Re: Ticket inspector IDs

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:12:49 +0100, "M.I.5¾"
<no.one@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"MM" <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:p614c31f20gj50jdl3m9h2ilkv4d6vnq7c@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:24:36 GMT, Palindrome <me9@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

M.I.5¾ wrote:
"Palindrome" <me9@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Syfwi.2977$Fw7.1101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
sk8terg1rl wrote:
MM wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:33:15 -0700, sk8terg1rl
<sk8terg1rl_2006@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

One other question - is the onus on the official (not only in this
instance but on others, like the TVLA) to prove they are bona fide,
or
is the responsibility on the customer to check with the relevant
people that they are?
Welcome, Skate Gurl, to the land of officious, petty-minded
jobsworths, who will spread like mushrooms once the ID card is here.
That person you confronted could be found everywhere in 1930s
Germany,
just waiting to pounce on members of the public who knew it was
better
to keep quiet for their own good. Just because your guy spoke English
(which is really only a bastardised form of German, like all derived
Germanic languages) doesn't make him any less of a Nazi.

MM
Hi MM,

In principle I'm OK with ticket inspectors as they help to keep free
loaders paying their fare like everyone else. The acid test is whether
the salaries paid to such inspectors justifies the savings the system
might achieve by ensuring compliance by ticket dodgers. I would say as
it currently stands, they end up costing us honest users more.

IME I would say I only see fare dodgers perhaps a few times a month
despite using the bus frequently (in lieu of the hot, dirty Tubes).
The three inspectors were on salaries of I'd say at least £20k each.
So ~£60,000 vs. £10 in dodged fares? Hmm. So I would say TfL would be
better off sacking them and tolerating a few fare dodgers every now
and then.

That said, my only grievances over the whole episode was my handling
of it (I could have said things better and really shone the light on
the prevailing attitudes), the inspector's atittude ("I'm an inspector
so everyone stick 'em up!") and the other passengers (Blind
thoughtless compliance).

I think that the argument would be that, without the inspectors, there
would be many, many, many more freeloaders..

So the salaries are justified on the basis of the amount of fare
evasion
that is deterred, rather than the amount of fare evasion that is
detected...


I quite agree. The only problem that the inspectors have in this
country is
that they are relatively toothless. For a stark contrast, see how they
operate in a country like Belgium or Germany or maybe even Russia
(though I
have never actually one there - most Russians seem happy to cough up
their
12p).


Yet another example of the age old problem, do you go for lots of
resources and deter people by the certainty of being caught - or few and
deter them with the arguably disproportiate penalty should you be
unlucky. Some countries have arguably OTT resources and penalties.
Others seem to manage without the need for either..

Personally, I would usually tend towards resources, rather than
penalties - even though I end up paying more. This gives employment to
those that would otherwise be jobless - you have to be really desperate
to take such a job.. Plus it is fairer on the poor..

Why doesn't the government subsidise all public transport, well, buses
at least, and provide "free" travel to be paid for out of general
taxation? Since I got my bus pass and use it regularly, I see the
benefit not only to me, but to the bus company, the environment, the
traffic congestion (less of). Every time I travel the bus is usually
full - of similarly equipped passengers. Then there's far less hassle
for the driver, who doesn't need to faff about giving change, with the
advantage that the time taken at stops is far less than when tickets
have to be bought, so that the overall trip is more efficient in terms
of fuel usage. Finally, it gets older people out of their houses
visiting places, even only locally, and that has to be a good thing
for the general well-being of the nation.


This was tried by Red Ken and his 'Fares fair' policy whily he was leader of
the GLC. The whole plan backfired because of the way he was forced to
introduce it. He had to send every ratepayer a separate bill for the
subsidy to support the policy. This had the effect of making it crystal
clear just how much a subsidised fare policy was costing everyone. Even
those that had failed their GCSE maths could figure out that that it cost
far more than if they just paid the unsubsidised fares.

Well, it seems that the bus pass facility for people over 60 is to be
extended to the whole of the country in 2008. I can already travel
outside of county to nearer places in Cambridge and Norfolk.

MM
.

Loading