Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Although the most vulnerable (children, the old)

> travel for free, in the past drivers have been

> unhelpful in allowing passengers who are obviously

> qualified (clearly children or pensioners) to

> travel without an oyster, when it has been

> mislaid/ lost or stolen. Now they won't take cash,

> I hope they are being trained to be more sensitive

> about allowing those to travel who would be

> expected not to be paying anyway. (Obviously,

> there are people who look possibly too old

> (children) or too young (pensioners) for the

> driver to be certain, but in many cases it just

> seems to be bloody-minded/ jobsworth-ness to put

> them off the bus). In the old days kind travellers

> would pay sometimes for the stranded, but this is

> more complex where you have to use your own cards

> to do this, and can't just find a coin.


Was thinking this on a bus journey half an hour ago. Couldn't agree more!

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So an 11 year old boy stuck at a bus stop miles

> from home is passengers misfortune. Great get a

> job in a caring profession bng.


Driver's discretion, as it was before if the child didn't have sufficient cash. Apologies for being an uncaring hard-hearted b*stard.

I wouldn't worry about children so much. If they are in school uniform I've never seen them refused. A few charter kids got on the bus with me today, they didn't even touch in and the driver didn't blink. I see this happen daily, even before cashless.


ETA: The other day I got on the bus for the school run, I'd picked up the wrong oyster. No credit. Red light. Daughter ran to the seat at the back, I went to get her to get off and driver shut the door and drove away. I felt like a fraud but no-one else seemed to mind. Courtesy of my daughter I now have a smurf sticker on my oyster so I know which one holds my weekly travel card.

The Luddites where also against the centralisation of weaving whereby peasants kicked off the enclosed common land had been forced into working for a pittance in the huge mills and the independent weavers who worked from their homes got punishing taxes that the mill owners were exempt from.


It was a political clash and fight for survival against powerful mill owners, not just a technological issue.

Back in my day, when you didn't have any money left, or you'd lost it and didn't have any immediate access to some, you'd either have to hope a nice bus driver would let you on, or sneak on, ask a passer-by or fellow passenger to sort your fare, or call your parents or a friend, or walk home.


These days it's totally different. If you've lost your oyster card, or it's run out of money and you don't have immediate access to top it up, you either have to hope a nice bus driver will let you on, or sneak on, or ask a passer-by or fellow passenger to sort your fare, or call your parents or a friend, or walk home.



As an aside, I am totally against the centralisation of weaving.

No need to check. You can already pay on buses with Oyster - or with contactless debit or credit cards. The rest of the TFL network will be the same soon.


Indeed you can accidentally pay with all your cards at the same time for one fare - if they're all next to each other in the same wallet.

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quite Funny , but wrong a passer by or fellow

> passenger is committing an offence if they use

> their oyster to pay someone else's fare.


Only if it's a season ticket, PAYG is transferrable

Yes, you can transfer / lend your PAYG Oyster - but I don't think you can use it to pay twice at the same entry point (regardless of whether its an offence) because of the way it works (working-out where you've been, how many journeys and knowing when you've reached the cap for all journeys in one day in which case it stops charging the card).


Contactless just debits your card with a single fare but doesn't keep track like Oyster does. That was my understanding anyway.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...