if it is actually in the T&C's of drivers contracts. But it certainly seemed to have been the intention of Dublin Bus management when they got rid of the ticket conductors in the 80's

I think DB is relying on the goodwill of drivers to ensure the payment of fares rather having an official company line on this.

Stephen15 are you a driver? Have you seen their contract and list of duties?

If it isn't part of their contract/list of duties, then I suspect it was a massive oversight on DB's management part. The type of oversight where they didn't think to specifically include it because it is so obvious that it is something drivers should be doing, that they forgot to include it!

When DB got rid of conductors, they paid drivers a significant increase in wages to take on the duties of conductors, which certainly included making sure everyone had a ticket and the correct ticket and not just selling tickets. I'd say it was pretty obvious to most what their duties were supposed to be.

I'm pretty shocked that some drivers don't think it is their job to make sure people have a ticket. Can you imagine for a moment an Aircoach driver just leaving everyone on for free! He would be fired on the spot.

I'd of course say that it is much harder to keep track of in a busy city type service and we should definitely have a lot more ticket inspectors. But it is definitely part of the job to at least try and make sure most people pay and there isn't too much obvious messing/cheating.

BTW here is a very interesting video on the subject:
https://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/0309/773586-one-man-double-decker-buses/

dfx-

devnull wrote: »

But teething issues on routes operated by drivers who have never operated them before or on brand new routes have always been issues, not just for Go-Ahead, but for Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann, Aircoach and others and the idea that you can just launch a route on day one and everything will be hunky dory every single time is just simply not going to happen and that has been my experience as a whole across UK and Ireland.

If it was that simple then after all these years Dublin Bus should have nailed it, but long gaps in service and multiple missed departures on the 40E yesterday because of traffic jams and what looks like may well end up proving to be insufficient running time, shows that this is not an issue just restricted to services operated by Go-Ahead. I'm not going to say that means DB were not ready because that would be ridiculous.

But this is not a new route. it's the same route that has operated since they were awarded the tender. It's not like the 40E. It's over a year since the 17A was announced as going to them - why are they unfamiliar with the route? Why are they unfamiliar with the chokepoints?

devnull wrote: »

To me that sounds like a vehicle that may well have been suffering from some kind of technical fault. Although one has to ask, how do you know that it was in service if there were no lights, and no destination displays? Perhaps it was being used as a training bus?

The internal lights and displays were fine. Unless there was about 30 trainers on the bus, stopping at 17A stops, mostly sitting upstairs going between Santry and Beaumont Hospital - the 17A route, I don't think it was in training. All the USB ports and doors in the world are not much use if you don't know what route the brand new bus approaching you is operating. It's one hell of a technical fault.

There was also a single decker being used, which should not be anywhere near a route as busy as the 17A.

AlekSmart

bk wrote: »

Is that the case though.

When Dublin Bus got rid of ticket conductors and dual doors in the 80's, they moved to a model of a single door and the driver selling the tickets.

And here is the important part, drivers got a pay increase for the extra duty of selling tickets. So I'd have thought that ensuring all passengers have paid the correct fare is an important part of their job.

I don't know if it is actually in the T&C's of drivers contracts. But it certainly seemed to have been the intention of Dublin Bus management when they got rid of the ticket conductors in the 80's

It has little to do with the T's & C's of the particular company,but the Busdriver,on the introduction of One Person Operation,"assumed the duties & responsibilities proper to the Conductor",which entailed far more than merely collecting Busfares.

As to this particular issue,the Busdrivers current duty is to ensure,to the best of their ability,that all passengers are in possession of a valid ticket or pass when boarding.
If a boarding passenger states a destination,accepts the issued ticket,and subsequently remains on the bus after that tickets validity has expired,it is entirely a matter for the passenger.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/191/made/en/print#article44

48 Rules for passengers on large public service vehicle.

48. Every passenger or intending passenger on a large public service vehicle shall comply with the following rules, that is to say:

(1) He shall not wilfully obstruct or impede the driver or conductor of the vehicle or any other person employed in or about the vehicle.

(2) On an omnibus route or portion of an omnibus route on which there are stopping places, he shall not enter an omnibus except at a stopping place for taking up intending passengers, or alight from an omnibus except at a stopping place for setting down passengers.

(3) He shall not enter or alight from the vehicle otherwise than by the doors or openings provided for that purpose, and he shall not use any emergency exit except in an emergency.

(4) He shall not travel in or on any part of the vehicle not provided for the conveyance of passengers.

(5) He shall not travel in or on the upper deck of a double-deck vehicle unless he occupies a seat provided for that purpose.

(6) He shall comply with any lawful direction given to him by the conductor of the vehicle including a request to leave or not to enter the vehicle.

(7) He shall not use obscene or offensive language or conduct himself in a riotous or disorderly manner.

(8) He shall not smoke or carry a lighted pipe, cigar or cigarette in or on any part of the vehicle in or on which a notice is exhibited that smoking is prohibited.

(9) He shall not spit upon or from the vehicle or wilfully damage, soil or defile any part of the vehicle.

(10) He shall not when in or on the vehicle distribute printed or similar matter of any description, or distribute any article for the purpose of advertising, or offer any article for sale.

(11) He shall not, to the annoyance of other passengers, either use or operate any wireless apparatus or other instrument or make or combine with any other person or persons to make any excessive noise by singing, shouting or otherwise.

(12) He shall not throw out of the vehicle any bottle, liquid or litter or any other article or thing likely to annoy persons or to cause danger or injury to any person or property.

(13) Where a door is fitted to the opening through which passengers enter and leave the vehicle, he shall not open such door unless the vehicle is stationary and a conductor is not available.

(14) He shall not wilfully do or cause to be done with respect to any part of the vehicle or its equipment anything which is calculated to obstruct or interfere with the working of the vehicle or to cause injury or discomfort to any person.

(15) He shall not wilfully remove, displace, deface or alter any number plate, notice board, fare table, route indicator, or destination board or any printed or other notice or advertisement in or on the vehicle.

(16) He shall not give any signal which might be interpreted by the driver as a signal from the conductor to start the vehicle.

(17) He shall not by signal or otherwise, except for the purpose of enabling him to enter the vehicle at a point where the vehicle can lawfully be stopped for the purpose of taking up intending passengers or for the purpose of enabling him to leave the vehicle at a point where the vehicle can lawfully be stopped for the purpose of setting down passengers, cause the driver to stop the vehicle.

(18) He shall not carry on a vehicle—

(a) any bulky or cumbersome article except with the consent of the conductor and in such portion of the vehicle as the conductor shall direct, or

(b) any animal, except with the permission of the conductor (which permission may be withdrawn at any time by the conductor) and in such portion of the vehicle as the conductor shall direct.

(19) He shall deliver up to the conductor any article of lost property found by him on the vehicle.

(20) A passenger in an omnibus shall, on the request of the conductor or any other person authorised in that behalf by the owner of the vehicle—

(a) inform the conductor or other authorised person of the journey he has taken or intends to take and of the place at which he entered the omnibus,

(b) pay the fare for the whole journey taken or intended to be taken by him and accept the appropriate ticket, and

(c) produce to the conductor or such other person the ticket given to him in respect of the fare.

It is generally accepted by most reasonable people,that once the initial Fare Transaction has been completed,it is neither possible,nor desirable,for an OPO Busdriver to move around the vehicle constantly checking the validity of Tickets/Passes as a Conductor would have been able to.

Beyond the strident realms of on-line fora,the reality of the matter is that MOST Public Transport users ARE honest,and will comply with the Fare requirements.

Fare Evasion,of itself,is quite rare,whereas Over-riding,either accidentally or deliberate & continual is somewhat more common,although nowhere near the levels which many believe it to be.

What makes the Irish Public Transport situation so unique is the existance of the Free Travel Scheme and it's broad scope,whereby c.30% of the entire Adult population is entitled to travel Free of Charge.

Over the decades,this,and the State's ownership of the entire PT system,led to a culture of simply waving through,and non concern about the economics of providing the service.

Those travelling in the UK or indeed Northern Ireland,would always have encountered a somewhat more robust methodology of Fare Collection and Ticket Checking.

Although,in the current UK Public Bus Service market,the universal Free Travel Scheme and it's lack of funding is leading to significant cuts and the demise of many long established Public Bus Services across the UK.

You reap as you shall sow,in a manner of speaking ?

Stephen15

bk wrote: »

Stephen15 are you a driver? Have you seen their contract and list of duties?

If it isn't part of their contract/list of duties, then I suspect it was a massive oversight on DB's management part. The type of oversight where they didn't think to specifically include it because it is so obvious that it is something drivers should be doing, that they forgot to include it!

I'm not I can only go off what people who say they work as drivers say here and various press releases by unions etc. As much as I'm not a fan of them I'd imagine the NBRU would be a fairly reliable source when commenting on the duties of DB and BE drivers. I can't find the news article now unfortunately but I remember reading recently that BE drivers had to ensure each passenger paid the correct fare but this was not the duty of DB drivers I think they were seeking parity to prevent assaults.

It may have previously been a responsibility of the driver by that may have went out the window with the advent of the exact fare policy after a spate of assaults and hold ups on drivers but that's just a guess

I'm pretty shocked that some drivers don't think it is their job to make sure people have a ticket. Can you imagine for a moment an Aircoach driver just leaving everyone on for free! He would be fired on the spot.

I'd of course say that it is much harder to keep track of in a busy city type service and we should definitely have a lot more ticket inspectors. But it is definitely part of the job to at least try and make sure most people pay and there isn't too much obvious messing/cheating.

There is a difference between a driver facilitating and encouraging fare evasion and not doing anything about it. I've been on DB buses where the driver has said that the ticket machine is broken and the you can go on for free. There is a difference between Aircoach and DB, BE drivers also have to ensure correct fare payment is made but I believe the NBRU perhaps unrealistically want to seek parity with DB with driver not responsible for fare collection, exact fare policy, assault screens etc.

[Deleted User]

Ruth coppinger TD lashing out on Twitter there over a few different issues.

1 being the government giving 3 million euro to push go ahead taking over some bus eireann routes.

She raised questions with Shane Ross over it.

Anybody get answers to this today ?

Tickityboo

bk wrote: »

Stephen15 are you a driver? Have you seen their contract and list of duties?

If it isn't part of their contract/list of duties, then I suspect it was a massive oversight on DB's management part. The type of oversight where they didn't think to specifically include it because it is so obvious that it is something drivers should be doing, that they forgot to include it!

When DB got rid of conductors, they paid drivers a significant increase in wages to take on the duties of conductors, which certainly included making sure everyone had a ticket and the correct ticket and not just selling tickets. I'd say it was pretty obvious to most what their duties were supposed to be.

I'm pretty shocked that some drivers don't think it is their job to make sure people have a ticket. Can you imagine for a moment an Aircoach driver just leaving everyone on for free! He would be fired on the spot.

I'd of course say that it is much harder to keep track of in a busy city type service and we should definitely have a lot more ticket inspectors. But it is definitely part of the job to at least try and make sure most people pay and there isn't too much obvious messing/cheating.

BTW here is a very interesting video on the subject:
https://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/0309/773586-one-man-double-decker-buses/

I recall a few years back there was a notice placed in depots and in the staff canteen requesting drivers to ask people availing of the minimum fare their destination they were traveling to as it was important to protect company revenue.
So someone in head office obviously thought it was part of the drivers duties.

dashcamdanny

john boye wrote: »

Could I ask what is the official company line on fare evaders/overriders? Are drivers instructed to pick them up on it/kick them off?

The official line is to make sure everyone has a valid ticket to travel. If you encounter any trouble that we are not prepared to deal with, we are advised to contact control for advise. Then they will ask us how we would like to proceed. Like do we require a Garda .
At the end of the day. No one is going anywhere unless the driver wants to drive. As I did mention, you pick your battles with care.
Its up to each driver . But most drivers wont put up with it either. Its not a free service.