My objection is on the issue of security/authentication, and also some stubbornness and ludditeness.
I could see the benefit of replacing signatures with PIN authorisation. It's a simple match/fail decision, as opposed to asking a cashier to judge how similar two scribbles are. The new system reduced card fraud, and made unattended/not-in-person card payment (internet payments, ticket vending machine) practical. (Signing a digital "pad", and expecting a computer to compare it with an on-file signature is a more complex and less rugged solution.) Memorising a four-digit number is reasonably easy for a typical person, and not likely to be guessed in a limited number of attempts. For those who have difficulties with PIN payment, they can arrange with their bank to roll back to signature-only cards instead.
Contactless payments, by comparison, don't seem to offer a benefit that I want. Payment is quicker (slowness was one complaint about Chip & PIN when it was introduced), but that's it as far as I can see. In contrast, the security of the authorisation system is significantly reduced: there's nothing in the process that proves that I authorise the payment (as opposed to anyone else who has my card in their hands).
There are back-end limitations that have been put in place to mitigate the dangers. transaction value* limits, and a requirement to enter a PIN every few transactions. And a commitment by banks to refund any fraudulent transactions. (Once you inform your bank, and flag up all such transaction for them.) But these all strike me as being sticking plasters trying to patch up the contactless system, which don't get back to the standards of the Chip & PIN system.
Banks and (many) retailers are clearly in favour of contactless payment, so there must be some advantage to them. Especially the banks, as they have a financial cost in refunding fraudulent transactions. Is it a case of avoiding losing customers to competitors that are offering the service? Or do the quicker transactions result in significant time/staff saving? I'm not sure what it is.
But whatever their viewpoint, the benefits aren't very great for me. I put more value on the lost security/authorisation than the added speed and convenience. So I'll stick to PIN payments, thanks.
When opening a new bank account recently, I was pleased to be asked if I wanted a contactless card, as I was given the opportunity to decline it. My existing banks just sent out a contactless-enabled card, in one case long before the previous card had expired. I had to go back to them and say "no thanks". I have kept one contactless card, however, for any unforeseen situations: It might be useful as a mock-oyster card one day, for example. But in the meantime I can tell the bank that any and all contactless payments were done by someone else, should the need arise.
*these have increased since introduction IIRC. Low limits to help reassure new users, and later raised when people have become comfortable with the new payment system.
