Is it immoral to split ticket or exploit loopholes in booking engines or easements?

[DynamicSpirit]

Is it moral to travel from Whitechapel to Abbey Wood via New Cross and Lewisham deliberately with the intention of only paying the TfL fare when you know that the journey is not yet possible without using Southeastern, who set their fares much higher?

What if you actually wanted to travel to Plumstead, but you chose to travel beyond your intended destination to Abbey Wood and then walk back to Plumstead, as you know it is cheaper to travel further and you wanted to deprive Southeastern of the fare for your intended journey?

(Of course these are absurdly worded questions and there is nothing immoral at all about doing this)

Totally agree with you. And in fact this is an obvious consequence of the current fare system where Abbey Wood is considered a joint TfL/NR station even though only NR services run from it. There are lots of journeys to/from Abbey Wood where you will only be charged TfL fares despite that you have to use National Rail at least as far as Woolwich Arsenal.

But how about this example, which is perhaps more debatable... What if you use the pink readers to make it look like you've taken a different route from what you've actually taken?

As one example, Oyster Stratford to Wimbledon is only £1.50 off-peak if you avoid zone 1 by using the Overground Stratford to West Brompton then the District line. To show you've taken that route, you need to touch your Oyster card on the pink readers when changing at West Brompton. It's a bit quicker (but more expensive) if you use the Central line to Notting Hill Gate, and the District line from there - since that is still a TfL-only fare, but now goes into zone 1.

However, I'm guessing (not actually tried this) that you could get the quicker journey AND the cheaper fare if you use the Notting Hill Gate route, but jumped out of the District line train at West Brompton to touch the pink reader, then hopped back on the next District line train. The system would then think you've avoided zone 1, but you haven't.

Is doing that immoral? I'm pretty sure that legally there's nothing wrong with it, because (as far as I know) you wouldn't be breaking any regulation. But I would say it is somewhat unethical because you are deliberately making the system think you've taken a differently priced route from the route you've actually taken. So, is that an example of something that is within the rules but arguably unethical? (I hesitate to say 'immoral' because that word seems a bit strong to me for this situation).

 

[yorksrob]

Is it immoral to split ticket or exploit loopholes in booking engines or easements?

Given how much money the railway industry has screwed out of me this last year, through not operating the services it is supposed to (which I contribute towards as a taxpayer) I say no, it is not remotely immoral at all to exploit loopholes/split ticketing etc.

Squeeze the buggers until the pips squeak, I say.

 

[underbank]

I don’t see why it’s immoral, providing someone is working within the rules of the game. Many of these quirks exist because the railway’s system is ridiculously complicated and fragmented.

Yes, exactly the same with the UK tax system. Those in positions of power who make up these systems are the ones to blame. They know the anomalies and loopholes, but can't be bothered (or lack the ability) to change them..

Same with roads and traffic offences. Some allegedly 30mph speed limits aren't legally enforceable because of non compliant signage and the necessary local by-law/regulation not having been passed. Likewise, some double white lines in the centre of the road aren't enforceable for the same reason, as are some yellow line parking restrictions. It's why that lawyer dubbed "Mr Loophole" usually gets the personalities off charges. Some of these "anomalies" go back years or decades, let the local authorities just can't be bothered to rectify them. Even worse, they park their speed detector vans where they know damn well the limit isn't enforceable in the hope that most people are gullible and will just pay up.

When you, as Joe Public, are up against that kind of incompetent/dishonest authority, like the train ticketing authorities, then it's fair game to play them at their own game. Morality doesn't come into it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, exactly the same with the UK tax system. Those in positions of power who make up these systems are the ones to blame. They know the anomalies and loopholes, but can't be bothered (or lack the ability) to change them..

Same with roads and traffic offences. Some allegedly 30mph speed limits aren't legally enforceable because of non compliant signage and the necessary local by-law/regulation not having been passed. Likewise, some double white lines in the centre of the road aren't enforceable for the same reason, as are some yellow line parking restrictions. It's why that lawyer dubbed "Mr Loophole" usually gets the personalities off charges. Some of these "anomalies" go back years or decades, let the local authorities just can't be bothered to rectify them. Even worse, they park their speed detector vans where they know damn well the limit isn't enforceable in the hope that most people are gullible and will just pay up.

When you, as Joe Public, are up against that kind of incompetent/dishonest authority, like the train ticketing authorities, then it's fair game to play them at their own game. Morality doesn't come into it.

I think that's a very cynical - and arguably incorrect - view of things.

In the case of tax system, I'd say that the issue with tax avoidance is that it's a constant game of cat-and-mouse. Yes, the authorities almost certainly want to close loopholes, but the problem is that the accountants who develop tax avoidance schemes can be very resourceful - and as soon as the Government acts to close one loophole, the 'avoiders' devise some other scheme that noone had thought of before.

In the case of traffic offences - in most cases, lack of enforce-ability tends to be down to pure legal technicalities. Even if theoretically, some 30mph signs might be non-compliant, in most cases it's perfectly obvious what the intention is. Driving too fast has the potential to cause accidents and cause life-changing injuries or death to innocent by-standards, and there's really no excuse for it. If you think that morality doesn't come into it, then I'd urge you to seriously think about your moral values. (I'd give you that there are a minority of situations where the signage is so poor that the intention of the rules may not be clear to drivers, and in that case I would not blame drivers for getting caught out. Those cases morally ought not to be prosecuted, but I'm pretty sure they are a small minority of cases).


More generally, I'd argue that there is a difference between train fares on the one hand and tax/speeding on the other hand. In the case of train fares, the 'loopholes' generally consist of cheaper fares (such as split fares) that are not widely known, but there isn't really a moral issue with using them. In the case of tax and speeding, the 'loopholes' generally take the form of people deliberately trying to game the system to do things that were clearly not intended by the designers of the rules, and which have pretty bad consequences (such as killing people). In that case there are very obvious moral issues with taking advantage of tax avoidance schemes/traffic offences technicalities.

 

[Bevan Price]

Is it immoral to split ticket or exploit loopholes in booking engines or easements?

But one could equally ask if it is immoral / moral to charge something like £ 325 for an anytime return from Liverpool to London Euston. (It may be legal to charge that, but that was not the question.)
If someone charges what is perceived as an excessive amount for goods / services, then people will always look for a cheaper (legal) alternative

(I exclude that minority of scumbag criminals who try to get something for nothing.)

 

[AlterEgo]

No the system is broken so making such a thing possible.
Who in their right minds would charge a person more to travel a shorter distance as in starting or finishing short saves money?

As others have pointed out, this is just (sometimes) market based pricing. The same happens across much of the retail sector as well as the airline industry.

I can fly Tunis-Frankfurt-Vancouver for £995 return in Business Class on Air Canada. Yet if I wanted to just fly Frankfurt to Vancouver return on exactly the same flights, it would be double the price.

 

[yorksrob]

As others have pointed out, this is just (sometimes) market based pricing. The same happens across much of the retail sector as well as the airline industry.

I can fly Tunis-Frankfurt-Vancouver for £995 return in Business Class on Air Canada. Yet if I wanted to just fly Frankfurt to Vancouver return on exactly the same flights, it would be double the price.

I suspect that there is a limit to the level of commercialisation that the taxpayer is willing to tolerate in a system that it does partly pay for - bearing in mind that passengers are taxpayers too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As others have pointed out, this is just (sometimes) market based pricing. The same happens across much of the retail sector as well as the airline industry.

I can fly Tunis-Frankfurt-Vancouver for £995 return in Business Class on Air Canada. Yet if I wanted to just fly Frankfurt to Vancouver return on exactly the same flights, it would be double the price.

With air travel it's a bit of an odd one. A direct flight has a substantially higher value than a non-direct one due to the massive faff and time penalty of changing. That's not really true of train travel - a change has a small time penalty and is not a massive faff.