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.
“Wo kämen wir denn da hin?“ (Just think where this would lead to.)
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.
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.
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.
Ah, so basically you want more rules. Granular and detailed rules. Maybe you are more German than Germans too?
Cathy Newman, is that you?
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.
That said, I really love how Germany feels when you live there.
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.
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.
Individual solutions make an operation less efficient...
You only get to say that when you live on an island.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
You probably wouldn't do this, but the company needs to protect itself against the people who would.
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.