Fare Dodgers

[Steve3229vp]

Won't or can't?

Won't, it'll cost too much

[jasmine]

Won't or can't?

NX won't even paint their buses properly due to cost saving.* Do you really think they'll take someone to court and spend all the money needed to do so over £2.50?

[Jay71]

NX won't even paint their buses properly due to cost saving.* Do you really think they'll take someone to court and spend all the money needed to do so over £2.50?

The same also applies to Diamond. A lot of the foreign  drivers won't say anything to people who walk on without or the ones who try to use invalid tickets/passes

[Tony]

NX won't even paint their buses properly 

What's that supposed to mean?

[Stu]

The same also applies to Diamond. A lot of the foreign  drivers won't say anything to people who walk on without or the ones who try to use invalid tickets/passes

It affects all bus operators. I was on the Stagecoach 169 returning home from Solihull on Saturday, and some woman got on in Shirley with a couple of shopping bags in her hands. She just said to the driver "I've got a pass" and she just went and sat down and the driver didn't appear to say anything to her. Granted she only went a couple of stops and got off on Haslucks Green Road, and as she went down towards the doors I half expected her to take the opportunity to get her pass out and then tap it, but she didn't.

Now she might have been genuine and not a fare dodger, but the other point is that by not tapping her pass, the ticket system will record that there was only one passenger who used that bus on that journey, which was me!

[jasmine]

What's that supposed to mean?

said in hyperbole because of 4801

[Stu]

said in hyperbole because of 4801

And you know now why NX chose not to spend money painting that vehicle, and 'wrapped' it instead.

[Wumpty]

NX won't even paint their buses properly due to cost saving.* Do you really think they'll take someone to court and spend all the money needed to do so over £2.50?

What's that supposed to mean?

said in hyperbole because of 4801

And you know now why NX chose not to spend money painting that vehicle, and 'wrapped' it instead.

It's not a cost saving, as previously discussed, but just suppose that these buses *were* in such a state like Travel Express and others, and that they'd lost so much revenue that they couldn't afford repaints?!

The world has changed massively since I worked on the buses full time and remember confronting many a scrote on the 171 and having my parentage questioned on more than one occasion.

In an ideal world, we'd be able to detain, enforce the capture of personal details and sue them for the lost revenue (and then some). The cost to do so far outweighs the loss, the physical impact upon drivers who have/could challenge fare dodgers, could/has resulted in serious injury, and any direct action by the driver (such as turning engine off) would only inflame the situation and delay services already stretched.

No simple answer - other than spray the buggers bright yellow for all to see!

[Tony]

And you know now why NX chose not to spend money painting that vehicle, and 'wrapped' it instead.

And NX didn't even wrap it. That was done by Global.

Unlike some other operators NX does just 'repaint a bus' even the 'quicky' repaints (4763-4776 due to expected short lifespan) have all skirt panels replaced with new along with badly damaged other panels and dents filled.

[TGZac]

said in hyperbole because of 4801

It would've be pointless to repaint a bus that had only a few months left with NX before it went off loan

[Rachvince53]

Won't or can't?

Won't. The cost of taking them to court exceeds the fine.

[jasmine]

It would've be pointless to repaint a bus that had only a few months left with NX before it went off loan

man it was just a stupid comment said in passing and exaggeration that wasn't meant to be taken seriously and i didn't actually mean idk why it summoned 5 different replies