Dodging the Conductor

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 683, 7 June 1929, Page 8

Dodging the Conductor

People Who Evade Fares DESPITE widely advertised by-laws it is surprising bow few people realise that the onus of seeing a tram-fare is collected lies not with conductors, but with passengers themselves. The general impression seems to be that, if the collector misses a fare in his struggle through a crowded car, that is his look-out.

It is common knowledge that the Auckland trams lose a considerable sum annually through the inability of conductors to collect fares. Many passengers will not deny, in moments of self-revelation, that they have more than once quitted a tram with their twopence intact. By far the greatest loss occurs during peak load hours when the cars are toiling up the Wellesley Streets. Packed like sardines, passengers standing on either platform often obtain no closer view of the conductor than a glimpse of his cap bobbing among an array of felt hats, toques and newspapers. Persons wishing to alight at St. Paul’s or St. Matthew’s corners rarely have difficulty in getting clear free of charge if that way inclined. To the great majority evasion of a trifling obligation is distasteful, but there are numerous occasions in which it is impossible to hand your coppers to the tram-man. Entrust them to fellow-passenger? That is commendable; but if you have experienced such a rebuff as “Don’t be a fool!” you feel humiliated and slink off, your fare unpaid. At one time the corporation used to put assistant conductors on for rush hours, but it was found the expense was unwarranted. The Transport Board is fully aware of the problem, but is confident that the provision of the 25 new cars authorised in the recent poll will go a long way toward a solution. The much-maligned inspectors are executing valued work in keeping people up to the mark, as evidenced by the scores of reports filed at headquarters. Some excuses given by evasive travellers are entertaining, even if futile. A middle-aged spinster caught deliberately overriding a section protested that the conductor had not demanded a further punch out of her concession

card. She essayed one piece of bluff, then another. Unimpressed, the conductor called a policeman, who after 15 minutes’ persuasion obtained her name and address. With a prosecution impending, the lady craved the board’s mercy. She did not understand the rules; she did not hear the conductor because of a cold; she was very nervous, being worried with toothache and wished to have her teeth out, and if she were fined she could not afford new ones! . . . SHE PAID AGAIN Then there was the case of the woman who picked up a ticket from the floor. Reference to his waybill convinced the conductor of the trick. “Oh, well,” she sighed, “if you don't) believe me, I’ll pay again.” Which recalls rather the story of the negro who decided to demand higher wages. “Baas,” he trembled, “I want more money, or else ” “Or else what!” roared the employer. “Or else I work for de same.” Since the coming of the private bus insolent conductors are conspicuous by their absence. A few months ago, however, a sole passenger, after journeying two sections, had not been approached for his fare. To a polite inquiry as to w-hether the tramways did not need money, the conductor told the passenger to mind his own business. The Transport Board asks the co-operation of the public in reporting cases of this sort. There are any number of men ready to fill conductors’ jobs. Asked whether the Transport Board employed plain-clothes inspectors, the traffic manager said such a detective scheme was repugnant to the board. “Spotters,” as these men are known ! in Sydney, are not regarded with fav- j our in that city, and there is no likelihood of their adoption over here.