Fare card inspection

Phil Kane wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:47:46 -0500, Vince wrote:
>
>
>>Oh give me a break! This is not becoming a dictatorship?
>>So if I don't have my card, I'm stealing a ride?
>
>
> No, you are violating a rule that says you have to have proof of
> payment. This is different from theft of service.
>

Thats the first time I've heard that one, "proof of payment"
thats a goody.

Phil Kane wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:47:46 -0500, Vince wrote:
>
>
>>Oh give me a break! This is not becoming a dictatorship?
>>So if I don't have my card, I'm stealing a ride?
>
>
> No, you are violating a rule that says you have to have proof of
> payment. This is different from theft of service.

But there is no requirement that each passenger have a card. More than
one passenger can ride using a pay-per-ride card. The card will even
register transfers for up to four people. If a passenger has to have
proof of payment, people entering together would have to stay together
for their entire trip.

John Mara

John Mara wrote:
> Phil Kane wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:47:46 -0500, Vince wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Oh give me a break! This is not becoming a dictatorship?
>>> So if I don't have my card, I'm stealing a ride?
>>
>>
>>
>> No, you are violating a rule that says you have to have proof of
>> payment. This is different from theft of service.
>
>
> But there is no requirement that each passenger have a card. More than
> one passenger can ride using a pay-per-ride card. The card will even
> register transfers for up to four people. If a passenger has to have
> proof of payment, people entering together would have to stay together
> for their entire trip.
>
> John Mara

Good point John, I didn't think of that one. Besides can you just
imagine what kind of bad inpression out of towners (Visiting friends
and/or family) would get?

Phil Kane wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:47:46 -0500, Vince wrote:
>
> >Oh give me a break! This is not becoming a dictatorship?
> >So if I don't have my card, I'm stealing a ride?
>
> No, you are violating a rule that says you have to have proof of
> payment. This is different from theft of service.

When was such a rule invented? Obviously not in the days of nickels,
dimes, tokens, or (on the bus) exact change.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

Why are you-all still talking about this, when it has been explained
several times (with URLs) that the original WINS story was incorrect?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
> In article <4392FFB0.7392@worldnet.att.net>, grammatim@worldnet.att.net says...
>
> >This is the US of A. One doesn't prove one is innocent; the prosecutor
> >must prove one is guilty.
>
> Tell that to the enemy combatants that are being held indefinitely.

They haven't even been indicted.

That's due to the interpretation that the Constitution applies only to
citizens. Note that Padilla was finally charged -- with offenses that
had nothing to do with what they originally claimed about him.

And, of course, if they ever are charged, it will still apply.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

ttt

ttt

ttt

Seth Breidbart wrote:
> In article <cuvyxnansvbet.iqw3qb4.pminews@newsgrocast. net>,
> Phil Kane <Phil.Kane@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 13:47:46 -0500, Vince wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh give me a break! This is not becoming a dictatorship?
>>>So if I don't have my card, I'm stealing a ride?
>>
>> No, you are violating a rule that says you have to have proof of
>> payment. This is different from theft of service.
>
>
> Whose rule? Why must I obey it?
>

The rule(s) of the entity which operates the transit system on which you
are a passenger.


> If they want to claim that I'm doing something wrong, the burden of
> proof is on them.
>

In this case, you are doing something wrong if you don't have proof of
payment on your person, available upon request for inspection. The
burden is on you.

You agree to this when you enter the system to ride on it. If you find
this objectionable or unacceptable, then the answer is simple......find
another conveyance or simply walk.

Case closed.