Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
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.
da könnte ja jeder kommen (then everony tries that, very loosely translated)
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.

"Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde." -- Immanuel Kant
[flagged]
loading story #49152958
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.

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

Have you got time to get that in writing with an official witness?
Has the bus driver time to read this and do the other passengers have the patience needed?

Individual solutions make an operation less efficient...

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.

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.
If your point is that the absurdity goes all the way down, I won't disagree.
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.

> 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.

loading story #49161914
When you enter the bus you kind of have a contract that states they will safely let you out at the designated places..
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.

> 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.

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.
> 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.

You need to understand that Germany is not logical. It is systematic.
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.