An observation about the public approach to travelling without paying

[sparks2000]

I was at a charity event where the attendees were donating their time to indirectly raise money for the charity whilst also paying their own money for the opportunity to do so.

I overheard a young person talking with her father. She explained that on a work journey by train she always buys a ticket because the barriers are operating at Snow Hill. On other journeys when she "knows" the barriers are off or not installed she doesn't buy a ticket.

I contrast that position, that ticket operations are to be "gamed" and that it's the TOCs issue to make the system unbeatable with this thread wherein the OPs statement of intention to pay regardless.
A poster in that thread suggested that TOCs use RPI because they know that prosecution gets results in terms of regular ticket purchases.

I suggest that the TOCs game the system when they choose to use RPI to balance collections.

In my opinion it would pay the TOCs to advertise the difference between penalty and prosecution more widely. The penalty has the effect in my view of suggesting that there are three types of ticket, standard tickets, free rides and expensive when caught tickets roulette wheel tickets.

As a citizen I'd like to see these businesses use their legitimate fares to gather revenue than to also game the system. I'd also like to see the criminal offences dealt with more appropriately.

I am uncomfortable about the criminal recovery privileges that TOCs have whilst supporting their need to recover the fares. If TOCs are gaming the system then they are not in my opinion using those privileges in the way they were intended when they were granted. I suspect in those days ticket avoidance was much widely understood to be a wrong deed.

In this young person example I could see general good citizenship with a misplaced understanding of the consequences of ticketless travel.

I wonder how many (young) people get criminal records that they would not get if they were educated to pay their tickets fairly and how much more revenue might the railways keep. We can say that they should know these things naturally but it seems they do not. When I have spoken to people they usually see they have weighed the risks incorrectly. I suspect there is a lack of education about the severity of consequences of ticketless travel. Many younger people do not understand that the automated faceless system they use has costs and strong (unusually strong in my opinion) protections in place to recover fares. You can also see this by the shocked reaction of some of the requests for help on the prosecutions forum here. "Victimless" crime is something that youngsters need to be educated about - it's not a natural observation.

The father did not correct the young person - I assume he too was making the same error of judgement. I did not talk to them at the time, I wish I had now but it's too late for that.

 

[Clip]

Being young and ignorant of the consequences of ticketless travel does not excuse them for not purchasing before they travel and they deserve what happens to them if this is what they do.

 

[Harpers Tate]

It's a curious thing, this mentality that it's somehow "OK" to not pay. It's far more widespread, I suspect, than an equivalent attitude as regards, say, shoplifting.

But, in fact, it's probably far LESS widespread than the equivalent attitude about copyright theft (eg from ripping music or movies). I wonder how many of those members here who express utterly no sympathy for non-payers are nevertheless actually guilty themselves of copying music or movie or software, or of buying a known pirate DVD. etc.

I suppose the difference with more substantial thefts (such as, shoplifting) is that if we compare exactly these two cases (and no other scenario):

case 1: I undertake the activity but I do not pay for it as I should
case 2: I do not undertake the activity at all

then, if the activity is taking goods from a shop, the shop is in a true loss situation - has lost at the least the wholesale value of the goods
whereas, if the activity is riding a train, there is in fact no measurable loss incurred by the TOC or anyone else
And similarly, if the activity is (eg) making a copy of a film, then nobody actually loses anything.

The third case (which I intentionally omitted above) is

case 3: I undertake the activity and I DO pay for it as I should

This is what brings into the debate the matter of revenue loss.

In reality, revenue loss only arises where I was going to do the activity anyway, but simply did not pay for it. And that will of course be the case in most instances. But if I choose between either not travelling at all, or travelling without paying, then there is no true loss anywhere. Ditto watching a ripped film or listening to copied music.

Perhaps it's this that makes our moral compass rather harder to read.

(And - no - I'm not condoning fare evasion or copyright theft or anything else).

 

[whiwofbs]

I agree with the gist of Harper Tale's analysis. I think many people are of the opinion that the costs of running a railway service are set, and thus their fare evasion doesn't vary the cost to the train operator. Many are also of the opinion that railways are a public service funded by the public purse so there is less immorality to avoiding the fare as in a convoluted way they had already paid in some way through their taxes, even though public subsidy is falling.

 

[maniacmartin]

This thread reminds me of a paradox I was thinking about recently. (Well it may not technically be a paradox but it feels like it).

For leisure journeys, most people have a maximum amount that they are willing to pay for the journey. If they have to pay more than this, then they will stay at home.

If the fare that is less then they would be willing to pay and is evaded, the railways are deprived of this fare. However, if the fare is more than what they are willing to pay, then the passenger would not have made the journey at all if they were not able to evade the fare, thus the cost to the railways of this fare evasion is negligible.

Thus, the higher the cost of the fare, the less chance of it the TOC will be deprived of anything if the fare is evaded.

This way of thinking applies to pirate DVDs etc too. Though pirate music can work both ways as it gives you the chance to sample lessor known bands. I have downloaded MP3s of artists I know little about and liked what I have heard, so gone and bought the CD to support them, but I would not have gambled the money upfront on buying the CD on music that I might not even like.

 

[sparks2000]

Being young and ignorant of the consequences of ticketless travel does not excuse them for not purchasing before they travel and they deserve what happens to them if this is what they do.

Being dead because someone untrained in using a car runs you over does not make the driver any less responsible - but it also doesn't make you any less dead.

Compulsory training of young people exists as an accepted norm in our society - it has generally been accepted as beneficial.

If ignorance causes negative consequences to others then removing ignorance will deliver a benefit to those others.

What happens to them is of no benefit to you beyond recovery of any actual lost revenues. The punishment element of the penalty being nothing more than revenge if it has no benefit?

 

[meridian2]

Being dead because someone untrained in using a car runs you over does not make the driver any less responsible - but it also doesn't make you any less dead.

Compulsory training of young people exists as an accepted norm in our society - it has generally been accepted as beneficial.

If ignorance causes negative consequences to others then removing ignorance will deliver a benefit to those others.

What happens to them is of no benefit to you beyond recovery of any actual lost revenues. The punishment element of the penalty being nothing more than revenge if it has no benefit?

Straw-man argument. It's hardly ignorance if it is well signposted at stations that you have to pay before you travel, nor is it ignorance that the consequences for doing so are both lucid and well documented.
Evading fares and travelling without a valid ticket is a purely conscientious decision and it's one people take because they want a 'freebie'. There is no 'revenge' or whatever overtly emotive term you want to call it if the TOC in question want to challenge someone travelling without a ticket. That's the rules and the consequences are clear and there is no excuses.

 

[sparks2000]

This thread reminds me of a paradox I was thinking about recently. (Well it may not technically be a paradox but it feels like it).

I also see that "paradox" for intangible goods but rail travel is different.

For rail travel there is a tangible loss to the supplier - provision of the infrastructure, provision of a service that would not exist if some demand to use did not exist, fuel, soap, water in the toilet, cleaning, wear and tear - lost opportunity because other potential users are discouraged to travel due to over crowding etc. The are tangible benefits even to free loaders - spending in the station outlets, the economic benefit of someone working that might otherwise not be able to afford to travel to get work etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Straw-man argument. It's hardly ignorance if it is well signposted at stations that you have to pay before you travel, nor is it ignorance that the consequences for doing so are both lucid and well documented.
Evading fares and travelling without a valid ticket is a purely conscientious decision and it's one people take because they want a 'freebie'. There is no 'revenge' or whatever overtly emotive term you want to call it if the TOC in question want to challenge someone travelling without a ticket. That's the rules and the consequences are clear and there is no excuses.

My point is that the crime is for whatever reason is perceived as victimless. Continue to educate to change that view. I suggest that is going to be harder to achieve. It requires a system more finely balanced than simple cause and effect.

The punishments - are severe - but not at all well understood. By education we can make them more widely understood and the punishment will become a valuable deterrent.

For clarification - I am not suggesting that the punishments be removed - my observation is about the way the system is used and how it might be more effective. I did say that contractual default for rail travel has unusually serious consequences - I mean that in comparison to other commercial default - I am not really sure why that is. Why does rail travel have a preferential status. It may turn out that I am wrong on that assumption. Then I will have been glad to have been educated.

 

[Clip]

Being dead because someone untrained in using a car runs you over does not make the driver any less responsible - but it also doesn't make you any less dead.

Compulsory training of young people exists as an accepted norm in our society - it has generally been accepted as beneficial.

If ignorance causes negative consequences to others then removing ignorance will deliver a benefit to those others.

What happens to them is of no benefit to you beyond recovery of any actual lost revenues. The punishment element of the penalty being nothing more than revenge if it has no benefit?

You really didnt just write that as a comparison did you?

 

[Deerfold]

It's true that whilst TOCs have more notices about it being illegal to travel without a ticket, few make the consequences as clear as they could. Witness the number of people on here surprised to be prosecuted (and sometimes terrified) when they thought the wort they'd get would be a penalty fare.

 

[PowerLee]

Would be nice if there where staffed barriers at every station, maybe it will happen in the future.

I've done a couple of Bedford to St Pancras returns recently, in the afternoon barriers are in use both ends plus ticket check on train.

Come back after 11pm & barriers both end's are open & no ticket checks on train.

Also did Kettering to Nottingham return a while back, ticket check in both directions, did spot a lot of open barriers at stations the train stopped at during the journey.

 

[Clip]

It's true that whilst TOCs have more notices about it being illegal to travel without a ticket, few make the consequences as clear as they could. Witness the number of people on here surprised to be prosecuted (and sometimes terrified) when they thought the wort they'd get would be a penalty fare.

And this is the problem - a lot of them seem to expect which means to me they may be trying to actually pllay the game themselves.

 

[Johnny_w]

I've often wondered about this, and I like Harpers take on it.

Basically Train goes from A to B.

If i'm on it or not. So if the charge is £100 for this journey and it's too expensive (yer yer, I know, 'expensive' is subjective) then the train still does A to B.

Is this why pre-booking advance fares at silly money now exist? To entice the leisure traveller by allowing someone to get that train from A to B. at a reduced cost to the £100 ?

JW

 

[DownSouth]

You really didnt just write that as a comparison did you?

Makes for a nice change from endless analogies about supermarkets.

 

[Deerfold]

And this is the problem - a lot of them seem to expect which means to me they may be trying to actually pllay the game themselves.

But if they were playing knowing the penalties, perhaps fewer would choose to play.

 

[sparks2000]

But if they were playing knowing the penalties, perhaps fewer would choose to play.

With my verbosity ^ that is the point I was trying to make. They think the penalty is £x and a victimless crime. If we do more to make sure they understand that it could be a criminal record offence then fewer people with chance it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You really didnt just write that as a comparison did you?

I certainly did. I don't get your point though - sorry. I know its an extreme case. I wanted an analogy for education is not solely for the benefit of the trainee.

 

[Haywain]

But if they were playing knowing the penalties, perhaps fewer would choose to play.

I think the majority of such people are not bothered about the penalties - what is most important to them is the likelihood of being caught.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Not that youngsters "bunking the fare" is new - endemic in the 1970's when BR / LT even staffed stations - a quick run through was the order of the day for many kids.

 

[Chris999999]

...But, in fact, it's probably far LESS widespread than the equivalent attitude about copyright theft (eg from ripping music or movies). I wonder how many of those members here who express utterly no sympathy for non-payers are nevertheless actually guilty themselves of copying music or movie or software,...

An interesting subject, which has little to do with rail travel, and a situation where technology has moved on from the law. Even the record companies accept that if you own a CD and then rip it to play on your iPod, phone, at home etc. then you are only playing music you have paid for, and there has never been a prosecution for doing this even though it is technically illegal.

 

[sparks2000]

Not that youngsters "bunking the fare" is new - endemic in the 1970's when BR / LT even staffed stations - a quick run through was the order of the day for many kids.

I was with a friend who also being 15 but looking older tried to travel with a child fare on a bus the inspector gave him a pretty serious lecture on the consequences of a prosecution and pressurising him to not make a false statement. I was 15 at the time and a bit annoyed to be accused to be dodging a fare but the point about fare dodging being more serious than I thought has never left me.

As a comparison to kids I know of a soon to be retiring, adult, company director that bragged he rubbed the guard's ink off his tickets and reused them if they were not marked. A complete an utter idiot beyond saving from himself. No amount of education going to help him.

 

[Harpers Tate]

For rail travel there is a tangible loss to the supplier

Not really - well, nothing measurable as regards ONE person who travels without paying, rather than not travelling at all (and not paying). The train will still run whether they are there or not; the stations will still exist whether they are there or not; the staff will still be being paid....and so on. The actions of this one traveller DO NOT materially affect costs at all. It's only when they would have travelled AND paid that a true loss - of revenue - arises.

...if you own a CD and then rip it to play on your iPod, phone, at home etc. then you are only playing music you have paid for, and there has never been a prosecution for doing this even though it is technically illegal.

I really meant .... copying a mate's material, or downloading a torrent or.... (etc).

In fact I believe copying your OWN material in the circumstances you describe is no longer illegal, even.

 

[londiscape]

But, in fact, it's probably far LESS widespread than the equivalent attitude about copyright theft (eg from ripping music or movies). I wonder how many of those members here who express utterly no sympathy for non-payers are nevertheless actually guilty themselves of copying music or movie or software, or of buying a known pirate DVD. etc.

I suppose the difference with more substantial thefts (such as, shoplifting) is that if we compare exactly these two cases (and no other scenario):

An interesting subject, which has little to do with rail travel, and a situation where technology has moved on from the law. Even the record companies accept that if you own a CD and then rip it to play on your iPod, phone, at home etc. then you are only playing music you have paid for, and there has never been a prosecution for doing this even though it is technically illegal.

I really meant .... copying a mate's material, or downloading a torrent or.... (etc).

In fact I believe copying your OWN material in the circumstances you describe is no longer illegal, even.

As I understand it (I'm prepared to be corrected by those better versed in IP law) the receiving and possessing of copyrighted works, contrary to the terms of the appropriate license for the same works, is NOT a criminal offence and has nothing to do with theft or any other facet of criminal law, and is a matter only between the rights holder and the infringer to resolve at civil law. I believe this is the case for 99.9% of copyright infringement in this country, that being for one's own personal use. This is as distinct between those making and distributing infringing material in the course of a business for financial gain (i.e. the bloke selling counterfeit DVDs or games in the pub or the local street market) who could be prosecuted under criminal law with the involvement of police and trading standards (although it still isn't theft, I believe).

The use of words like "piracy" and "theft" and "guilty" as we see regularly in the cinema and the naming of organisations like Federation Against Copyright Theft, has entered into general usage, however I would suspect to originate as propaganda on the part of the larger creative content studios and record labels who wish to misinform the public that downloading the latest episode of Game of Thrones off a torrent site is MORE serious than it actually is.

Where we seem to have the opposite problem on the railways, where the public (crass generalisation I know) tends to believe that ticketing offences are LESS serious than they actually are, and in fact I'm sure many people don't believe that certain activities even ARE offences (i.e. the genuine mistakes of which many a story presents on this forum, usually involving the Byelaws).

 

[LateThanNever]

Being young and ignorant of the consequences of ticketless travel does not excuse them for not purchasing before they travel and they deserve what happens to them if this is what they do.

As I've said before if the railway is reckless in its collection of fares, a recklessness in paying will result.
The railway should not have extra powers for being reckless.
The youth think like most, that if 'they' cannot be bothered to collect it they cannot be bothered to pay.
Indeed my own experience in the 1980s I think, was that pay at the other end was common. And if no one was there well who did you pay?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where we seem to have the opposite problem on the railways, where the public (crass generalisation I know) tends to believe that ticketing offences are LESS serious than they actually are, and in fact I'm sure many people don't believe that certain activities even ARE offences (i.e. the genuine mistakes of which many a story presents on this forum, usually involving the Byelaws).

They aren't - it is just that there is a strict liability offence!
And - when anyone can afford to take it further in the Court system - this is likely to be against Natural Justice, or Human Rights in today's parlance.

 

[bb21]

this is likely to be against Natural Justice, or Human Rights in today's parlance.

Well, that didn't take long today, only 23 posts.

 

[LateThanNever]

Well, that didn't take long today, only 23 posts.

I like it!

The system really does need changing! Have written to the MP but whilst an acknowledgement has been received, a proper reply has now been two months and counting! So old is the legislation that it is probably because they have no idea what we're talking about...

 

[tony6499]

I think the majority of such people are not bothered about the penalties - what is most important to them is the likelihood of being caught.

True but most cases people think if they get caught 'bunking' the train the worst that will happen is a penalty fare, hence the many worried posters here who find themselves in deep dodo when they've been caught and how they can rectify their 'honest mistake'.

It's a shame that there is not a joined up policy implemented by all TOC's and the BTP dealing with all manners of ticketless travel and have it widely advertised that if you decide not to pay then you may not enjoy the consequences.

 

[bb21]

I like it!

The system really does need changing! Have written to the MP but whilst an acknowledgement has been received, a proper reply has now been two months and counting! So old is the legislation that it is probably because they have no idea what we're talking about...

Although I agree that the system could do with some improvements, but human rights? Seriously?

 

[meridian2]

As I've said before if the railway is reckless in its collection of fares, a recklessness in paying will result.
The railway should not have extra powers for being reckless.
The youth think like most, that if 'they' cannot be bothered to collect it they cannot be bothered to pay.

The railway shouldn't have to be lumbered with someone else's responsibility, end of story. Any discussion of 'recklessness' is risible since it's not 'recklessness' that's really costing the industry but irresponsibility. If I dodge my tax returns because I assume (wrongly of course) that HMRC cannot be bothered to collect, are HMRC at fault as they are too reckless to challenge me or am I at fault for not adhering to the strict letters I received for not paying my tax returns on time?
It's people's responsibility to pay for their fares. The railway should not be placed in the position of being reckless in the first place.

 

[Deerfold]

I like it!

The system really does need changing! Have written to the MP but whilst an acknowledgement has been received, a proper reply has now been two months and counting! So old is the legislation that it is probably because they have no idea what we're talking about...

Whilst the legislation has been around a long time it's been regularly reviewed and updated.

 

[sparks2000]

The railway shouldn't have to be lumbered with someone else's responsibility, end of story. Any discussion of 'recklessness' is risible since it's not 'recklessness' that's really costing the industry but irresponsibility. If I dodge my tax returns because I assume (wrongly of course) that HMRC cannot be bothered to collect, are HMRC at fault as they are too reckless to challenge me or am I at fault for not adhering to the strict letters I received for not paying my tax returns on time?
It's people's responsibility to pay for their fares. The railway should not be placed in the position of being reckless in the first place.

The shareholders want a return. The company has a duty to act in the interest of shareholders and improve shareholder return. To this end the company needs to get paid in as many cases as possible. The company get little benefit quoting what is right and proper since it cannot be turned into payments. Educate the young - get paid more often. That's a win for the shareholders.