|
|
| Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested (1445621) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 6 |
||
|
| (1445755) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 18:44:48 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Aug 6 10:09:37 2017. Since C/R cannot sell a GCT-125 ticketWhy not? Him probly done this many times with no ticket collection until past 125 nobody would know. In my experience, conductors generally check tickets shortly after leaving Grand Central. This time him got caught. C/R shoulda held him for PD and let the fuzz do the work. Except according to the story in the OP, the incident took place at Grand Central prior to boarding; the passenger in question never actually got on the train. |
|
|
| (1445757) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Aug 6 18:49:14 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Aug 6 18:44:28 2017. It applies to Fordham as well. |
|
|
| (1445760) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 19:32:17 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Aug 6 18:44:28 2017. I presume that since the Connecticut Department of Transportation is subsidizing the New Haven line, it only wants to pay for people going to or from Connecticut.True, but not the only issue here. Before the MTA and ConnDot, and even ConRail, the restriction was already in place. Also, the passengers on a Stamford local are overwhelmingly traveling between destinations in NY State. Yet still you can't travel just between GCT and Fordham on those trains. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1445761) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 19:34:58 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 18:44:40 2017. You didn't steal a trip from Grand Central to 125th because you paid for it (or offered to pay for it).But they don't sell seats between GCT and 125 for the trains in question. It's not an offered product. Try taking one of something out of a package of 4 at a supermarket and paying for it. (Even if doing so doesn't damage the value of the remaining 3.) |
|
|
| (1445762) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 19:36:39 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 19:32:17 2017. As you know, the New Haven line was originally the NH Railroad, while the Harlem line was NY Central. I believe the restriction has to do with the respective rights of these 2 roads to serve various stations. I suspect the NYC did not want the NHRR poaching its Harlem line passengers for 125th and Fordham, and the NHRR dod not want its trains burdened with people traveling within NYC. |
|
|
| (1445763) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 19:37:35 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 19:34:58 2017. Or a beer out of a six-pack. |
|
|
| (1445764) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 19:38:10 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 18:44:43 2017. No. NH trains do not sell tickets to 125th. |
|
|
| (1445765) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 19:41:15 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 18:44:43 2017. it cannot be "theft of service" to refuse to pay for services you did not use but which the vendor deems "required."Do you have a legal citation for that? Can you watch the first 30 minutes of a movie for a reduced price? Can you take Amtrak from Penn to New Rochelle? Can you demand to pay less for a flight from NY to Chicago than for NY to Chicago to Des Moines? Can you buy a single can of soda from CostCo when all they sell are 12-packs? |
|
|
| (1445766) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 19:45:47 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 19:36:39 2017. I suspect the NYC did not want the NHRR poaching its Harlem line passengers for 125th and FordhamAgreed as to 125th. Note however that the NHRR didn't stop at Fordham. In 1967, I needed to travel from New Rochelle to Fordham a whole bunch of times. It was a real pain - a semi-local bus. The Fordham stop is a tremendous boon for a lot of people. |
|
|
| (1445768) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Sun Aug 6 20:16:31 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 19:41:15 2017. From 165.15 NY PL (other states may be different but this is a NY issue)Just the section on transportation, there are a bunch of other sections. 3. With intent to obtain railroad, subway, bus, air, taxi or any other public transportation service without payment of the lawful charge therefor, or to avoid payment of the lawful charge for such transportation service which has been rendered to him, he obtains or attempts to obtain such service or avoids or attempts to avoid payment therefor by force, intimidation, stealth, deception or mechanical tampering, or by unjustifiable failure or refusal to pay; or |
|
|
| (1445770) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 20:37:08 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 19:34:58 2017. But they don't sell seats between GCT and 125 for the trains in question. It's not an offered product.The train stops at 125th. They sold you a ticket to 125th (or established a policy of selling tickets on board). They permitted you to board the train. Therefore, it is an offered product. If I have a restaurant, I am within my rights to demand you pay up front for two entrees before letting you in. However, if I seat you and serve you an appetizer, I am not permitted to then charge you for two entrees you never ordered. If I refuse to accept payment for just the appetizer, you are within your rights to walk out without paying. The idea that the appetizer I served you is "not an offered product" is absurd on its face. Try taking one of something out of a package of 4 at a supermarket and paying for it. (Even if doing so doesn't damage the value of the remaining 3.) OK, first of all, taking something out of a 4-pack generally renders the remaining 3 unsaleable since no one will buy an opened pack. Second, you're talking about a situation in which physical products are offered for sale and possession doesn't change until after the transaction is completed. You don't own the item until you've paid for it, and the store is within their rights to refuse the sale; if the store refuses the sale, you can't walk out with the product because you don't own it. The situation is different when you're talking about services paid for after they're rendered. A service that has been rendered to you is now "yours" because it can't be given back; you are thus obliged to pay for it. If you never had any intention of paying for it, that's theft of service. However, the person who rendered the service cannot expect payment for additional services not rendered; as noted, if I serve you an appetizer, I can't then charge you for two entrees you didn't order. |
|
|
| (1445771) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 20:37:11 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 19:38:10 2017. Why not? |
|
|
| (1445772) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 20:37:14 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 19:41:15 2017. Do you have a legal citation for that?Are you seriously asking for a legal citation that proves you're not required to pay for services you didn't ask for and didn't receive? Can you watch the first 30 minutes of a movie for a reduced price? If the theatre is willing to sell you a ticket for the first 30 minutes, then yes. If they quote a price for the first 30 minutes, then they are expected to honour it. Can you take Amtrak from Penn to New Rochelle? Yes. The fare is $26; you can book on their website. Can you demand to pay less for a flight from NY to Chicago than for NY to Chicago to Des Moines? Yes, you can demand it. The airline is not required to sell you the ticket, but you can certainly demand it. That said, if the airline quotes you $96 for NY to Chicago to Des Moines and $126 for New York to Chicago on the same flight, you can buy the $96 ticket to Des Moines and get off in Chicago— and the airline can't charge you the extra $30, let alone have you arrested for theft of service. Yes, that sort of thing actually does happen. Can you buy a single can of soda from CostCo when all they sell are 12-packs? If CostCo agrees to sell you a single, then yes. However, you're talking about a situation in which physical products are offered for sale and possession doesn't change until after the transaction is completed. You don't own the item until you've paid for it, and the store is within their rights to refuse the sale; if the store refuses the sale, you can't walk out with the product because you don't own it. The situation is different when you're talking about services paid for after they're rendered. A service that has been rendered to you is now "yours" because it can't be given back; you are thus obliged to pay for it. If you never had any intention of paying for it, that's theft of service. However, the person who rendered the service cannot expect payment for additional services not rendered. |
|
|
| (1445773) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Aug 6 21:02:10 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 18:44:43 2017. If you get off at 125th, then the fare to 125th suffices.No it does not. The ticket to 125th is not valid on a train with an "R" at 125th. It is the same as trying to use an off peak ticket on a peak train. The conductor could offer to step the ticket up to the first stop outside NYC, similar to stepping an off peak to a peak, but the initial ticket is equally invalid. That said a good solution that would make a lot of people happy (for outbound trips at least) would be a situation where the first 2 cars are closed until 125th, then they open only those cars at 125th. Everyone boarding at 125th gets a fresh shot at good seats and people trying your bullshit take an hourlong detour to Connecticut, and get to meet with MTA police if they do not pay for the ride (to avoid people using this to get discounted rides to Stamford). |
|
|
| (1445774) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 21:08:18 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 20:37:14 2017. Are you seriously asking for a legal citation that proves you're not required to pay for services you didn't ask for and didn't receive?I am seriously asking for a legal citation that proves you're not required to pay for services you didn't ask for and didn't receive, when the service you asked for and received is not a service being offered for sale. (GCT to 125 is only offered for sale on blue trains, not on red trains.) |
|
|
| (1445775) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 21:11:23 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Aug 6 21:02:10 2017. people trying your bullshit take an hourlong detour to ConnecticutNote that Mt. Vernon East is not in CT. Also of course, some people who get on at 125th don't want to be all the way in front, because at their destination they need to be in the back of the platform. And then there's also Fordham to deal with. |
|
|
| (1445776) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Aug 6 21:22:53 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 21:11:23 2017. Around half the trains make their first discharge stop in NY, it's a tossup.Fordham would also be the first two cars (paint a red stripe at the position). So I suppose 125th-Fordham folk may still have a shot. At least this would also have the side effect of less people accidentally ending up on the New Haven line when they needed the Harlem line, since they'd have to wait at a designated spot on the platform to get an open door. As for not wanting to be at the front of the train... Forest Hills and Kew Gardens customers say "first world problems, yo". |
|
|
| (1445777) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Aug 6 21:29:36 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 20:37:14 2017. My parents once bought round trip tickets for a plane and didn't use the return trip. For some reason it was cheaper than a one way ticket. They didn't use the return ticket. The airline didn't complain.This seems analogous. |
|
|
| (1445778) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Sun Aug 6 21:33:22 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Aug 6 21:29:36 2017. With modern computer tracking it is easier to cancel unused or missing segment tickets. "Hidden City" bookings used to be fairly common, as were 21 day round trip based heavy discount fares. Now, most tickets are priced as one ways. Also, they reserve the right to cancel the rest of your reservation if an unused segment pops. |
|
|
| (1445780) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Aug 6 21:52:41 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 20:37:08 2017. "The train stops at 125th. They sold you a ticket to 125th (or established a policy of selling tickets on board). They permitted you to board the train. Therefore, it is an offered product."So would they have to check tickets before people board the train to prevent that, like Amtrak at Penn Station? |
|
|
| (1445781) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Aug 6 22:18:59 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by pragmatist on Sun Aug 6 21:33:22 2017. There was no danger of cancellation because they only needed the first segment. |
|
|
| (1445782) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Sun Aug 6 22:34:20 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Aug 6 22:18:59 2017. Lots of stuff was different, it's one of the reasons most fares are done as 2 one ways, not a round trip these days. The cancellations were the response to hidden city ticketing where a connecting flight segment of a a longer trip cost more than the longer combined flight because of competition between certain markets that didn't exist to the intermediate point. NYC to St Louis could cost more than NYC to LA (with a connection in STL) Since most discount fares back then were round trip (and often requiring a Saturday overnight) if you got caught just flying to STL and not continuing, they could cancel the rest of your trip forcing you to buy a very expensive one way to get home. |
|
|
| (1445784) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Aug 6 22:45:57 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by pragmatist on Sun Aug 6 22:34:20 2017. This was in 2015. |
|
|
| (1445785) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 22:54:47 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 19:45:47 2017. Ahh, so the NHRR did not stop at Fordham at all? So Metro-north made that happen, but imposed a drop-off restriction. It may have to do with their contract with Connecticut. |
|
|
| (1445786) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 22:55:22 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 20:37:11 2017. Who cares? See my recent replies to AIM. |
|
|
| (1445787) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 22:57:19 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 20:37:08 2017. Why can't you understand that the train stops at 125th for pick-up ONLY? |
|
|
| (1445789) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 23:04:11 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Sun Aug 6 20:37:11 2017. Found an answer. This Daily News article from 2009 about Fordham -http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/wait-train-vain-fordham-riders-vent-metro-north-won-new-haven-line-article-1.409690 Wait for train in vain: Fordham riders vent: Metro-North won't let them on New Haven line BY MIKE JACCARINO Monday, May 18, 2009, 7:10 PM The doors open at the stop. There are plenty of seats on the train. But passengers are not allowed on. For years, the New Haven - or red line - of Metro-North has only let passengers get off at Fordham and has not allowed any to enter on the way to Grand Central Terminal. Now, some passengers are questioning why they have to wait for the Harlem line to stop at the station to get on. "I think it's crazy," said Bronxite Shanique Omeally, 23. "I'm going to the same place as the train. Why should I have to wait?" "It really annoys me a lot," said Andrew Delohrey, 17. "I can't get on the red line, so I have to wait 20 minutes for the blue line. If they let me on the red line, I can get home a half-hour earlier." Metro-North said the arrangement has to do with its contract agreement with the Connecticut Department of Transportation. The Connecticut DOT pays Metro-North a fee to provide service. "The state of Connecticut trains are very crowded, so at Connecticut's request, New Haven line trains are exit-only," said Marjorie Anders, spokesperson for Metro-North. "It does seem unusual to people, but it's a matter of the service contract between the two states, and we think there's a lot of service on the Harlem [or blue] line." |
|
|
| (1445792) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:06 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 21:08:18 2017. I am seriously asking for a legal citation that proves you're not required to pay for services you didn't ask for and didn't receive, when the service you asked for and received is not a service being offered for sale.If you asked for the service and received it, then it is being offered for sale. The provider of that service is entitled to bill you for that, and no more. (GCT to 125 is only offered for sale on blue trains, not on red trains.) If you board a red train that's stopping at 125th and get off there, then GCT to 125 is offered by that train. |
|
|
| (1445793) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:36 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Aug 6 21:02:10 2017. No it does not. The ticket to 125th is not valid on a train with an "R" at 125th.The minute they let you board, your ticket becomes valid. It is the same as trying to use an off peak ticket on a peak train. No, it isn't. It's clearly established that there are separate peak and off-peak fares, and it's quite clear which trains are which. If you board a peak train, you pay the peak fare. I've been using a restaurant as a metaphor which is quite fitting— restaurants often have lunch specials, which is equivalent to an off-peak fare. So if I say entrees are $8 at lunch at $12 at dinner and you show up for dinner and order one entree, you are expected to pay $12— you can't pay $8 just because that price is listed on the lunch menu. However, if you order one entree and I present you with a check for $24 on the grounds that there's a two-entree minimum, you are expected to pay $12. While the agreed-upon price of a service can vary based on time of day, you cannot be billed for services not requested or rendered. Now, if I were quite insistent on a two-entree minimum, I could require you to pay in advance for two entrees before seating you. However, if I seat you and serve you, I have committed to receive payment only for the services I actually rendered. That said a good solution that would make a lot of people happy (for outbound trips at least) would be a situation where the first 2 cars are closed until 125th, then they open only those cars at 125th. That would be pointless and obnoxious. Why go jump through hoops just to deliberately make things difficult for a small group of passengers? Everyone boarding at 125th gets a fresh shot at good seats and people trying your bullshit take an hourlong detour to Connecticut, and get to meet with MTA police if they do not pay for the ride (to avoid people using this to get discounted rides to Stamford). They already paid for the ride to 125th. The ride to Mount Vernon (or Stamford) was unsolicited, so they can't be charged for it. In fact, they could legitimately demand the MTA provide them with a free ride back to 125th. The fact that the MTA took active measures to prevent you from exiting the train at your station indicates bad faith; there's no way they can send you to Connecticut against your will and then bill you for the trip. You're trying to argue a dud point— as a matter of law, it simply isn't theft of service to refuse to pay for service you never asked for and didn't receive. If you board a train to 125th and pay for a trip to 125th, you have not broken any law. There is no way that a conductor or the MTA can compel you to pay for a trip other than the one you actually took (and by forcing you to take a longer trip, they risk forfeiting any right to be paid at all). |
|
|
| (1445794) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:39 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Aug 6 21:29:36 2017. Exactly. If you buy a round trip ticket, you are entitled to a trip out and a trip back— and you are also free to waive your right to either of them.If you use the first and waive the second, then the airline cannot legitimately charge you additional money. |
|
|
| (1445795) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:41 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by pragmatist on Sun Aug 6 21:33:22 2017. Also, they reserve the right to cancel the rest of your reservation if an unused segment pops.That many companies rely on one-sided contracts that they're allowed to break without penalty is a whole different matter. In any reasonable interpretation of law, such contracts would be unenforceable, but the US is notoriously third world when it comes to consumer protection and the rights of individuals. |
|
|
| (1445796) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:42 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 22:55:22 2017. The law does. "Theft of service" requires that you use services without intending to pay for them. That you attempted to pay proves you intended to pay for them.So if the conductor says: "We don't sell tickets to 125th," it means you get to ride for free— the service provider chose to waive payment, as is their right. |
|
|
| (1445797) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:44 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 23:04:11 2017. Exactly— if the conductor refuses to let people board southbound trains at Fordham, it's the MTA's right to do so.However, if the conductor does allow a southbound passenger to board at Fordham, that passenger can only be charged the fare from Fordham, not from Mount Vernon. |
|
|
| (1445798) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:46 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 22:57:19 2017. Why can't you understand that the train stops at 125th for pick-up ONLY?Why can't you understand that you don't have to pay for services you didn't ask for and didn't receive? If you travel from Grand Central to 125th, you have to pay the fare from Grand Central to 125th. |
|
|
| (1445799) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:50 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Aug 6 21:52:41 2017. So would they have to check tickets before people board the train to prevent that, like Amtrak at Penn Station?If they specifically want to ban people from traveling to one specific destination despite having a valid ticket to that destination? That would be the only surefire way of doing it. If they merely wanted to deter riders from making that trip, they could have signs/announcements indicating that Hudson and Harlem trains stop at 125th but New Haven trains don't (similar to how NJT lists which trains do and don't stop at Secaucus). That would be sufficient to keep causal riders away, but if someone definitively knew a given train was stopping at 125th and boarded with a ticket to 125th, they'd be entitled to ride— what a lot of SubChatters don't seem to understand is that "theft of service" is a fairly high bar that can't be met simply by using a service in a way that the provider doesn't approve of. |
|
|
| (1445804) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Aug 7 03:17:37 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 22:54:47 2017. Yes, it must have to do with their contract with CT.Of course, it doesn't really make much sense. It's pretty much only Stamford locals that stop in Fordham, and those are most crowded between Fordham and Mt. Vernon East, and could handle passengers from GCT to Fordham with no problems, allowing added revenue for CT to share in. |
|
|
| (1445805) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Aug 7 06:44:30 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:41 2017. You and I don't get to decide what is unenforceable, and in this country that type of contract certainly was and is enforceable. It was entered into voluntarily, and doesn't violate our laws. |
|
|
| (1445806) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Aug 7 06:45:41 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:39 2017. Actually, in some circumstances they can. |
|
|
| (1445808) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 08:22:28 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by pragmatist on Mon Aug 7 06:44:30 2017. You and I don't get to decide what is unenforceable, and in this country that type of contract certainly was and is enforceable.That courts have ruled it enforceable is the problem. It was entered into voluntarily Not really. If you want to open a bank account or sign up for internet service, you need to agree to a one-sided contract that allows the bank or ISP to do (or not do) anything while you waive any right to seek redress. Since having a bank account (or other financial service) and internet (including cell) service is necessary to meaningfully participate in society, and the only purveyors of these services require one-sided contracts, it's absurd to claim you "voluntarily" agreed to them. and doesn't violate our laws. Except that consumer protection laws were passed specifically to prevent the sort of behaviours that these one-sided contracts then allow. |
|
|
| (1445809) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 08:22:31 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by pragmatist on Mon Aug 7 06:45:41 2017. What circumstances? |
|
|
| (1445811) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Aug 7 08:50:45 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 08:22:28 2017. Your interpretation of what defines meaningful participation in society. I could be writing this from a public library or free wi fi at many locations.And many of those one sided contracts including mandatory arbitration agreements which are generally anti consumer are allowed under provisions that override what you or I would consider reasonable consumer protections. Look at what congress is doing to the CFPB on that very issue. |
|
|
| (1445812) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 09:37:03 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by pragmatist on Mon Aug 7 08:50:45 2017. I could be writing this from a public library or free wi fi at many locations.You're not. You clearly don't have the foggiest idea what it's like to live on the margins of society. And many of those one sided contracts including mandatory arbitration agreements which are generally anti consumer are allowed under provisions that override what you or I would consider reasonable consumer protections. Look at what congress is doing to the CFPB on that very issue. Yes. That is exactly the point— that congress and courts are allowing one-sided contracts that shouldn't be allowed under any reasonable government. |
|
|
| (1445816) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Aug 7 09:47:52 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 09:37:03 2017. I'm trying to say that many people decide to do things that we choose not to. They make a choice not to have cell phones or computers or banks. For many different reasons. Many of them are quite functional. Our views of marginalization are precisely that, our views. Who are we to impose our standards on people who are not disrupting our lives. That is the very thing you are saying congress and the courts are doing. |
|
|
| (1445825) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Aug 7 12:18:34 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 08:22:31 2017. If you have a frequent flier membership with them, they can cancel it (and with it any rewards you may have earned but not spent).Also, some airlines will simply ban you from flying with them again for using tricks involving abandoning segments. |
|
|
| (1445830) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Mon Aug 7 12:50:44 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:50 2017. At the bottom of each MN ticket, there's fine print saying "subject to tariff rules & regulations" or words to that effect. Therefore, one of the "rules & regulations" is abiding by the public timetable.If that timetable has an (R) next to the 125th sta listing, that is explained, quite clearly that the train is intended to recieve passengers only and not discharge (Northbound). If a passenger presents a 125 ticket on one of those (R) trains, the instructions that the conductor has is to charge that person to Mt Vernon. The intention being to discourage 125 folks from boarding. Thats the rule the conductor must follow or else the conductor could face discipline. If the passenger refuses to pay, claiming lack of funds for example, he fills out a form, shows ID & gets a bill in the mail and gets off the train. When the bill is recieved, its often torn up. It also says in the public timetable that one must pay the fare requested, get a reciept, & complain to commuter relations if they feel they've been overcharged. If the beef is justified, the passenger gets a check in the mail. That, in a nutshell is the policy. However, the trip to 125 from GCT is 10-11 minutes, this too listed in the timetable. By the time the passenger is confronted the train, most likely is pulling into the station. Now if the passenger refuses to pay & refuses to show ID the conductor esclates the situation to a police matter & radios ahead to have a cop meet the train at 125 But there may or may not have one available. If not, In that case, the chief train dispatcher (RTC'S) will order the train not to wait for a cop & leave town . They don't tie up the railroad (wait at the platform with the doors closed) & make thousands of people late for a fare beater which is what they'd be considered by refusing to pay. The passenger gets off & everyone else goes home. IMO, they should do away with the (R) next to 125 since its difficult & quite frankly, rarely enforced. |
|
|
| (1445831) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Aug 7 12:59:04 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Mon Aug 7 12:50:44 2017. IMO, they should do away with the (R) next to 125 since its difficult & quite frankly, rarely enforced.And furthermore, every train is more crowded north of 125th than south of 125th, so there isn't any capacity issue involved in letting a few people ride from GCT to 125th. |
|
|
| (1445839) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Aug 7 14:16:31 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:42 2017. Nonsense. It means you are not allowed to ride only to 125th. |
|
|
| (1445840) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Aug 7 14:17:20 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:46 2017. Not if the train does not discharge passengers at 125th. |
|
|
| (1445841) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Aug 7 14:18:48 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:06 2017. No. It does not discharge passengers there. |
|
|
| (1445842) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Aug 7 14:20:25 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 7 00:00:36 2017. "If you board a train to 125th and pay for a trip to 125th, you have not broken any law."This is the flaw in your argument. You have NOT boarded a train to 125th, as the train does not discharge passengers there. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 6 |
||
