Official DB policy for turning off engines because of fare dodgers

OldNotWIse

I'd consider it a minor disruption for the sake of the greater good. I'm sick of people lighting up on buses and on the luas red line, as well as feeling like a tool for paying my fare while others can get away scott free. At least if sc*mbags like this know that some kind of action will be taken, it might deter such behaviour in future.

For what it's worth, I think she was totally over-compensated. Seems that a sensitive disposition is more financially rewarding than having a tooth knocked out of your head.


http://injuriesboard.ie/eng/Forms-Guidelines/Book-of-Quantum.pdf

punisher5112

ongarboy wrote: »

Am I missing something from the leap card website?

Taken from leapcard.ie below. "for longer journeys over 13 stages use the right hand validator". If the plaintiff's journey costs more than the flat fare, shouldn't this be stipulated in the website that some stages will exceed the flat fare and should be notified to the bus driver? I for one certainly always thought the right hand validator was used for the maximum fare for any distance travelled longer than 13 stages and the website seems to confirm this. Very misleading if the reality is otherwise.

Travel Credit

For City Centre, short (1 - 3 stages), medium (4 - 7 stages) and long (8 - 13 stages) journeys tell the driver your destination and hold your Leap Card to the target on the driver's ticket machine and the correct fare will be deducted from your Travel Credit. For longer journeys (over 13 stages) Touch On at the Leap Card Validator on the right hand side as you enter the bus and the flat fare will be deducted from your Travel Credit.

You are missing a little....

This was different untill they took away the extra outer suburban fare.

Its now top leap €2.60 and on an expresso service €2.85.

This is where all the confusion is coming out of.

punisher5112

n97 mini wrote: »

I would hope he's no longer an employee. If a driver in a private company like Aircoach say turned off the engine to embarrass a customer into getting off, while holding everyone else up, I doubt he'd still be with the company.

You wouldn't get on if you paid the wrong fare with aircoach or any other private operator.

That's the difference between them and db.
would you go into a shop and buy a drink or whatever and it cost €1.80.
Would you go ah sure all I have is a euro.

Same with taxis and any other service it just seems the mind set of some is where can I pay as little or nothing at all and quite often get away with it.

Conductors would be great to have back.

n97 mini

punisher5112 wrote: »

You wouldn't get on if you paid the wrong fare with aircoach or any other private operator.

There are different fares and you could stay on past your stop. I'm sure it has happened, but the drivers don't engage in megalomaniac type behaviour.

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

I would hope he's no longer an employee. If a driver in a private company like Aircoach say turned off the engine to embarrass a customer into getting off, while holding everyone else up, I doubt he'd still be with the company.

Ok first off it does happen on private company buses, I witnessed it myself on the M7 express at Kildare Village where a passenger had paid to Kildare Village but didn't get off there the driver copped it as we were leaving he pulled the bus in and asked to see the passengers ticket, which they claimed they couldn't find, an argument ensued and the driver insisted the passenger leave the bus, which they did after about 5 minutes.

Secondly the drama about turning the engine off, it is actually the correct procedure when leaving the cab.

Thirdly and hopefully someone can answer me, what do you believe is the correct procedure to deal with fare evaders ? Spell it out because you seem to be suggesting that if a member of staff is aware someone is defrauding the company they should do nothing and allow it to continue.

Your complete and utter bias with anything to do with CIE shines through it doesn't matter the what the where or when, you will always say they are wrong, I guarantee if I told the story about the M7 bus in the absence of anything to do with CIE you would say it was a perfect example of private enterprise in the real world who won't tolerate fare evaders because they can't rely on state bail outs yada yad a yada.

And lastly do me a favour nip down to Westmoreland street and jump on an Aircoach give the driver a euro and tell him that's all you have and you want to go to the Airport, let us know how you get on, because if you are correct and Aircoach will just carry you rather than humiliate you by asking you to pay the correct fare, I have a mate who works in the airport and it would be a much cheaper option then he currently avails off. You heard it here first folks Aircoach offer free travel to anyone who doesn't want to pay, make the most of it before they go bust.

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

There are different fares and you could stay on past your stop. I'm sure it has happened, but the drivers don't engage in megalomaniac type behaviour.

Yeah because once you work for CIE any attempt to enforce the rules is just clearly megalomania and should never be confused with a conscientious worker trying to do the right thing. They are all Nazi jobsworths, I really enjoy your posts the more you post the clearer your complete and absolute bias shines through, good stuff.

n97 mini

Someone has to provide a counter balance to all the pro CIE nonsense!

Don't take my word for it about the megalomania, just pick up the newspaper!

punisher5112

n97 mini wrote: »

Someone has to provide a counter balance to all the pro CIE nonsense!

Don't take my word for it about the megalomania, just pick up the newspaper!

Go and work for them and then you will see the rubbish any driver will have to put up with.

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

Someone has to provide a counter balance to all the pro CIE nonsense!

Don't take my word for it about the megalomania, just pick up the newspaper!

That's the best you can do ? Well at least you are not trying to pass off the hyperbole as honest opinion I suppose ?

woodrow wyatt

n97 mini wrote: »

Someone has to provide a counter balance to all the pro CIE nonsense!

Don't take my word for it about the megalomania, just pick up the newspaper!

So you admit you take a anti CIE stance just for the sake of it.
Constructive criticism is always welcome but complaining just for the sake of it is to be pitied.

n97 mini

Whatever. Not interested in a pissing competition with a load of union types tbh.

n97 mini

I'd say my viewpoint is like a lot of people's here: I'm not particularly pro or anti anyone, but I'll call a spade a spade. However the relentless defence of CIE, IE, BE, DB and publicly run transport in general, by three posters here, to the nth degree turns me against these organisations. Often there isn't even a reason given other than "that's my opinion so it is". At times it is impossible to have a reasonable debate, and I think a lot of others have given up, or given in to arguing on the same level.

There is one poster here who is a DB driver to the best of my knowledge who presents a reasonable argument consistently and whose opinion I respect as a result. In fact I will generally bow to his superior knowledge of DB without any argument. Sadly his contributions have been few and far between recently. I'm presuming he's as exasperated as the rest of us, or maybe I'm wrong.

It'll always be an issue with open forums that allow anyone in that eventually it becomes an endurance test rather than a balanced debate.

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

I'd say my viewpoint is like a lot of people's here: I'm not particularly pro or anti anyone, but I'll call a spade a spade. However the relentless defence of CIE, IE, BE, DB and publicly run transport in general, by three posters here, to the nth degree turns me against these organisations. Often there isn't even a reason given other than "that's my opinion so it is". At times it is impossible to have a reasonable debate, and I think a lot of others have given up, or given in to arguing on the same level.

There is one poster here who is a DB driver to the best of my knowledge who presents a reasonable argument consistently and whose opinion I respect as a result. In fact I will generally bow to his superior knowledge of DB without any argument. Sadly his contributions have been few and far between recently. I'm presuming he's as exasperated as the rest of us, or maybe I'm wrong.

It'll always be an issue with open forums that allow anyone in that eventually it becomes an endurance test rather than a balanced debate.

So you can't actually answer the question how would deal with fare evaders, and then its other posters fault you can't have a reasonable debate?
Your problem is you like to indulge in a whinge fest where everything is CIEs fault, everything about CIE is bad, but you dont like to have your views challenged because they are mostly based on the irrational hatred of all things CIE, now you are moaning that you are being asked to back up your rantings, what you want is a nice little forum to yourself where no one will challenge you and you can rant on continually, your own echo chamber.

lucernarian

cdebru wrote: »

So you can't actually answer the question how would deal with fare evaders, and then its other posters fault you can't have a reasonable debate?
Your problem is you like to indulge in a whinge fest where everything is CIEs fault, everything about CIE is bad, but you dont like to have your views challenged because they are mostly based on the irrational hatred of all things CIE, now you are moaning that you are being asked to back up your rantings, what you want is a nice little forum to yourself where no one will challenge you and you can rant on continually, your own echo chamber.

I think it unfair and unfounded to describe someone else's post as a "whinge fest". There are mature ways to express a point and that's not one of them.

I think in general everybody who sets out an opinion on boards can firstly expect it to be challenged (within the confines of politeness and the charter/rules) and secondly that what you specifically responded to, was a reasonable attempt to describe excessive defending of CIE, which does happen from time to time, as a tiresome and frustrating experience. I certainly would be frustrated if you responded to my opinions with "what you want is a forum to yourself where no one challenges you and you can rant all day long in your very own echo chamber". And besides, with those kinds of remarks, aren't you being hypocritical? That sounded like a nice little rant by itself....

monument

cdebru wrote: »

So you can't actually answer the question how would deal with fare evaders, and then its other posters fault you can't have a reasonable debate?
Your problem is you like to indulge in a whinge fest where everything is CIEs fault, everything about CIE is bad, but you dont like to have your views challenged because they are mostly based on the irrational hatred of all things CIE, now you are moaning that you are being asked to back up your rantings, what you want is a nice little forum to yourself where no one will challenge you and you can rant on continually, your own echo chamber.

Focus on the posts and not the poster.

-- moderator

lucernarian wrote: »

I think it unfair and unfounded to describe someone else's post as a "whinge fest". There are mature ways to express a point and that's not one of them.

I think in general everybody who sets out an opinion on boards can firstly expect it to be challenged (within the confines of politeness and the charter/rules) and secondly that what you specifically responded to, was a reasonable attempt to describe excessive defending of CIE, which does happen from time to time, as a tiresome and frustrating experience. I certainly would be frustrated if you responded to my opinions with "what you want is a forum to yourself where no one challenges you and you can rant all day long in your very own echo chamber". And besides, with those kinds of remarks, aren't you being hypocritical? That sounded like a nice little rant by itself....

Please have a read of the charter yourself -- you are backseat moderating and focusing on the poster rather than the post.

-- moderator

cdebru

lucernarian wrote: »

I think it unfair and unfounded to describe someone else's post as a "whinge fest". There are mature ways to express a point and that's not one of them.

I think in general everybody who sets out an opinion on boards can firstly expect it to be challenged (within the confines of politeness and the charter/rules) and secondly that what you specifically responded to, was a reasonable attempt to describe excessive defending of CIE, which does happen from time to time, as a tiresome and frustrating experience. I certainly would be frustrated if you responded to my opinions with "what you want is a forum to yourself where no one challenges you and you can rant all day long in your very own echo chamber". And besides, with those kinds of remarks, aren't you being hypocritical? That sounded like a nice little rant by itself....

How is asking how they think fare evaders can be dealt with excessive defending of CIE ? The premise that private operators would just allow fare evaders to travel rather than embarrass them is completely unfounded and untrue.
Maturity is not to just make stuff up and get offended when challenged.

imitation

10k seems like a lot of compensation for what is really a minor incident, sure the driver was totally wrong, but I cant see how it would have had any finacial impact on her ultimately

punisher5112

Had 2 trying to use the new social services card today.

1 became very aggressive and threatened me.
He says it is me dissability pass and I used it 3 times already today which I wouldn't be surprised as it seems a lot of drivers don't even look.

I just said enjoy the walk and smiled....

Love coming across such wonderful human beings.:rolleyes:

lucernarian

cdebru wrote: »

How is asking how they think fare evaders can be dealt with excessive defending of CIE ? The premise that private operators would just allow fare evaders to travel rather than embarrass them is completely unfounded and untrue.
Maturity is not to just make stuff up and get offended when challenged.

That first question is a straw man. One poster made a post, in response to two others highlighting a perceived anti-CIE bias. He refuted that. There's nothing to say that the poster or anybody else thought the question was itself an example of CIE fanboyism. Furthermore, I agree with n97 mini that there have been excessive defences of CIE and their employees in the past and this leaves a bad taste in the mouth were other interested parties, pro- or anti- or dontgiveadamnabout-CIE, to speak up here.

I can't comment on the premise of private operators but I'd tend to agree with you from my experience of the Matthews bus service.

As for maturity, I can talk about it in abstract terms and of course what you say should be true. I'd very much like to hear what Dublin Bus drivers ought to do when confronted by fare dodgers - though I don't want to talk about something that doesn't seem to be related to this thread. I agree with foggy lad's logic, presumably there was no fare-dodging going on to begin with.

cdebru

lucernarian wrote: »

That first question is a straw man. One poster made a post, in response to two others highlighting a perceived anti-CIE bias. He refuted that. There's nothing to say that the poster or anybody else thought the question was itself an example of CIE fanboyism. Furthermore, I agree with n97 mini that there have been excessive defences of CIE and their employees in the past and this leaves a bad taste in the mouth were other interested parties, pro- or anti- or dontgiveadamnabout-CIE, to speak up here.

I can't comment on the premise of private operators but I'd tend to agree with you from my experience of the Matthews bus service.

As for maturity, I can talk about it in abstract terms and of course what you say should be true. I'd very much like to hear what Dublin Bus drivers ought to do when confronted by fare dodgers - though I don't want to talk about something that doesn't seem to be related to this thread. I agree with foggy lad's logic, presumably there was no fare-dodging going on to begin with.

What is excessive defence of CIE ? Where is it ? Give examples how is it excessive ? . IMO some think any defence of CIE or more importantly it's employees is excessive.

The issue of whether or not fare dodging was or wasn't taking place is irrelevant, the question in this thread is it OK when faced with a fare dodger to ask them to leave and if they refuse turn of the engine. Obviously if the person isnt a fare dodger then nothing should be done, thats what I mean by it is irrelevant. IMO it is only wrong if the person wasn't a fare evader other than that requesting a person to leave the bus, if they refuse tell them the bus is going nowhere with them, turning off the engine emphasizes the point, if they still refuse then asking gardai to attend, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of that always presuming the person is a fare evader, smoker or engaged in anti social behavior The same as a security guard stopping a shop lifter no problem. As long as it is actually a shoplifter, but if you accuse someone in the wrong big problem.

It seems some people want to criticize those who do nothing as lazy and those who do something as megalomaniac, so basically you can't win.

lucernarian

cdebru wrote: »

What is excessive defence of CIE ? Where is it ? Give examples how is it excessive?

I wasn't the one to make the original comment. From what I understood, I agreed with it. And that is, there have been moments on this forum where posts might make a claim about CIE group companies in some vague way and depending on how it's perceived, could get some very sharp responses by those that seem to know better. I can speak from my own experience too. I was told not too long ago that "You don't have a clue of what you're talking about" yet the detail about Dublin Bus I was harping on about was later vindicated. You can rest assured that such behaviour would be frustrating for anybody and as n97 mini highlighted and also from my own direct experience, I've seen big differences in how different CIE employees, especially from Dublin Bus, contribute on boards. Everybody might be speaking with a bit of insider knowledge but how it's communicated... well YMMV.

cdebru wrote:

The issue of whether or not fare dodging was or wasn't taking place is irrelevant

I fundamentally disagree because this thread was prompted by a specific court judgement recently. As the rest of your point was more or less based on that, I just left it out.

cdebru

lucernarian wrote: »

I wasn't the one to make the original comment. From what I understood, I agreed with it. And that is, there have been moments on this forum where posts might make a claim about CIE group companies in some vague way and depending on how it's perceived, could get some very sharp responses by those that seem to know better. I can speak from my own experience too. I was told not too long ago that "You don't have a clue of what you're talking about" yet the detail about Dublin Bus I was harping on about was later vindicated. You can rest assured that such behaviour would be frustrating for anybody and as n97 mini highlighted and also from my own direct experience, I've seen big differences in how different CIE employees, especially from Dublin Bus, contribute on boards. Everybody might be speaking with a bit of insider knowledge but how it's communicated... well YMMV.


I fundamentally disagree because this thread was prompted by a specific court judgement recently. As the rest of your point was more or less based on that, I just left it out.

So you can't actually point to an example of excessive defence or actually explain what that means other than you claim it exists on this forum, so have you noticed the excessive attacking of CIE on this forum per chance ?


The thread was prompted by a case but I suggest you read the OP, it asks the question what should a driver do in the case of fare evasion or anti social behavior, this is beyond the original case and is a question in general, which no one will answer beyond accusing drivers who refuse to carry passengers who haven't paid or engage in anti social behavior as megalomania.

foggy_lad

I thought drivers were never supposed to leave the cab while in service in case of attacks? Yet this guy was able to go and humiliate a passenger who had "done nothing wrong"!

onthebuses

foggy_lad wrote: »

I thought drivers were never supposed to leave the cab while in service in case of attacks? Yet this guy was able to go and humiliate a passenger who had "done nothing wrong"!

Some posters are instigators, they gives out stink about CIE and inefficiencies yet they fully supports the FTP racket?

lucernarian

cdebru wrote: »

So you can't actually point to an example of excessive defence or actually explain what that means other than you claim it exists on this forum, so have you noticed the excessive attacking of CIE on this forum per chance ?

Right now, it's equally because of the following three reasons: I'm lazy currently; there is a sense of inevitability about me or anybody finding just such an example and then derailing the topic even further; and finally if I elaborated more on a particular example I alluded to, it might be construed as being off-topic or being a personal attack or simply just bad cricket and spiteful of me. I don't want to single out particular posters and their previous arguments/positions (which might have changed since), from old threads as being unfair or unjustified and then having to re-explain why this is the case and so on.

The thread was prompted by a case but I suggest you read the OP, it asks the question what should a driver do in the case of fare evasion or anti social behavior, this is beyond the original case and is a question in general, which no one will answer beyond accusing drivers who refuse to carry passengers who haven't paid or engage in anti social behavior as megalomania.

FWIW I have read the OP. And I am interested in just such an answer. I can't think of current BAC policy on this but maybe a bit of diplomacy and realpolitik could be used. If a customer does provide the correct fare for the destination stated, the driver isn't in the role of a checker and can let the RPU deal with it. If a driver is particularly suspicious, radioing in and covering their own ass against RPU checks later on, would be a good idea.

cdebru

foggy_lad wrote: »

I thought drivers were never supposed to leave the cab while in service in case of attacks? Yet this guy was able to go and humiliate a passenger who had "done nothing wrong"!

Drivers have to leave the cab all the time, hard to adjust a mirror on the near side from the cab unless you are stretch Armstrong, they are not supposed to leave the cab if there is anti social behaviour, people being aggressive, fighting etc, same as they dont have to have the screen up all the time, but should close it if any of the above are occurring.
Drivers are often requested to leave the cab, check for lost property, oil or coolant leaks etc, they are not in prison like.

cdebru

lucernarian wrote: »

Right now, it's equally because of the following three reasons: I'm lazy currently; there is a sense of inevitability about me or anybody finding just such an example and then derailing the topic even further; and finally if I elaborated more on a particular example I alluded to, it might be construed as being off-topic or being a personal attack or simply just bad cricket and spiteful of me. I don't want to single out particular posters and their previous arguments/positions (which might have changed since), from old threads as being unfair or unjustified and then having to re-explain why this is the case and so on.


FWIW I have read the OP. And I am interested in just such an answer. I can't think of current BAC policy on this but maybe a bit of diplomacy and realpolitik could be used. If a customer does provide the correct fare for the destination stated, the driver isn't in the role of a checker and can let the RPU deal with it. If a driver is particularly suspicious, radioing in and covering their own ass against RPU checks later on, would be a good idea.

Well the reality is they are perfectly entitled to do nothing, they dont have to call anything in or notify anyone, because at the end of the day it is up to a passenger to have the correct fare and it is up to RPU to catch them if they don't.
However the reality is that many drivers do take it upon themselves, especially given that RPU has been virtually non existent for over a decade, and they have known if they do nothing this person will just continue to evade fares with little to no chance of ever being caught, and they are perfectly entitled to do nothing they are also perfectly entitled to pull someone up for underpaying or not paying at all etc and having done so they are perfectly entitled to ask someone without a valid ticket to either pay the fare or leave the bus.
That said there are many who decide the easiest thing is the path of least resistance and let people pay what they like, and if the company is bothered to protect their revenue properly then why should they concern themselves.
If it was my company I know which ones I would rather have working.for me, but the latter are probably the far more sensible.