| ▲ | lqet 2 days ago |
| If you get run over by a car or bicycle while trying to board a bus outside an official station, or if you trip, the bus company is liable, and the driver will be in very big trouble. Also, wehret den Anfängen! If they started doing this, it would set an example: it would make it very difficult to keep the schedule, and would invite people to just walk into traffic to busses stopping at a red light. |
|
| ▲ | Waterluvian a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| This all makes sense on paper and yet in Canada I’ve seen bus drivers cut people breaks and the system didn’t collapse. |
|
| ▲ | wolfi1 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| da könnte ja jeder kommen (then everony tries that, very loosely translated) |
| |
| ▲ | Anamon a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I love that. It's part of what's hilariously called the "Beamtendreisatz" (roughly, the three rules of public servants) 1. Das haben wir schon immer so gemacht (that's how we've always done it) 2. Das haben wir noch nie so gemacht (we have never done it like that) 3. Da könnte ja jeder kommen (then everyone would try it) They're so German that they're very difficult to faithfully translate. Just imagine a grumpy older guy looking for every excuse not to do what you want him to. | | |
| ▲ | leobg a day ago | parent [-] | | It’s actually your #1and your #3 plus: “Wo kämen wir denn da hin?“
(Just think where this would lead to.) |
| |
| ▲ | Propelloni 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde." -- Immanuel Kant | | |
| ▲ | PfizerJaa 2 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | Propelloni 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Hey newbie, I'm sorry my comment hurt you. But you don't have to be able to read German to apply the charity principle [1] and be a decent human being. Love you, too. [1] https://principle-of-charity.net/ | | |
| ▲ | PfizerJaa 2 days ago | parent [-] | | What kind of person comes to an English speaking forum, drops a quote in a foreign language without any translation and pretends to not get called out? | | |
| ▲ | OKRainbowKid 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What kind of person new to a community (account created today) tries to police more established members of that community in their very first comment? | | | |
| ▲ | scotty79 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What kind of a person complains in the comment instead of highlighting the text he doesn't understand, right-clicking and selecting "translate"? | |
| ▲ | wolfi1 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | ever heard of the categorical imperative? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rglullis 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > it would set an example No, it wouldn't. This type of logic only holds if we consider that drivers are automatons who can not analyze risks by themselves. Give the drivers autonomy to judge whether it's safe or not to deviate from the scheduled route. I rather have a driver signaling me "No, I will not open the door now because I don't think it is safe" over "No, I will not open the door now because I can't break the rules". It makes me think of the driver less as a person and more as a brainless cog. |
| |
| ▲ | master-lincoln 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You not following rules makes me think less of you as a person. Rules are made so not everybody needs to judge every situation correctly themselves. People might overlook consequences or are not informed enough to make good decisions. | | |
| ▲ | rglullis 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Rules are made so not everybody needs to judge every situation correctly themselves. Rules are not the problem. Trying to apply one set of rules to every context is. > People might overlook consequences or are not informed enough to make good decisions. That happens regardless, so much so that "I was just following orders" defense has been tried many times before and never became morally acceptable. | | |
| ▲ | scotty79 a day ago | parent [-] | | > Rules are not the problem. Trying to apply one set of rules to every context is. Ah, so basically you want more rules. Granular and detailed rules. Maybe you are more German than Germans too? | | |
| ▲ | rglullis a day ago | parent [-] | | > Ah, so basically you want more rules. Cathy Newman, is that you? | | |
| ▲ | scotty79 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | On a more serious note, if you prefer more flexibility and wildness try Poland. Very culturally similar to Germany but with more lean towards common sense however it is understood in the moment by involved parties. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | capr 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Likewise for you following them blindly. | |
| ▲ | 4gotunameagain a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is a problem though. Who sets the rules? Is it guaranteed that the rules are always sane, and for the benefit of society? I think a baseline level of rebelliousness is necessary.
I also think that the German cultural obsession to comply was necessary for the Nazi madness. | | |
| ▲ | scotty79 a day ago | parent [-] | | Nazis were saying "but we were just following orders" and for everyone else it sounded like a stupid excuse, but for Germans that's a strongly culturally rooted watertight argument. Event today. They just now ensured that their rules are better and orders are more thoughtful. That said, I really love how Germany feels when you live there. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jyounker 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You need to understand that Germany is not logical. It is systematic. | | |
| ▲ | rglullis 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh, I understand it alright. But understanding it doesn't mean I like it. After 13 years living in Berlin, I've come to terms with the fact that most aspects of German culture are things I need to tolerate, but never embrace. |
| |
| ▲ | scotty79 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Give the drivers autonomy to judge whether it's safe or not to deviate from the scheduled route. But they are judging it. And deciding it's not safe. You may not agree but it's their evaluation of their safety. The rules are good for them because they can ensure their safety by obeying the rules. | | |
| ▲ | rglullis a day ago | parent [-] | | There is no "decision" being made if your flowchart always says "only stop at designed bus stops". "Judging" something presupposes the ability to override established rules and even reaching different conclusions despite similar precedents. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | suslik 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I see it like this: Me: I'd like to get out here please. Driver: But it can be dangerous... Me: Noted. Good thing that is not your problem. And when I am hit by a camel while departing the bus, that is my problem also.
But of course, most cultures do not support this line of reasoning - you need to be taken care of weather you like it or not. This approach is well tolerated by most people, but saddens and irritates people like me. |
| |
| ▲ | master-lincoln 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Don't talk to the bus driver while they are driving is also a rule. > Me: Noted. Good thing that is not your problem. As if... when you get injured while leaving the bus, do you really believe the bus driver would just mind their business? There is another rule that demands you help people in emergency situations | | |
| ▲ | willy_k a day ago | parent [-] | | That sounds exhausting. Do things because they’re right or because you want to. Rules are fake (being a little dramatic there, but the point stands - rules create plenty of downside as well, while allowing both people to do the wrong thing with an excuse, and preventing people from doing the right thing without arbitrary consequences that are unrelated to actual outcomes). |
| |
| ▲ | qlte 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s not “needing to be taken care of”, in your scenario when you go the hospital for your camel injuries and use insurance for medical care (even if it’s fully private paying your own premiums), suddenly another party is involved who doesn’t give a shit about what you think and are singularly interested in passing along their expenses to anyone else it will stick. The world is more interconnected and complex then one or two parties engaged in an agreement in complete isolation from everyone else so black and white thinking like that just doesn’t work. | |
| ▲ | karmakurtisaani 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And then you go to the media and file a law suit against the bus company for being reckless. You deny ever asking to get out and say the driver instructed you to get off. You probably wouldn't do this, but the company needs to protect itself against the people who would. | | |
| ▲ | capr 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think "Good thing that is not your problem." includes inability to do such a thing. |
| |
| ▲ | grumbelbart2 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This can be out of your control. Your health insurance will ask why that camel hit you, and might sue the bus operator for their damages for letting you out where they should not. | | |
| ▲ | suslik 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If your point is that the absurdity goes all the way down, I won't disagree. | | |
| ▲ | mlrtime 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The absurdity [as I see it] is that people like you think you know what is or isn't other peoples problem. You only get to say that when you live on an island. | | |
| ▲ | suslik 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > you think you know what is or isn't other peoples problem. I don’t think that at all. All I said was that if I absolve the driver of whatever responsibility he believes he has for me, then if something happens as I step out, it is indeed should not be his problem, legally speaking. He might not like it, of course - which is not my problem, to be honest. edit: this is all linguistics, however. The initial issue was that the driver is unable to open the door even if we both assess the risk as negligible. Sure, he might not want me to suicide jump from his bus onto a highway - even if I believe I have the theoretical right to do that - but that is not the situation we're in. The point was that I should be able to say it's ok, looks safe, I accept the risk if something happens. | | |
| ▲ | Anamon a day ago | parent [-] | | It's also related to having a social healthcare system. People who keep stepping into traffic and get run over really rack up the hospital bills which, ultimately, are paid by everyone. So the country decided that they need to adopt some measures to keep stupid people from getting hurt. | | |
| ▲ | qlte 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Unless I’m misunderstanding it’s no different with private insurance in the US. If you are injured and the circumstances vaguely resemble any kind of accident (broken bones, concussion, lacerations, etc) a few weeks to months after receiving medical care, you’ll usually receive a letter from the insurer asking for the specific circumstances of the accident including the owner of the property it occurred on and any parties who may have contributed to the accident. That way they can make a claim against someone else’s insurance/sue them/etc to pass along their costs to someone else if possible. So telling someone “no worries man if anything happens it’ll be my fault not yours” before getting hurt isn’t going to stop the insurer from pursuing subrogation/lawsuit if they decide it’s cost effective. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | anonreplier 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Have you got time to get that in writing with an official witness? | | |
| ▲ | master-lincoln 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Has the bus driver time to read this and do the other passengers have the patience needed? Individual solutions make an operation less efficient... |
| |
| ▲ | ksk23 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When you enter the bus you kind of have a contract that states they will safely let you out at the designated places.. | |
| ▲ | mlrtime 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The people that think like this are the ones that want to pick and choose what is not other peoples problems. It doesn't work or scale in a society. If everyone gets to arbitrarily choose what is 'not your problem', the everything is everyones problem, or nobody's problem. | | |
|