free travel for children

[salem]

the kids on the buses i get to work behave exactly as they did before free travel was introduced - which is like kids.

I agree with you on that point, however before it was mainly when they are going to and from school which was easy to avoid. Now it's all the bloody time. I'll happily admit I'm a grumpy old git though

I have long thought they should get the free travel for going to and from school and nothing else. Even then only if they live over half a mile or so from school (otherwise the lazy gits can walk or ride)

Like you say it is usually just annoying rather then *bad* behaviour but it's still irritating and when I'm on my way home after a long day at work the last thing I want is the NokiaSoundSystem setting up behind me.

The idea was poorly implemented too with the subjective issue of age and tapping in. It creates far too many confrontational situations and has caused apathy amongst a lot of bus drivers and who can blame them?

It's far from all kids which are creating issues and it's not exactly anarchy on the buses but too often my journey is disturbed. A bus is an important part of city life, not a playground.

I try and use the tube where possible now as its just much hassle (and no pesky kids )

 

[scifisam]

Due to fraud, you can't get kids' tickets from ticket machines. This meant that, before the advent of free travel, you had to queue up to pay; at Bethnal Green, that meant up to an extra 45 minutes waiting, while the queue blocked off two of the barriers and the gate (and, at half term, when some parents have to take their kids to work with them, that meant blocking the barriers up at rush hour). On buses I guess you'd have to pay for kids in cash while everyone else streamed past with their Oyster cards - meaning that, basically, kids and parents are never allowed to sit down unless the bus is really quiet. Everything would end up a lot slower for adults as well as kids - and those kids that want to misbehave still will.

So, no, I wouldn't be in favour of taking away kids' free travel.

 

[salem]

Due to fraud, you can't get kids' tickets from ticket machines. This meant that, before the advent of free travel, you had to queue up to pay; at Bethnal Green, that meant up to an extra 45 minutes waiting, while the queue blocked off two of the barriers and the gate (and, at half term, when some parents have to take their kids to work with them, that meant blocking the barriers up at rush hour). On buses I guess you'd have to pay for kids in cash while everyone else streamed past with their Oyster cards - meaning that, basically, kids and parents are never allowed to sit down unless the bus is really quiet. Everything would end up a lot slower for adults as well as kids - and those kids that want to misbehave still will.

So, no, I wouldn't be in favour of taking away kids' free travel.

Does that include topping up their oyster cards?

And kids are well able to stand. As it is now it's the kids who steam on without oysterards.

 

[scifisam]

You'd have to have oystercard fees at kids' rate (you don't now - they're for free travel, not for kids' rates), and you'd still have lots of kids without oystercards having to queue. If you had oystercards at kids' rate you'd again end up with quite a few people using them fraudulently.

Kids are able to stand, and so are most adults, but why should kids and adults always be forced to be the ones standing? Even if they'd been waiting longer than the others at the stop?

Do you seriously think that badly-behaved kids would stop being badly-behaved if they had to pay to travel?

 

[salem]

But I don't think the problem with badly behaved children is a major one. However kids traveling about using the bus as a youth club is. (God I'm coming across as a children should be seen and not heard type here )

But I don't see why a 'child rate' oyster card for when kids turn say 7 would be a good idea. They offer a cut price oyster card to New Deal without problem.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Make the little buggers walk. It's character-building.

 

[trashpony]

Do you seriously think that badly-behaved kids would stop being badly-behaved if they had to pay to travel?

I suspect they might be a little less badly behaved if they were traceable. Right now they can behave appallingly with little fear of redress.

I don't think they should have to pay necessarily, but just have to have some kind of travel permit or something.

 

[Tank Girl]

they are traceable, in theory. over 14s oyster cards have their picture on them.

 

[scifisam]

But I don't think the problem with badly behaved children is a major one. However kids traveling about using the bus as a youth club is. (God I'm coming across as a children should be seen and not heard type here )

But I don't see why a 'child rate' oyster card for when kids turn say 7 would be a good idea. They offer a cut price oyster card to New Deal without problem.

What difference would it make, though? Except making it more difficult for some parents to get their kids to school or on days out. If all kids could get to a school within walking distance (or there were more cycle lanes), then it would be different.

I just don't see how it would change behaviour at all. The ones who are most likely to be noisy and play music loudly are the over 14s, who do have to have cards.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

What difference would it make, though? Except making it more difficult for some parents to get their kids to school or on days out. If all kids could get to a school within walking distance (or there were more cycle lanes), then it would be different.

I just don't see how it would change behaviour at all. The ones who are most likely to be noisy and play music loudly are the over 14s, who do have to have cards.

Becuase it's babies that get stuff given to the for free if they misbehave. not 14 year old young adults. By that age some kind of social responisbility should be installed in them.

As in:

"I pay for the bus, therefore I understand that I should look after the service I get, and see the perspective of other paying customers that may also use it"

Rather than:

"It is my right to have free travel. Therfore I whill scream and scream and scream until I'm sick".

 

[scifisam]

Becuase it's babies that get stuff given to the for free if they misbehave. not 14 year old young adults.

Sorry, I can't quite understand this sentence. Babies get given stuff for free if they misbehave? Have I understood that correctly? Um, babies don't get given stuff for free if they're naughty. I must have misunderstood you.

By that age some kind of social responisbility should be installed in them.

As in:

"I pay for the bus, therefore I understand that I should look after the service I get, and see the perspective of other paying customers that may also use it"

Rather than:

"It is my right to have free travel. Therfore I whill scream and scream and scream until I'm sick".

Or: 'Right, either I can pay to go to school, or I can buy this thing I actually want. Bye, school!'

I do see what you mean about people usually respecting more the stuff that they pay for - but I just don't see it happening. I certainly don't see it happening to a large enough extent that it would counteract the disadvantages of getting rid of free kids' travel.

I'm being selfish, in a way - once my daughter starts secondary school she'll have to get a bus and/or tube, and I really won't be able to afford it. That, to me, seems more important than reducing bad behaviour on the buses by 1 hundredth (if that).

 

[salem]

What difference would it make, though? Except making it more difficult for some parents to get their kids to school or on days out. If all kids could get to a school within walking distance (or there were more cycle lanes), then it would be different.

I just don't see how it would change behaviour at all. The ones who are most likely to be noisy and play music loudly are the over 14s, who do have to have cards.

It'd mean that the bus stops being somewhere to hang out when it's raining outside.

Just to reiterate, I personally think kids who live, say, over half a mile from school should get free travel in the mornings and afternoon. Otherwise a cheap rate oystercard (like you'd get on New Deal)

 

[salem]

Sorry, I can't quite understand this sentence. Babies get given stuff for free if they misbehave? Have I understood that correctly? Um, babies don't get given stuff for free if they're naughty. I must have misunderstood you.



Or: 'Right, either I can pay to go to school, or I can buy this thing I actually want. Bye, school!'

I do see what you mean about people usually respecting more the stuff that they pay for - but I just don't see it happening. I certainly don't see it happening to a large enough extent that it would counteract the disadvantages of getting rid of free kids' travel.

I'm being selfish, in a way - once my daughter starts secondary school she'll have to get a bus and/or tube, and I really won't be able to afford it. That, to me, seems more important than reducing bad behaviour on the buses by 1 hundredth (if that).

Or learn that actually you can't always get what you want. Or that by riding a bike or walking they'd have the money for it.

I used to have to walk 1.5 miles home from school if I wanted a bar of chocolate when I was a kid (through poverty rather then a sadistic mum) never did me any harm and I soon learned the value of a bus journey.