|
Post by lc1 on Sept 21, 2013 9:24:27 GMT
Does anyone know if there is anyone representing the drivers in the consultation with TFL? Theres nothing stopping you answering the official consultation.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 27, 2013 22:21:53 GMT
London Travelwatch have now submitted their formal response to the TfL consultation on cashless buses. There are a few issues they've identified that I haven't thought of.
|
|
|
Post by ajw on Sept 27, 2013 22:38:46 GMT
I'm also against this negative balance as it could lead to people avoiding to pay off the negative to return to positive. Not really. Think back to when you got your Oyster card and how much you paid for it. You would have paid a deposit and an initial balance. So no reason what so ever you cannot go negative up to the deposit amount. It will still be cheaper to then top-up and get positive again rather than buy a new card so don't see why people would do what you suggest when it will cost them more ultimately.
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Sept 28, 2013 18:11:38 GMT
The reply from london travel watch is, imo, a load of left wing mumbo jumbo b*llocks!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 13:41:20 GMT
The reply from london travel watch is, imo, a load of left wing mumbo jumbo b*llocks!!! I'm afraid that I have to disagree with your in depth, thought provoking analysis. London Travelwatch have voiced the same concerns as many others, are they all wrong? Why are TfL wasting money even considering going cashless?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 30, 2013 14:58:39 GMT
The reply from london travel watch is, imo, a load of left wing mumbo jumbo b*llocks!!! Hardly. You might be able to survive in the "urban jungle" (akin to your posting name) but not everyone can. It is entirely correct that a body that is established to look after passenger interests seeks to defend *all* passengers. Some of the comments also quite rightly highlight the nigh on impossibility of bus drivers all acting in a consistent and fair manner. I can't recall if you are a bus driver or not but some of the attitudes expressed on this forum, by people who do drive buses, would quite frankly scare the pants off me if I found myself needing to be the beneficiary of TfL's stated "policy of discretion" about allowing vulnerable people to travel. I also do not see that issues like allowing a second "free" decrement from the Oyster deposit to get people home or suggesting the expansion of Oyster outlets to be "left wing horlicks" as you so deftly put it. I trust you will be responding to the consultation saying that TfL should go ahead regardless and can buses be equipped with machine guns so that "vulnerable people" can simply be shot and left at the roadside (as Rambo would surely do) rather than clutter up the interior of a bus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 15:31:54 GMT
Since when have bus drivers been expected to be paid up social workers? As rambo said earlier lots of "sob stories" are people taking the pee - the way some people talk is if drivers have some sort of legal duty of care to anyone who does not want to pay for travel as long as they play their cards right - there needs to be a rebalancing from tfl/companies about this "vulnerable people" - at the moment drivers are dammed whatever they do.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Sept 30, 2013 16:27:33 GMT
Since when have bus drivers been expected to be paid up social workers? As rambo said earlier lots of "sob stories" are people taking the pee - the way some people talk is if drivers have some sort of legal duty of care to anyone who does not want to pay for travel as long as they play their cards right - there needs to be a rebalancing from tfl/companies about this "vulnerable people" - at the moment drivers are dammed whatever they do. I'm firmly in the vulnerable need to be protected camp, but subject to a very narrow definition. My view is if you can find your way to a bus stop you have already done the riskier part so don't need a charitable ride. If you have been mugged so have no money then police won't dump you in unsafe place so shouldn't be needing a bus. However I do think would be sensible to add a 24hr oyster top up machine to town centre bus stations that are night route hubs.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 30, 2013 17:17:20 GMT
Since when have bus drivers been expected to be paid up social workers? As rambo said earlier lots of "sob stories" are people taking the pee - the way some people talk is if drivers have some sort of legal duty of care to anyone who does not want to pay for travel as long as they play their cards right - there needs to be a rebalancing from tfl/companies about this "vulnerable people" - at the moment drivers are dammed whatever they do. Err excuse me - where has anyone said they have to be "paid up social workers"? It is precisely this extreme reaction and the immediate assumption that *everyone* is somehow on the take that makes me profoundly worried about TfL's blase presumption that their existing processes work. They clearly cannot do so because I cannot believe that the TfL process includes some of the attitudes displayed on this group. No one is saying drivers have a legal duty but they *do* have to implement TfL's policies in the way TfL require. I do not doubt for a second that there *are* people who try to bend every rule in the book to con their way on to the bus. We've all seen it but it is a matter of degrees between genuine vulnerability and a try on. Do you or any other driver on this group want to be the driver who refuses travel to someone who is then attacked? It has happened before and the opprobrium falls on the driver and the bus company. My criticism is of TfL's belief that they already have an adequate and workable policy. Based on what I have seen with my own eyes and read here and elsewhere I do not believe that they do. Clearly London Travelwatch don't believe it either. That is NOT to blame the drivers - it is to criticise an assumption by TfL that if they say something in a policy that it is immediately delivered flawlessly and human nature and cynicism doesn't get in the way. Of course they get in the way and that's the rub - who do you imagine will be blamed if a driver kicks someone off a bus and something horrendous happens? Err the driver unless they have flawlessly followed TfL's policy and if they had the person would not have been kicked off the bus. The whole thing is badly thought out and does not properly address concerns about how genuine people will be treated. That includes the bus drivers trying to do their job in difficult circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Sept 30, 2013 20:19:50 GMT
Reading London Travelwatch's reply, I agree that the Tramlink TVM's need to be upgraded and an increase of Oyster Ticket Stop agents in Surrey, although I don't know of any TfL routes in Merstham. Redhill does have Oyster Ticket Stops, including at the Bus Station for the 405 bus route.
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Sept 30, 2013 22:09:17 GMT
I know I may come accross as a bit harsh, so heres my take on LTW's reply. I think it would be fair to say that most,but not all drivers can tell the difference between a genuine vulnerable person, and someone pulling a fast one. TFL are not withdrawing the UFN, so that will still be avaliable if needed. One thing that did annoy me was LTW's worry about drivers commiting fraud. IMO, cashless will make no difference to the amount of fraud. The 'oyster dip' facilty, on the face of it is a good idea, but LTW have raised the issue about someone needing 2 buses to get home, so lets say that TFL offer a double dip facilty, LTW will probably say 'what about people who need to take 3 buses'. LTW are also worried about delays caused by people trying to pay cash but are not allowed. IMO, this will be no worse than the people we deal with at the moment who try to travel free anyway. LTW are also worried about tourists. My answer to that would be good information at airports/ferry terminals/train stations/hotels etc etc telling tourists that will need an oyster to travel on public transport, the same as they do in holland; www.ov-chipkaart.nl/aanvragen/watisdeovchipkaart/?taal=en, It seems to work well there. If TFL do go cashless, there will need to be good publicity telling people. For the amount of cash we take, and the money it costs to run it, surely it makes sense to go cashless? I understand that if cashless is introduced, there may be problems to start, but people will get used to it. TFL, imo, cannot be mum/dad to the passengers, passengers MUST accept that they have to make sure they have enough funds on thier oyster.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Sept 30, 2013 23:24:40 GMT
I know I may come accross as a bit harsh, so heres my take on LTW's reply. I think it would be fair to say that most,but not all drivers can tell the difference between a genuine vulnerable person, and someone pulling a fast one. TFL are not withdrawing the UFN, so that will still be avaliable if needed. One thing that did annoy me was LTW's worry about drivers commiting fraud. IMO, cashless will make no difference to the amount of fraud. The 'oyster dip' facilty, on the face of it is a good idea, but LTW have raised the issue about someone needing 2 buses to get home, so lets say that TFL offer a double dip facilty, LTW will probably say 'what about people who need to take 3 buses'. LTW are also worried about delays caused by people trying to pay cash but are not allowed. IMO, this will be no worse than the people we deal with at the moment who try to travel free anyway. LTW are also worried about tourists. My answer to that would be good information at airports/ferry terminals/train stations/hotels etc etc telling tourists that will need an oyster to travel on public transport, London's buses and underground systems are well advertised on the New York subways, not just the JFK express but also on the E train, N train, RR train and Path trains (the latter that also goes into New Jersey).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2013 10:39:41 GMT
Since when have bus drivers been expected to be paid up social workers? As rambo said earlier lots of "sob stories" are people taking the pee - the way some people talk is if drivers have some sort of legal duty of care to anyone who does not want to pay for travel as long as they play their cards right - there needs to be a rebalancing from tfl/companies about this "vulnerable people" - at the moment drivers are dammed whatever they do. Gotta love these in depth though provoking analysis's. What exactly is the connection with social workers? If somebody gets on on, touches their Oystercard in but finds there is insufficient credit and the driver cannot accept cash what happens next? Should they do a 50/50, phone a friend or ask the audience perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Swadbus on Oct 2, 2013 10:54:26 GMT
I'm of the opinion that if somebody gets on the bus and they are not in a position to pay, and the driver considers them vulnerable, then the police should be called in all instances. That way the onus is removed from he bus driver, anybody who is vulnerable gets the assistance they need, and anybody taking the proverbial urine gets dealt with win-win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2013 11:13:54 GMT
I'm of the opinion that if somebody gets on the bus and they are not in a position to pay, and the driver considers them vulnerable, then the police should be called in all instances. That way the onus is removed from he bus driver, anybody who is vulnerable gets the assistance they need, and anybody taking the proverbial urine gets dealt with win-win. Oh yeah.................I mean its not like the police have got anything better to do!!
|
|