I don’t know if this relates to the whole country or just here in London.
At the age of 11 children need to have an oyster card to travel free on the buses,
My daughter today forgot her oyster card for school as she gets a lift to school didn’t realise until home time.
She has to get two buses home from school and is 11 so has just started secondary schools.
She realised when walking to the bus stop that she didn’t have her pass, and tried to explain to the bus driver what had happened, she had her twin brother with her to, she was told she would have to pay or get off the bus there was nothing he could do. They don’t have money at school they have a lunch card and bus pass, so never need cash on them
They have just walked the three plus miles back from school.
I think to throw an 11 year old off the bus is appalling when full time students up to the age of 18 are entitled to free bus travel.
Am I alone in feeling this way?
What are others views?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
can throwing children off buses be right?
last reply
119 replies
3.6k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Quote by Hibernian
If yopu complain to the depot they will understand your poiint, but they will ultimately say he was right.
Look at this scenario:
The bus is involved in an accident and your child is hurt, you think ok, now she is ok, we can look at compensation, but you can't, as your child didn't have a valid authority to travel (ticket, pass etc.).
So he was right and would have been required to refuse.
Howver, like I said, he could have paid.
or look at another scenario
Bus driver tells child,your not coming on my bus.
Child has to walk home.
10pm and child still hasn't arrived home.
Two days later body of child found in bushs 1 mile from home.
Child had been and then strangled.
if this driver has any ounce of consience...letting that child on the bus...would have been the sensible thing to do regardless of his insurance!
my son lost his oyster card...and he never had a problem with any of the drivers till his new one arrived...like i said this one was just acting luck a cock!!
Quote by Hibernian
If yopu complain to the depot they will understand your poiint, but they will ultimately say he was right.
Look at this scenario:
The bus is involved in an accident and your child is hurt, you think ok, now she is ok, we can look at compensation, but you can't, as your child didn't have a valid authority to travel (ticket, pass etc.).
So he was right and would have been required to refuse.
Howver, like I said, he could have paid.
or look at another scenario
Bus driver tells child,your not coming on my bus.
Child has to walk home.
10pm and child still hasn't arrived home.
Two days later body of child found in bushs 1 mile from home.
Child had been and then strangled.
if this driver has any ounce of consience...letting that child on the bus...would have been the sensible thing to do regardless of his insurance!
You can choose to be obtuse and ignore the facts if you like, hardly surprising really.
He would be failing in his duties if he allowed the child to travel, so the scenario slthough hypothetical, from a legal point of view, were a distinct posibility, and he would be liable.
Your scenario is wholy hypothetical, and sensationalist, and although the driver would indeed feel guilt and responsiblity, he wouldn't be ultimately accountable.
But like I said, nothing stopping him paying himself, but he wasn't required to.
fuck the facts...how about a little common decency.
something that lacks in this great country of ours!
Sex God
I would advise your daughter in a case like that in future (although her oyster card will probably be the one thing she never forgets again!) to simply have returned to school. Am sure the school office/student services would have subbed her bus fare.
It is difficult. I work in a job where child protection is paramount. I also use public transport daily and the number of kids who use the 'I've forgotten my pass' line round here is overwhelming.
The bus driver is stuck in a dilemma really isn't he? As others have said, he could be disciplined for carrying passengers without a ticket. He also cannot afford to let every child who uses the excuse get on without paying either.
I am not for a minute saying your child was or would blag. But a number of kids do. Tricky.
Definitely advise them to return to school in future if any concerns or queries like that.
Nola x
It is difficult. I work in a job where child protection is paramount. I also use public transport daily and the number of kids who use the 'I've forgotten my pass' line round here is overwhelming.
The bus driver is stuck in a dilemma really isn't he? As others have said, he could be disciplined for carrying passengers without a ticket. He also cannot afford to let every child who uses the excuse get on without paying either.
I am not for a minute saying your child was or would blag. But a number of kids do. Tricky.
Definitely advise them to return to school in future if any concerns or queries like that.
Nola x
Quote by noladreams30
I would advise your daughter in a case like that in future (although her oyster card will probably be the one thing she never forgets again!) to simply have returned to school. Am sure the school office/student services would have subbed her bus fare.
It is difficult. I work in a job where child protection is paramount. I also use public transport daily and the number of kids who use the 'I've forgotten my pass' line round here is overwhelming.
The bus driver is stuck in a dilemma really isn't he? As others have said, he could be disciplined for carrying passengers without a ticket. He also cannot afford to let every child who uses the excuse get on without paying either.
I am not for a minute saying your child was or would blag. But a number of kids do. Tricky.
Definitely advise them to return to school in future if any concerns or queries like that.
Nola x
The pass is given to all children in London for free...i could understand kids trying to bunk their fare so they don't have to buy a pass...but kids in London don't need to do that.
Quote by Hibernian
If yopu complain to the depot they will understand your poiint, but they will ultimately say he was right.
Look at this scenario:
The bus is involved in an accident and your child is hurt, you think ok, now she is ok, we can look at compensation, but you can't, as your child didn't have a valid authority to travel (ticket, pass etc.).
You would then be gunning for the driver for failing in his duties and allowing an uninsured child to travel.
After all, if he'd have refused, she wouldn't have been on the bus, so therefore would not be injured.
This scenario could be even worse.
So he was right and would have been required to refuse.
Howver, like I said, he could have paid.
Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but the reason for the introduction of oyster cards was:
To prevent people over 16 and not in full time education from abusing the system.
To stop runaway children from being undetected from free travel on buses
To stop illegal immigrant children from having free travel.
Travel is FREE for under 16 year olds British citizens, we don’t have to pay for this card they are purely an ID card.
So to stop the others points above from happening they ban my child, well I find it appalling.
I agree as to why they bought them out, but would my daughter have fallen into one of the categories above?
She had her school uniform on.
Quote by Calista
I agree with Mr-Powers.
The only duty that people should feel bound to is the one that looks after children! Stuff the profits for big business ...
It is nothing to do with insurance!
One lousy piece of plastic should not be what it takes to keep our children safe!
I'd agree with that.. the "contract" is more likely with the LEA
(or whatever they are called this week)
Sex God
Quote by Theladyisaminx
Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but the reason for the introduction of oyster cards was:
To prevent people over 16 and not in full time education from abusing the system.
To stop runaway children from being undetected from free travel on buses
To stop illegal immigrant children from having free travel.
Travel is FREE for under 16 year olds British citizens, we don’t have to pay for this card they are purely an ID card.
So to stop the others points above from happening they ban my child, well I find it appalling.
I agree as to why they bought them out, but would my daughter have fallen into one of the categories above?
She had her school uniform on.
*In edit: bugger... I clearly can't quote fullstop, never mind mutiquote!?!
Forgive me 'cos I cannot multi quote!
So, to Mr-Powers and Theladyisaminx, I didn't realise all kids in London got a free buspass. That doesn't happen elsewhere. In the local authorities I have worked in, it is only children from low-income families who get a buspass. Everyone else pays. Hence my point about the bus driver not being able to let everyone on who says they have 'forgotten.'
I didn't realise Oyster Cards were classed as ID cards. I thought they were travel cards only. I left London before they were introduced!
Quote by Hibernian
If yopu complain to the depot they will understand your poiint, but they will ultimately say he was right.
Look at this scenario:
The bus is involved in an accident and your child is hurt, you think ok, now she is ok, we can look at compensation, but you can't, as your child didn't have a valid authority to travel (ticket, pass etc.).
So he was right and would have been required to refuse.
Howver, like I said, he could have paid.
or look at another scenario
Bus driver tells child,your not coming on my bus.
Child has to walk home.
10pm and child still hasn't arrived home.
Two days later body of child found in bushs 1 mile from home.
Child had been and then strangled.
if this driver has any ounce of consience...letting that child on the bus...would have been the sensible thing to do regardless of his insurance!
You can choose to be obtuse and ignore the facts if you like, hardly surprising really.
He would be failing in his duties if he allowed the child to travel, so the scenario slthough hypothetical, from a legal point of view, were a distinct posibility, and he would be liable.
Your scenario is wholy hypothetical, and sensationalist, and although the driver would indeed feel guilt and responsiblity, he wouldn't be ultimately accountable.
But like I said, nothing stopping him paying himself, but he wasn't required to.
fuck the facts...how about a little common decency.
something that lacks in this great country of ours!
I see you conveniently ignored my moral opinion (so I've enlarged it for you, those glasses are clearly not the right prescription), the rest was from a legal perspective, and fact.
he didn't have to pay...there are no child fares in London...its free for all under 16 years olds...thats what i am trying to tell you!
Transport for London subsidise the bus companies...which is paid for by the local authourities ...which is paid by the council tax payers...so her fare had been paid by her parents already!
The Oyster card is an ID card...i think the childs school uniform which have been sufficient proof of age!
Quote by Hibernian
If yopu complain to the depot they will understand your poiint, but they will ultimately say he was right.
Look at this scenario:
The bus is involved in an accident and your child is hurt, you think ok, now she is ok, we can look at compensation, but you can't, as your child didn't have a valid authority to travel (ticket, pass etc.).
So he was right and would have been required to refuse.
Howver, like I said, he could have paid.
or look at another scenario
Bus driver tells child,your not coming on my bus.
Child has to walk home.
10pm and child still hasn't arrived home.
Two days later body of child found in bushs 1 mile from home.
Child had been and then strangled.
if this driver has any ounce of consience...letting that child on the bus...would have been the sensible thing to do regardless of his insurance!
You can choose to be obtuse and ignore the facts if you like, hardly surprising really.
He would be failing in his duties if he allowed the child to travel, so the scenario slthough hypothetical, from a legal point of view, were a distinct posibility, and he would be liable.
Your scenario is wholy hypothetical, and sensationalist, and although the driver would indeed feel guilt and responsiblity, he wouldn't be ultimately accountable.
But like I said, nothing stopping him paying himself, but he wasn't required to.
fuck the facts...how about a little common decency.
something that lacks in this great country of ours!
I see you conveniently ignored my moral opinion (so I've enlarged it for you, those glasses are clearly not the right prescription), the rest was from a legal perspective, and fact.
I would say look at my point raised to above then tell me if you would still see in the same light?
Only you always seem to avoid me when I came back with what I see as a logical reason to a point.
:lol: Well I gave a logical reason on the last page why she should not have got thrown off in my opinion, that was choose to be ignored.
Mod
I definitely know the answer to this one and that is No bus driver can either remove or ask a child to get off his bus because she/he doesn't have their fare.
If the parent were to complain to the bus company there is a good chance that the driver would be sacked.
Once again Bus Drivers cannot throw kids off buses, they can stop them traveling tho but not if the reason is that they don't have any money and they can't throw them off once they become passengers.
If the parent were to complain to the bus company there is a good chance that the driver would be sacked.
Once again Bus Drivers cannot throw kids off buses, they can stop them traveling tho but not if the reason is that they don't have any money and they can't throw them off once they become passengers.
Sex God
Depends if there is grass or concrete on the other side of the door :lol2:
I do think the driver was wrong specially since you have explained the lobster card
I do think the driver was wrong specially since you have explained the lobster card
The points about Insurance are completely inaccurate!
Passengers are not insured as individuals the Bus Operator has to carry "public Liability Insurance". This insurance covers the driver and passengers inside the bus and the general public outside the bus.
Or do you think that someone standing on a pavement who is accidently run over by a bus, can't claim from the bus company because they hadn't bought a ticket? :giggle:
Anyway, I checked and if you are on a bus without a ticket you are still covered by the Public Liability Insurance policy.
So the driver was just being a jobs worth ..... maybe he'd had a bad day?
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Passengers are not insured as individuals the Bus Operator has to carry "public Liability Insurance". This insurance covers the driver and passengers inside the bus and the general public outside the bus.
Or do you think that someone standing on a pavement who is accidently run over by a bus, can't claim from the bus company because they hadn't bought a ticket? :giggle:
Anyway, I checked and if you are on a bus without a ticket you are still covered by the Public Liability Insurance policy.
So the driver was just being a jobs worth ..... maybe he'd had a bad day?
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sex God
Quote by woohoo
I definitely know the answer to this one and that is No bus driver can either remove or ask a child to get off his bus because she/he doesn't have their fare.
If the parent were to complain to the bus company there is a good chance that the driver would be sacked.
Once again Bus Drivers cannot throw kids off buses, they can stop them traveling tho but not if the reason is that they don't have any money and they can't throw them off once they become passengers.
That's my understanding too. If they forcibly remove them (if they refuse to get off), isn't that assault anyway?
Sex God
Quote by blonde
So the driver was just being a jobs worth
Or just a twat
Quote by blonde
The points about Insurance are completely inaccurate!
Passengers are not insured as individuals the Bus Operator has to carry "public Liability Insurance". This insurance covers the driver and passengers inside the bus and the general public outside the bus.
Or do you think that someone standing on a pavement who is accidently run over by a bus, can't claim from the bus company because they hadn't bought a ticket? :giggle:
Anyway, I checked and if you are on a bus without a ticket you are still covered by the Public Liability Insurance policy.
So the driver was just being a jobs worth ..... maybe he'd had a bad day?
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or perhaps he was having a good day!
Quote by Hibernian
If yopu complain to the depot they will understand your poiint, but they will ultimately say he was right.
Look at this scenario:
The bus is involved in an accident and your child is hurt, you think ok, now she is ok, we can look at compensation, but you can't, as your child didn't have a valid authority to travel (ticket, pass etc.).
You would then be gunning for the driver for failing in his duties and allowing an uninsured child to travel.
After all, if he'd have refused, she wouldn't have been on the bus, so therefore would not be injured.
This scenario could be even worse.
So he was right and would have been required to refuse.
Howver, like I said, he could have paid.
Bolleaux!
The driver is in charge of the vehicle, if he says a child can get on regardless of ticket paid then that driver has given a valid authority to travel.
The scenario you are talking about is when someone sneaks onto the bus, doesn't pay and doesn't ask the driver for permission.
Quote by Peanut
If yopu complain to the depot they will understand your poiint, but they will ultimately say he was right.
Look at this scenario:
The bus is involved in an accident and your child is hurt, you think ok, now she is ok, we can look at compensation, but you can't, as your child didn't have a valid authority to travel (ticket, pass etc.).
You would then be gunning for the driver for failing in his duties and allowing an uninsured child to travel.
After all, if he'd have refused, she wouldn't have been on the bus, so therefore would not be injured.
This scenario could be even worse.
So he was right and would have been required to refuse.
Howver, like I said, he could have paid.
Bolleaux!
The driver is in charge of the vehicle, if he says a child can get on regardless of ticket paid then that driver has given a valid authority to travel.
The scenario you are talking about is when someone sneaks onto the bus, doesn't pay and doesn't ask the driver for permission.
Peanut took you a while to stir, were you having an afternoon nap? lol
Sex God
Quote by Peanut
Peanut took you a while to stir, were you having an afternoon nap? lol
I wish, bloody Asda on a Friday afternoon... grumble... gripe... effing kids... sodding mums who think the narrowest aisles are the place to hold mums & tots groups...
Its best avoided between thurday morning and monday night
yup that leaves tuesday and wednesday but leave plenty of time if you do it daytime cos of the elderly shoppers :lol2: Quote by TanKinky
Peanut took you a while to stir, were you having an afternoon nap? lol
I wish, bloody Asda on a Friday afternoon... grumble... gripe... effing kids... sodding mums who think the narrowest aisles are the place to hold mums & tots groups...
Its best avoided between thurday morning and monday night
yup that leaves tuesday and wednesday but leave plenty of time if you do it daytime cos of the elderly shoppers :lol2:Actually, I found the optimum time is between 2:30 and 3pm on any day of the week at our local Asda/Walmart.
Hijack over....
...sodding auld pharts who can't push a frigging trolley in a straight line... piss... moan...