|
|
| Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested (1446333) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Aug 12 10:48:31 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by sloth on Sat Aug 12 01:29:59 2017. It's a step up, a surcharge, not much different from being on a peak train with an off peak ticketExcept it is different. If you go to 125th on a train with an $8 fare and you pay only $6 then you haven't paid the fare. If you go to Mount Vernon on a train with a $10.75 fare and only pay $8, then you haven't paid the fare. If you go to 125th on a train with an $8 fare and pay $8, then you have paid the fare. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that you only have to pay for the trip you actually take? the railroad is within its rights to do such things They may have the contractual right to charge you an extra $2.75 but they can't have you arrested for breach of contract because that's not actually a crime. and if a passenger gets unruly about it No one said anything about the passenger getting unruly. AlM proposed only that the passenger refuse to pay for a trip from 125th to Mount Vernon that they have no intention of actually taking. You could say, well, this policy doesn't really make sense. I'm saying this policy isn't a law that you can actually be arrested for violating. If I announce my policy is that you're not allowed to use the letter "e" in this thread from now on, and you reply using that letter, can I have you arrested? I'm willing to concede that my policy makes no sense and you're free to argue that my policy is capricious, arbitrary, and absurd (though not pointless) but according to your own logic you must obey it or be arrested. I'm sure your three-year-old can understand this policy and explain it to you if you have trouble with it. |
|
|
|