Hacker News Reader

Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

The first time I was in Berlin I had to take a bus. It was just leaving the stop as I was getting there, but stopped at the next red light. So I ran to the bus and knocked on the door. The driver looked at me with a concerned look to see if something was wrong, and once he understood I was just asking to come onboard outside of the regular stop, he laughed. Not ironically or in a mean way: it was a genuine laugh like I was doing something so weird and out of this world that it had to be a prank. And when the light turned green, he just left.

I could not believe it; but when I told the story to my German friends they too didn't quite understand why anyone would try to board a bus outside of a stop.

Being French, I have a hard time understanding why you wouldn't.

View on HN

The driver is not allowed to open the door anywhere but at a bus stop, the company running the bus forbids it. Quite strictly, actually. I think it is mainly because of insurance things. It is the same in a traffic jam when you are on the bus and the next bus stop is just a few meters away, and the bus is stuck and nothing moves -- impatient people will get angry because they want to leave the bus, but the driver is just not allowed to open the door except when the bus has properly reached the next bus stop.

Some bus drivers do open the door on some such occasion, but they can really get into trouble if they are caught doing that.

Is it typical for a company to run the busses? Somewhat interesting as that's one thing in the US that is rarely privatized. The driver, etc. will be a direct employees of the municipality.

They're usually private companies owned by the cities.

Can something be private and owned by a state? Isn't the definition of private: non-public? And wouldn't the government in a democratic state count as public?

"Public company" is a very specific thing; the BVG is state owned, but very much not a public company.

In the US, “public” can be short for a private business with publicly listed shares on a stock exchange anyone can buy, or public can mean an organization owned and operated by the government.

Perhaps the fact that we’re having this discussion on HN shows the kind of media I’m likely to consume, but I’ve never seen it used in the latter sense. TIL, I guess!

> public can mean an organization owned and operated by the government.

Would you consider In-Q-Tel - wholly owned by the CIA - to be a public venture* through ownership by a government agency, or a private one, because the public has no opportunity of ownership or control? I'm convinced it's the latter.

* Let's ignore it's non-profit status. Any CIA shell-/front-company is an even better example

The first of those is a "publicly traded company", which Americans often call "public", but is entirely different to an actual public company.

"Public enterprises" are different kinds of enterprises, with different structure and governed by different regulations/laws than private enterprises. "State owned private enterprises" have all the structure etc of a private enterprise, their only difference being that they are owned (fully or by majority) by some state body.

Yes, it can. Many public services in Germany are legally private companies, which just happen to be owned by public entities. Main reason seems to be that they can act more flexible and independent of public rules. On a more nasty side, it's also easier to sell them partly or full, if necessary. And in some cases they simply started as private companies and were bought up by the state for various reasons.

Normally municipalities own companies that do the public transport service in Germany

It's usually a company owned by the city or the state, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Verkehrsbetriebe

in EU it's normal

- a company run the busses

- its partially of fully owned by the city/state, i.e. NOT private investors, not private liquidity, no one expects any payouts

- its commonly a special form of "company", e.g. "Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts" in this case which you can roughly read as "installment/company based on public-law"

Practical that is "mostly" the same as state run when looking at it from a distance. But with some differences. Like it's still a company, has it's own company structure, it's own bookkeeping, it's own employees etc. This leads to a much more clean separation when it comes to budged managing, and where possible removes/reduces direct political influence into daily operations (just direct one, indirectly through ownership etc. there is very much still influence, but this makes it somewhat less suspect to damage from changing political parties non stop changing directions).

Through things can get far more complicated then just one company, in one legal form.

> just direct one, indirectly through ownership

Well also through funding.

It will often be a company owned by the state.

In Ireland, most buses are run by CIE, a state company. In Dublin, for the last couple of decades, some routes have been run by GoAhead, a private company (Dublin Bus (part of CIE) and GoAhead tender for the routes). It's been a fascinating experiment in privatisation; the buses all use TFI livery, so the only way to tell whether your route is run by Dublin Bus or GoAhead, besides looking it up, is that if it's Dublin Bus, it'll just be late; if it's GoAhead it won't show up at all. For all that people complain about public sector inefficiency, private companies turn out to be very, very bad at competing with the public sector.

Depends. NYC busses used to be a mix of municipal and privatized companies that were part of the Transit Alliance. In addition to city owned and operated buses you had four private companies: Green Bus Lines, Jamaica Buses, Triborough Transit and Command. Around the mid 00s they were all absorbed into the MTA. Living in south Queens the Green Bus Lines were a big part of my youth as I took the Q41 to school every day and the Q11 on weekends to the mall.

I reported a robbery to the police and they were to assist me to a remote village where the tracker led me . But they also refused to drop me off or pick me up even though we were going in the same direction because of some apparent insurance thing

Calling people "impatient" because someone is trapping them against there will without a good reason lol. Those people are acting reasonable, it's the rules that are bad.

Absolutely!

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)

"Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde." -- Immanuel Kant

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.

It’s actually your #1and your #3 plus:

“Wo kämen wir denn da hin?“ (Just think where this would lead to.)

> 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 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.

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.

> 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?

> Ah, so basically you want more rules.

Cathy Newman, is that you?

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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49166002

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.

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.

Likewise for you following them blindly.

> 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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

> All I said was that if I absolve the driver of whatever responsibility he believes he has for me

Except that you are not authorized to do that, so it doesn't have any effect and it is still his problem.

> The initial issue was that the driver is unable to open the door even if we both assess the risk as negligible.

If he assesses the situation to be safe, he just opens the door. He routinely does exactly that (outside of normal stops). If he didn't open the door, he did not consider it safe.

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

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).

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.

Strawman - it wasn't arbitrary at all.

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.

I think "Good thing that is not your problem." includes inability to do such a thing.

But with that definition, it IS his problem, because he is liable for the well-being of his passengers.

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.

This all makes sense on paper and yet in Canada I’ve seen bus drivers cut people breaks and the system didn’t collapse.

For context in Paris (and probably other French cities) you would try that and the result would heavily depends on the driver and their mood of the day ! Because they too are not allowed to do it, but of course France is all about flexing the rules (a bit, not so much, and after some pleading)

> Being French, I have a hard time understanding why you wouldn't.

I too am French and I’m more puzzled by you than by the driver. Am I secretly German?

> Am I secretly German?

Probably.

Are from the Alsace region or maybe your ancestors are? If so, maybe not so secretly

100% Boche, désolé

This was such an unusual thing for me coming from Germany to Italy. The Bus driver would stop at seemingly random places to pick up or drop people off. Once he stopped at the cafe to pick up his newspaper!

> Once he stopped at the cafe to pick up his newspaper!

The horrors!

I once was in a train making an unscheduled stop in the middle of the fields. The driver picked up a colleague who stood waving next to the rails...

German bus drivers sometimes stop to check the bins for leftover "Pfandpflaschen" (reusable beverage cans, 25 euro cents per)

Was this a comparable environment (big city vs big city, or rural vs rural)? This is a thing for rural services in Ireland (one type of service does this officially; you can ask them to pick you up at your house!), but very much not one for urban services, say.

Good point, and yes, the cities are comparable in population, around 100 - 200k.

population size, sorry.

I was shocked that in Italy pretty much no one used turn indicators (except buses and taxis), drivers where kinda trying to sus out where everyone is going and this was causing speed adjustments that made the whole thing not that unsafe.

Huh. I'm Irish; it would never occur to me to try this. Buses will sometimes delay departure if someone is visibly running for the stop, but that's as far as it goes.

I think maybe France might be an outlier there. Honestly, opening the door in random places seems kind of unsafe.

EDIT: As people are doing stories of public transport in different countries, here's mine. I was getting the BART in San Francisco carrying luggage. The driver _leaned out the window_ to warn me that this one wasn't going to the airport. As it happened, that was what I was going for; I was going elsewhere and then on to the airport later. But it was nice of her to check (and very unusual; don't think I've been anywhere else where train drivers interact with the public at all). Always think about that when I hear people complaining about San Francisco.

A German woman told me about her trip to Ireland: She tried to buy a bus ticket from the driver, like she did at home. But, in Ireland, you have to buy it at the station. The driver pulled up next to the station and said, “Run in there and buy you ticket quick! I’ll wait for you.” She did it in complete disbelief. “This would never happen in Germany!”, she said.

It is actually an insurance kind of thing as far as I understand. I've had plenty of cases where the bus couldn't continue due to being in a traffic jam, and people who would have happily get off the bus couldn't either.

Whenever something convenient in germany is not possible, you can bet it is a insurance thing.

Leave the windows leaned open so it cools down in the office over night? Impossible due to insurrance. Somebody dies from overheated office and you want to sew the insurrer who enforced this ridiculous rules even on the third floor.. impossible, due to..

And the insurance conditions are based on DIN/EN, VDE, TÜV and others. If you have bodies that create rules, they will never stop creating rules because it is their job to create rules. Something that started great to reduce unnecessary harm became a red tape monster slowing down everything.

Nobody gets elected or paid to reduce that in a sane manner (not: Chainsaw, Doge)

But it just goes to show how idiotic this culture of strict adherence to rules can be. I've been more than once been forced to sit on a bus for 10+ minutes, with the bus literally stopped by the sidewalk, and the driver still wouldn't budge when I said "I can just walk from here".

It's feels worse than talking to a robot. At least I know robots have been programmed.

30 years ago, when the train broke down, you got a clear statement what happend and what will happening next. Nowadays everyone is treated like a small child. They just tell the obvious leaving the people hanging in uncertainty hence people get mad and question everything without understanding the cause (because they don’t get that information)

Because you did something very weird ;)

- for insurance reasons it's not allowed for them to let you one once they "departed" from the curb, even if just by 20cm. They can literally lose their job over it and while it is a very exhausting job it doesn't pay that badly. (This wasn't always this way).

- due to how Berlin has historically grown and the congestion issues that brought with it the buses have a hard time being on time(1) on the 6,589 bus stops across 152 (day) lines (~40-45 stops per line). So they try to avoid any additional delays, especially if this delay might cause them to miss a green light.

(1): Berlins love to blame the public transportation provider(s) for this delays. And in some cases (S-Bahn) this is partially true, but for the busses it is much more on the "actual hard problem" side then for S-Bahn. And some of the other problems also go back to politics, like so often.

Meanwhile, here in the UK we had the bus with no door at all that you could just jump on and off from in moving traffic. People trusted to manage their own risk. I remember this vividly from my childhood, in the 80s and 90s, in London. Not anymore though, sadly.

https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/blog/routemaster-design-icon

They needed a two person crew, was the main problem, AIUI.

In Germany everything has rules and most things have mandatory insurance. It‘s usually not covered by insurance to stop outside of a bus stop to take passengers. Rudeness or inflexibility is mostly caused by rules to limit liability. Bus drivers are not allowed to drive backwards with passengers e.g on a road blockage. There are several stories about 30+ min delay until a second driver was summoned to help.

If it counts no Bucharest bus driver would let you board at the semaphore either, they may not lough at you because they're generally too busy speaking with one of their friends on WhatsApp (via audio-call) or trying and navigate the crazy traffic in here, but for sure they won't open the doors for you. I would have expected for this to be a common thing all throughout Europe.

No, it is because in Berlin you do not run for a bus and trying to get onboard if you missed it, you just wait for the next one which arrives usually a few min later, so yes, from a Berliners perspective, this is really wierd, because nobody does this usually :-)

Yes, I'm also guessing it is a big-city vs. small-town thing. When the next bus is in 2h, then the driver feels your pain and maybe lets you in anyways...

It may be because the bus gets priority on the green light and can't wait/pause again for extra passengers

That’s entirely normal to me, a Pole. I wouldn’t even expect it to work any other way anywhere.

In London the driver looks forward and pretends he didn't see you.

At least he laughed instead of just ghosting you!

I arrived at fish selling place at 15:00, he was collecting fishes back. I laughed and said something like “oh I thought I missed closing time!”. No answer, waited a minute, still no answer, then I left :( (Sweden)

I mean it isn’t the bus case, and I can understand the reasons, still may be put a sticker around telling the rules. But this kind of experience is there, no denying it…

I laugh the same at their imploding automotive industry. Nothing ironic, nothing mean. They missed the stop and it's funny how they're not in the bus.

let's see how this turns out, but I would not underestimate the german engineering culture...

I'm waiting to see Siemens producing EV cars

That would sure be interesting. Or maybe Bosch and Braun too.

Bosch already makes half of your car. Just their brand is not at the front.

The German Engineering is a byproduct. The culture that created is also the one that is holding it from becoming competitive with Chinese automakers.

Like almost everything, utility and efficiency is relative and dependent on the environment and external factors. People often overlook the “fit”.

They said the same when Japanese car makers were trashing European and US manufacturers in the 1980s. Yet they adapted. Then they said the same when the South Koreans trashed them, yet they adapted. Now they say the same about the Chinese.

Sure, past performance is no indicator of future performance, but all the doom-saying and hysterics are just that, fear of the unknown.

They adopted in the sense of surviving. Considering their head start and massive government support for the industry, their market share compared to Japanese and Korean cars is a joke, with the Chinese it will get even worst because this time they will be pushed out of their home market too.

This comes from a die hard bmw fan. Facts over feelings.

I'm not a car fan of any kind or shape. I'm talking about things that happened. I say let's wait and see. You say you know the future. You tell me "facts over feelings".

I accept your negative outlook and respect your right to hold that opinion. But, and I'm saying this in the most respectful way possible, let's have a little intellectual honesty here, please. Your statement is more speculation than mine.

Of course it is speculation. I don’t have a magic ball. But only a fool ignores trends!

I'd like better understand the German engineering culture. Why was it special in the past? What about today?

As a kid in the 80s, I had some things from Germany and their quality was astounding. Fast forward to present time, our Volkswagen car made in Germany is the worst car I've ever had in terms of reliability.

PS: an honest question getting downvotes?

There is no incentive to build a reliable product that can‘t compete in price. People are trained to consume and throw away. People are getting used to throw away cloths and household appliances after 1-3 years.

Miele once built washing machines that outlast 30 years. They offered spare parts and regional service hubs. But the market decided to just buy the 50% cheaper ones every 5 years.

In the last 25 years, German companies got into "reliability engineering". Which is the art of adjusting your drawings in such a way that every component lasts exactly as long as it has to, and not a second longer.

Which is why back in the day, there were some car/washing machine/tool brands and models that seemed to last forever. Whereas now the current models last exactly their warranty/leasing period.

Edit: Other manufacturers do this, too. But for them, it's often coming from the other side of the reliability curve, so they are improving, the ones that were better back then are getting worse.

What I'm trying to understand is why Toyotas can still make great cars at prices comparable, if not inferior, to Germany's (at least here in the US). There's a quality gap there. I don't understand why German cars used to be great looking AND reliable but no longer.

Toyota builds cars that a private person might want to buy. Their market is real people who want to keep the car for longer, pay for their own maintenance and maybe even do their own oil changes. And who maybe want to put some kids in the back seat and stuff the trunk full of their shopping.

Many German manufacturers (esp. the "premium" ones) don't build for people. They build mostly cars that get leased as company cars. So price isn't that much of an issue, longevity beyond the 4 year leasing term isn't a problem, excessive maintenance isn't a problem since it'll be included in the lease. Oh, and the trunk is just for a laptop bag and the overnight clothes for that one passenger anyways, so nobody cares it's impractically small.

Also, from what I know, design cycles for German cars are relatively long. A model won't just be changed, at least not once per year (as USians seem to expect to the dismay of German manufacturers). While this is great for cost-optimizing the manufacturing process and might be nice because replacement parts are easier to find, this has a downside: Japanese car makers practice continuous improvement, meaning that a change can go in at any time, as long as it seems advantageous. So maybe they learn more quickly from their past mistakes and overall build a more solid engineering experience through this continuous fiddling...

They still do. But as you said,most people go for the 300€ product and not Miles 900€ one. I had the chance to tour their electronics production lines in Gütersloh, Germany a few years ago which were top notch, almost automotive standard, and they told me, that they plan, develop and manufacture for 18 yrs lifetime. Not sure how long the cheaper products last, any experience?

The problem is that even if you want to pay a premium, you can't be sure you're getting a better, more reliable product. It's safer to gamble on the economy option and replace as needed.

If you inflation adjust prices of mid-range major appliances from the 80s they'd be massively expensive today. The price differential is the quality that has been engineered out of all products to be competitive.

Yeah, even if you look up reviews of a particular model, chances are the manufacturer doesn't make that one anymore (it's over a year old!) and just has some seemingly-identical one with different failure modes.

I'd love to buy quality products (and do when I can!) but it's really hard to get good information as a buyer.

> I'd like better understand the German engineering culture. Why was it special in the past? What about today?

German engineering culture is to think things through. To take everything into account. To do it properly, and not mess around. To rather think a bit more and make sure you get everything right.

Basically very similar to German rules culture.

Problem is, both of these cultures have their downsides as well. Rules as well as plans get overengineered. The belief that "one more rule can't hurt". The belief that "taking a step back yet again and discussing it a bit more is always worth it". At some point, you get stuck in a maze of rules, contradictory plans, meetings over meetings with no action. Engineers are scared to invent and engineer, because there surely will be some rule that could be violated...

Since dieselgate I no longer believe in German engineering. That, and that they just can’t make their trains run on time. Never have I taken an ICE train that was not delayed. How could that happen in an actual engineering culture?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com