Drive off after fuelling.
Discussion
RizzoTheRat said:
I'm surprised we don't have prepay in the UK, it seems to be really common all over the rest of Europe, and also means you get 24 hour unattended petrol stations.
The UK is really far behind with alot of things, mostly down to workers going on strike for any technology advances due to their job being at risk. DonkeyApple said:
Exactly. There should be absolutely no police involvement as it is a commercial decision by the petrol station to allow people to put the fuel into their car before they have identified themselves or paid because they want them to then have to step into the shop so that they can be unsold goods.
Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
I'm a little surprised at this because whilst on the one hand I do think "Just make pay at pump mandatory" fixes it (barring stolen cards), pretty much any retail operation works on the same principle - you walk around, you get the "stuff" you want and then you pay for it.Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
I struggle because it turns theft into "Serves you right for making it so easy" and I'm not entirely comfortable with that.
DonkeyApple said:
Ghost91 said:
It is theft of course, but i'd much rather the police were out there attending more serious crimes instead of turning up at a garage every time someone does a runner.
In most garages your number plate is recorded on an ANPR system, they let the police know so it'll flag up if they spot you and id imagine if they aren't busy they'll pull you over.
Shirley they can't be expeted to turn up every time... It would make more sense to pay for the fuel first if the petrol stations bother the police too much with it.
Exactly. There should be absolutely no police involvement as it is a commercial decision by the petrol station to allow people to put the fuel into their car before they have identified themselves or paid because they want them to then have to step into the shop so that they can be unsold goods. In most garages your number plate is recorded on an ANPR system, they let the police know so it'll flag up if they spot you and id imagine if they aren't busy they'll pull you over.
Shirley they can't be expeted to turn up every time... It would make more sense to pay for the fuel first if the petrol stations bother the police too much with it.
Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
This just reads as though you have a mahhhoooosive chip on your shoulder.
bhstewie said:
DonkeyApple said:
Exactly. There should be absolutely no police involvement as it is a commercial decision by the petrol station to allow people to put the fuel into their car before they have identified themselves or paid because they want them to then have to step into the shop so that they can be unsold goods.
Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
I'm a little surprised at this because whilst on the one hand I do think "Just make pay at pump mandatory" fixes it (barring stolen cards), pretty much any retail operation works on the same principle - you walk around, you get the "stuff" you want and then you pay for it.Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
I struggle because it turns theft into "Serves you right for making it so easy" and I'm not entirely comfortable with that.
I bet if garages installed the kind of rising bollards so enjoyed by sadistic council bureaucrats "protecting" bus lanes the police/courts would be all over assisting the scumbags in their personal injury claims against the garages.
hairyben said:
bhstewie said:
DonkeyApple said:
Exactly. There should be absolutely no police involvement as it is a commercial decision by the petrol station to allow people to put the fuel into their car before they have identified themselves or paid because they want them to then have to step into the shop so that they can be unsold goods.
Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
I'm a little surprised at this because whilst on the one hand I do think "Just make pay at pump mandatory" fixes it (barring stolen cards), pretty much any retail operation works on the same principle - you walk around, you get the "stuff" you want and then you pay for it.Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
I struggle because it turns theft into "Serves you right for making it so easy" and I'm not entirely comfortable with that.
I bet if garages installed the kind of rising bollards so enjoyed by sadistic council bureaucrats "protecting" bus lanes the police/courts would be all over assisting the scumbags in their personal injury claims against the garages.
Ghost91 said:
It is theft of course, but i'd much rather the police were out there attending more serious crimes instead of turning up at a garage every time someone does a runner.
In most garages your number plate is recorded on an ANPR system, they let the police know so it'll flag up if they spot you and id imagine if they aren't busy they'll pull you over.
Shirley they can't be expeted to turn up every time... It would make more sense to pay for the fuel first if the petrol stations bother the police too much with it.
Mrs Speedy did a drive off at the local Shell garage she uses fequently recently In most garages your number plate is recorded on an ANPR system, they let the police know so it'll flag up if they spot you and id imagine if they aren't busy they'll pull you over.
Shirley they can't be expeted to turn up every time... It would make more sense to pay for the fuel first if the petrol stations bother the police too much with it.
Within 2 days a threatening letter off the local BIB (Cheshire) full of the usual inaccuracies arrived
She contacted CC company to check and the card had been used but transaction not verified by the fuel station or something. The guy at the petrol station recognised her as a frequent customer anyway to vouch for her story.
Unfortunately she hasn't been jailed for it yet
Sump said:
DonkeyApple said:
Ghost91 said:
It is theft of course, but i'd much rather the police were out there attending more serious crimes instead of turning up at a garage every time someone does a runner.
In most garages your number plate is recorded on an ANPR system, they let the police know so it'll flag up if they spot you and id imagine if they aren't busy they'll pull you over.
Shirley they can't be expeted to turn up every time... It would make more sense to pay for the fuel first if the petrol stations bother the police too much with it.
Exactly. There should be absolutely no police involvement as it is a commercial decision by the petrol station to allow people to put the fuel into their car before they have identified themselves or paid because they want them to then have to step into the shop so that they can be unsold goods. In most garages your number plate is recorded on an ANPR system, they let the police know so it'll flag up if they spot you and id imagine if they aren't busy they'll pull you over.
Shirley they can't be expeted to turn up every time... It would make more sense to pay for the fuel first if the petrol stations bother the police too much with it.
Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
This just reads as though you have a mahhhoooosive chip on your shoulder.
Don't be a buffoon.
jimmy156 said:
hairyben said:
bhstewie said:
DonkeyApple said:
Exactly. There should be absolutely no police involvement as it is a commercial decision by the petrol station to allow people to put the fuel into their car before they have identified themselves or paid because they want them to then have to step into the shop so that they can be unsold goods.
Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
I'm a little surprised at this because whilst on the one hand I do think "Just make pay at pump mandatory" fixes it (barring stolen cards), pretty much any retail operation works on the same principle - you walk around, you get the "stuff" you want and then you pay for it.Running a system that does allow a small number of people to do runners is an overt commercial decision and one where the losses will have been factored into the model. There is absolutely no way that police and taxpayer resources should ever be utilised to enforce the profit margins of a private enterprise. Let alone one that consciously factors in such thefts as merely a margin cost on the profit made from not using prepay.
People expecting the taxpayer and Police to be used to enhance profit margins on a deliberate business model is just flawed understanding. Sames as the chap above who hasn't quite worked out yet why retail outlets make their itinerant, low cost staff financially responsible for stock losses.
I struggle because it turns theft into "Serves you right for making it so easy" and I'm not entirely comfortable with that.
I bet if garages installed the kind of rising bollards so enjoyed by sadistic council bureaucrats "protecting" bus lanes the police/courts would be all over assisting the scumbags in their personal injury claims against the garages.
I'm afraid my logic is perfectly correct as to why petrol stations run the business model that they do and that it is their choice to chase greater profit. It isn't the job of taxpayer funded police to enforce this profit model but that of private security.
hairyben said:
Yup. once you go down that road where do you stop? Is it "alright" to run off with my tools if I'm distracted while loading my van because I should have been paying more attention? Is it alright to break into my van if I'm the only tradesman in the street without after market deadbolts becasue in this day and age I should have taken more care of my tools? where do you you draw the line? Is it alright for me to mug some old dear off and charge her £2000 for a £50 job because "she should have protected herself better?"...
I hear what you're saying, but you're trying to conflate one-off, individual incidents with the failure of entire industry to take reasonable crime prevention steps over multiple decades.Yes, your hypothetical tradesman should get a decent police service if his tools get nicked. But what if he leaves his tools out all the time and they get nicked every week? At what point do we say: “Come on, mate – take some responsibility”?
Yeah, it would be lovely if the Police could investigate every crime and we could all leave our doors unlocked etc etc.
Unfortunately, that's just not realistic.
DJP said:
hairyben said:
Yup. once you go down that road where do you stop? Is it "alright" to run off with my tools if I'm distracted while loading my van because I should have been paying more attention? Is it alright to break into my van if I'm the only tradesman in the street without after market deadbolts becasue in this day and age I should have taken more care of my tools? where do you you draw the line? Is it alright for me to mug some old dear off and charge her £2000 for a £50 job because "she should have protected herself better?"...
I hear what you're saying, but you're trying to conflate one-off, individual incidents with the failure of entire industry to take reasonable crime prevention steps over multiple decades.Yes, your hypothetical tradesman should get a decent police service if his tools get nicked. But what if he leaves his tools out all the time and they get nicked every week? At what point do we say: “Come on, mate – take some responsibility”?
Yeah, it would be lovely if the Police could investigate every crime and we could all leave our doors unlocked etc etc.
Unfortunately, that's just not realistic.
DJP said:
hairyben said:
Yup. once you go down that road where do you stop? Is it "alright" to run off with my tools if I'm distracted while loading my van because I should have been paying more attention? Is it alright to break into my van if I'm the only tradesman in the street without after market deadbolts becasue in this day and age I should have taken more care of my tools? where do you you draw the line? Is it alright for me to mug some old dear off and charge her £2000 for a £50 job because "she should have protected herself better?"...
I hear what you're saying, but you're trying to conflate one-off, individual incidents with the failure of entire industry to take reasonable crime prevention steps over multiple decades.Yes, your hypothetical tradesman should get a decent police service if his tools get nicked. But what if he leaves his tools out all the time and they get nicked every week? At what point do we say: “Come on, mate – take some responsibility”?
Yeah, it would be lovely if the Police could investigate every crime and we could all leave our doors unlocked etc etc.
Unfortunately, that's just not realistic.
also look at the broken windows theory. Once you choose to ignore one thing the problem moves up a level. If some people are seen to be getting away with drive-offs others will too, it's human nature. Then they'll think "what else can I steal?"
DonkeyApple said:
That's the nub of it. in the case of the petrol station it is a deliberate commercial decision.
I would say it's not so much a deliberate decision as a reluctance to change a 100 odd year method and do something seen as less welcoming/trusting to customers. Certainly if you're the first chain to do it it'll cause resentment by people having their simple routine upset, and trust is a two-way process- the commercial considerations are no-where near as simplistic and you make out.hairyben said:
The industry works that way because until the pump clicks you don't know what it's going to cost, so it makes sense and it's more convenient for all the honest people to fill up then pay...
They do it differently in plenty of other countries and it works just fine there.hairyben said:
Loads and loads of industries work this way- as a tradesman I've suffered occasional non-payers- is this acceptable too as I didn't demand payment in full up front?
Of course not, but if you get “Knocked” it will be a civil matter and not something that the police will deal with.Fuel companies are commercial organisations that know the risk, choose to accept it and price it into their business model.
Why should it be any different for them?
Edited by DJP on Saturday 28th November 11:33
hairyben said:
DonkeyApple said:
That's the nub of it. in the case of the petrol station it is a deliberate commercial decision.
I would say it's not so much a deliberate decision as a reluctance to change a 100 odd year method and do something seen as less welcoming/trusting to customers. Certainly if you're the first chain to do it it'll cause resentment by people having their simple routine upset, and trust is a two-way process- the commercial considerations are no-where near as simplistic and you make out.Yes it is a criminal act but one that deliberately sanctioned by the enterprise as it is a byproduct of greater profit.
Thankyou4calling said:
What if I go into a restaurant with 6 mates and gorge myself on food and boll inter before walking out without paying?
I'd imagine the police would get involved and I can't really see how it's much different for fuel theft.
If it weren't it'd be happening an awful lot more I reckon.
Does that business deliberately make 'runners' possible because it makes them more money?I'd imagine the police would get involved and I can't really see how it's much different for fuel theft.
If it weren't it'd be happening an awful lot more I reckon.
No. And they also take as much action as possible to prevent this loss of revenue. It is a different business model.
hairyben said:
I would say it's not so much a deliberate decision as a reluctance to change a 100 odd year method and do something seen as less welcoming/trusting to customers. Certainly if you're the first chain to do it it'll cause resentment by people having their simple routine upset, and trust is a two-way process- the commercial considerations are no-where near as simplistic and you make out.
it;s not a '100 year old system' though is it attended service was the norm for quite a long time after pumped petrol became the norm ... self service petrol is a relatively recent innovation.
Well the police not turning up is a pistonheads myth. Just last week the mrs got a knock at the door about driving off without paying. She bought her shopping(bp garage with a marks and spencer inside), forgot about the fuel and went on her merry way. Paid the amount and all was good. Iv pooked fun at her everyday since.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff