Although it comes up frequently, I think this is one of the most interesting and useful debates that this and other forums have
The gist of my original post was that personally, and people may disagree with me, I think public awareness needs to be raised as to the penalties and possible repercussions of traveling without a valid ticket. It is the TOC and Government's responsibility to do this. One or two discretely placed posters warning about penalty fares isn't too much or a deterrent and does not look threatening enough. The opportunist fare dodger won't be too alarmed. If, however, the warnings are rather more gruesome and brutal then I think they will have more of a desired effect. TOCs need to drum it into everyone that you must have a correct and valid ticket for your journey or else A, B and C will happen. Reinforce the point that fare evasion does not pay and getting caught could result in life changing consequences. Chances are that the very casual traveler who is still confused by the ticketing system , Off peak / peak times, restriction codes etc etc will be just as ignorant to the punishment he/she could face if he did not possess a ticket or the correct ticket for his journey.
Exactly, but when I have previously mentioned making warning signs much more obvious at all railway access points on this and other public forums, I have generally been ‘attacked’ as so many people seem to consider that such action would not be seen as ‘customer friendly’, or might make the railway somehow ‘less attractive’ to the travelling public.
It always amazes me how many people do not recognise that a customer is someone who has paid for a service or goods, whereas the law refers to users of public transport as ‘travellers’, or ‘passengers’. The 98% of the travelling public who always buy the correct ticket and pay their fare can rightly be called customers and do deserve a better deal, which in many cases includes seeing the TOCs take firm action against the other 2%, who disrupt their services and contribute to higher fares to a great extent.
I think most people understand that fare dodging is dishonest. If they don't understand that the rail industry is getting serious about dealing with their thievery, and that the legal system will support their efforts that is their problem. As for the less culpable cases - there is a need for the law (and NCoC) to be overhauled to compel ToCs to ensure that such cases are dealt with proportionately. It should not be possible (even in theory) for a ToC to successfully prosecute a passenger whose only offence is to have their pocket picked on railway property after purchasing their ticket.
Absolutely right. If the traveller has formally reported the loss there is no way that a Byelaw 18.2 case, or issue of a Penalty Fare Notice should ever be possible
If we take that line of reasoning, then yes, a Prosecution is one sure way of getting the message across (especially effective for those who don't read informative posters!). But its a lot of work just to make a difference to one person (or maybe a small handful of close observers / family / friends). General Zod's proposition was that "public awareness needs to be raised as to the penalties and possible repercussions of traveling without a valid ticket." and posters on stations and other well targetted publicity can make a difference to a lot more passengers than a few prosecutions. Now, you would have a better argument if you felt that widespread publicity without visible enforcement would not be credible. But that's a different reason for disagreeing with the proposition. Though its a reason which would be widely supported in those areas where evasion is regular and widespread, fuelled by unstaffed stations and the impracticability of a Guard performing all duties and collecting all fares on busy stopping services. My view is that the effective means of changing widespread public abuse of the system requires several strategies, which will include, publicity, visible prosecutions, additional issuing facilities and more support for front-line staff in busy areas.
But this brings us to a point in these discussions where one of us asks another : "So what would you propose to replace the current legislation?"
Yes, a nationwide strategy, with standardised rules, consistently applied by all TOCs and resulting in referral for prosecution only where a specific set of criteria are met is the only real solution.
i) A relatively low fixed penalty for failing to comply with the terms of a restricted ticket. Eg; The penalty could be say 25% of the fare already paid, must be paid within 7 days.
ii) Consistent application of the Railcard Rules and full single fare collected in every case
iii) A higher level Penalty Fare (£50.00 plus the single fare for the intended journey) for first time offenders who fail to buy a ticket in breach of Byelaw 18.1 and a warning letter issued advising that ‘continued disregard of the rules may be considered to be a wilful intention not to pay’.
iv) Penalty Fares Appeals process to be privatised and accountable direct to DfT
v) Prosecution of Byelaw 18 charges for second offence.
vi) Prosecution of ‘Intent to avoid a fare’ (RRA 1889) for clear intent cases and third time Byelaw breaches & other serious recidivist offending
Take the prosecution process into a separate new franchise business directly accountable to DfT and not TOC directors. CPS do not have the capacity or wish to take on all of these minor offending cases. There is no need to make them all BTP cases either as they will not result in firm action for the same reasons as the TOCs have kept their own prosecution capabilities, but there is no reason why private prosecutions should not continue as now only via a national railways enforcement office.
I would really rather the Government didn't waste my money on producing government information films telling people they need to pay for goods and services. Regardless of whether people know the actual penalty or not they certainly know they should have a ticket. The punishment, however, should fit the crime (so to speak) and the obviously dishonest should certainly be punished more severely than those who make an effort to pay on the train, and presumably this is usually what happens.
I was quite pleased the last time I went to Bradford Interchange to see that it now has ticket barriers, however was slightly less impressed that they were open and unmanned at 15:00 on a weekday. To ensure the vast majority of passengers have tickets you do not need barriers at every station, just the main ones, but not bothering to man them is hardly a deterrent and is just a waste of time and money.
Exactly so. There is no point in putting the infrastructure in place at great expense if it is not fully deployed
[Its interesting that in the UK Government's recent sweep through outdated legislation
here, around 400 old and extant Railway Laws have been repealled this Spring, but no suggestion of updating the most frequently used Railway Acts has been made, despite those used in Fare Prosecutions including one Act from the 1840's and one from the 1880's.]
I think the point that is often overlooked is that the main reason some seemingly antiquated laws remain on the statute book following repeated reviews is that they are good laws.
Laws that serve their purpose particularly well will always stand the test of time.
