undefined | Better HN

0 pointsetrautmann3y ago0 comments

exactly - it seems braindead obvious to me that there should be a 5-minute window for exiting without charge. Not implementing such an obvious and trivial feature can only be interpreted as deliberately taking money without delivering value for riders because....it's possible?

0 comments

jonas213y ago

Until recently, BART used magstripe tickets where all information was stored on the ticket itself. It might not have been possible to implement a time window with that.

That doesn't explain why they didn't add this when migrating to the Clipper card, but I feel like "nobody thought to change it" or "we wanted to reduce risk by not introducing changes while migrating" seem like more likely explanations than malice.

magila3y ago

I wouldn't call it malice. It's simply a rational decision. BART makes more money with the fee than without, so absent political pressure to discontinue it why would they?

Also, Clipper cards have been around many years. They aren't a recent addition to BART.

candu3y ago

"I wouldn't call it _malice_. I make more money robbing travellers on the King's road than not doing so, and it's very unlikely I'll get caught!"

Assuming a value system in which certain acts are wrong even if not observed / punished, some acts can be rational _and_ malicious.

(This isn't intended to say anything either way about BART's actions here, which are obviously not the same as literal robbery; I'm mainly disputing the idea that rational acts can't be malicious.)

andrewxdiamond3y ago

I’d take it further and say this isn’t intentional at all.

Having worked in, for, and around governments, this was almost certainly an oversight that hasn’t been a big enough of a fire in comparison to the other fires.

Making a public stink about it makes it a bigger fire though, so the system is working as intended!

bryanrasmussen3y ago

>I wouldn't call it malice. It's simply a rational decision. BART makes more money with the fee than without

by taking money from those weaker than it, since it is a large well financed organization and the people riding it will not be equipped to fight it (legally), that's malicious.

1 more reply

jonas213y ago

While Clipper cards have been around for a while, it was a very long migration process. BART didn't stop selling the magstripe tickets in vending machines until 2020, and continued to use them for discounted fares through the end of 2021 [1].

[1] https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2021/news20210908

panarky3y ago

A decision that increases revenue X dollars is not rational if it also increases costs 10X to deal with customer complaints and bad publicity.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jonas213y ago

Until recently, BART used magstripe tickets where all information was stored on the ticket itself. It might not have been possible to implement a time window with that.

magila3y ago

I wouldn't call it malice. It's simply a rational decision. BART makes more money with the fee than without, so absent political pressure to discontinue it why would they?

Also, Clipper cards have been around many years. They aren't a recent addition to BART.

candu3y ago

"I wouldn't call it _malice_. I make more money robbing travellers on the King's road than not doing so, and it's very unlikely I'll get caught!"

Assuming a value system in which certain acts are wrong even if not observed / punished, some acts can be rational _and_ malicious.

(This isn't intended to say anything either way about BART's actions here, which are obviously not the same as literal robbery; I'm mainly disputing the idea that rational acts can't be malicious.)

andrewxdiamond3y ago

I’d take it further and say this isn’t intentional at all.

Having worked in, for, and around governments, this was almost certainly an oversight that hasn’t been a big enough of a fire in comparison to the other fires.

Making a public stink about it makes it a bigger fire though, so the system is working as intended!

bryanrasmussen3y ago

>I wouldn't call it malice. It's simply a rational decision. BART makes more money with the fee than without

by taking money from those weaker than it, since it is a large well financed organization and the people riding it will not be equipped to fight it (legally), that's malicious.

1 more reply

jonas213y ago

[1] https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2021/news20210908

panarky3y ago

A decision that increases revenue X dollars is not rational if it also increases costs 10X to deal with customer complaints and bad publicity.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse