The German mentality

I have a German friend who’s parents don’t have a pension and so are on social welfare. He has to pay the government the money they pays his parents. Of all the senseless laws, this one must be one of the most idiotic. He is punished for his parents being deadbeats.

You taxes are maybe being reduced 0.0001% by his contribution. He is disillusioned. If he didn’t work, the government would pay him social security, if he does work, he has to pay his taxes, and then pay his parent’s pension.

Another occasion I was arguing the law that you can lose your driving license for cycling drunk. In my view you risk your own life cycling drunk, but you risk other people’s driving drunk.

The German’s argument was that the law is concerned with handling a vehicle while drunk, and you are punished for both infractions. My answer was that this law actually encourages you to drive instead of cycling when drunk. When I put it like that he finally understood.

At this point I realised the German mentality is not that society should be shaped by punishments for doing socially undesirable things, but you should be punished, because punishment is good !

That reminds me of the time one of my college rommates came out with this quote. "I was too drunk to walk home, so I drove".

It's the same in Ireland and AFAIK Britain.

@mysteryman. Are you serious about the law being like that in Ireland ?
It still makes it a monumentally stupid law.

Someboy living in Holland told me that if there's an accident between a bike and a car, its the car driver's fault. So driver's are very scared of drunken cyclists and make sure they give them a wide berth. This little snippet of information could be bullshit however.

I'm serious, but not 100% sure. I dunno if it is stupid. The point is that you are a road user and cycling drunk is very likely to cause an accident and put people's lives in danger. Whether or not it should be somehow tied to your car drivers license is another matter.

Haven't heard of that first law you mentioned. How does it work, does every penny they pay his parents have to come from him? Is that on top of his normal taxes?

I don't get it. You're much less likely to get caught or kill someone if you're riding your bike.

It might be stupid to attach drunken cycling to your driving priviledges but given that a motorist would be responsible if you wheeled into their car I can't really knock it. Sure, you've only physically harmed yourself but that could ruin someone else's life as well. What if they're dependent on there car? What if they swerve to avoid hitting you and kill someone else?

I'm also not sure, but isn't the alcohol limit for cycling considerably higher than that for driving?

I have a friend who was cycling home drunk at night. He had his lights on, but was going the wrong way down the bike path. He went to cross a street and got hit by a cop car! that was turning the corner there. Not much damage to him or to the car, but the cops made him blow. He figured he was going to have a bad time as he was sure he was drunk, but the cop reluctantly said "Passt schon" (It's okay) and let him go.

Surely if you are drink cycling, then yes you are less likely to kill someone else than drink driving, but surely you can get yourself killed, and probably by a car. Which means thanks to you being drunk, you put your death on someone else's conscience. Or what if (s)he swerves and kills his(her)self? etc.

I have cycled drunk many times, but I can understand why there are laws against it.

According to the law you're not allowed to participate in traffic, so by the rule that means you're not even allowed to walk on the streets being drunk. The problem is, how do you get home legally from the bar then??

Yes a drunk cyclist could run in front of a car causing it to swerve into an oil tanker, thereby burning a bus full of school kids, who scream horribly as they die in agony.

But realistically a drunk cyclist is only likely to hurt himself, a drunk driver can far more easily hurt others.

I'm not sure of the details of the pension law. My friend is somewhat sore about it. But it was confirmed through another story of a girl who was abandoned by her alcoholic mother, ended up in orphanage, befriended girl, got adopted, and then changed her name to adopted family when she was 18 because the authorities wanted her to pay her mother's pension.

I'll field this:

Call the police from the bar, saying there is a fight or something. When they get there, qucikly slip on a hooded jacket, pull the hood up, and scowl at them. Instantly, they will HAVE to check your ID. Say you have none on you, they take you home to prove you have it.
Voila. Job done, you got drunk, and got home. And did not even pay for a cab.

Aha, just did a quick search. This information comes from the Munich bike club, ADFC.

Sarcasm aside, I still can't knock a law that's trying to avoid stupid death or injury. Hell, German's can't seem to see anything that's a more than foot in front of them even when they're walking and sober.

Don, that is ingenious, we should try it some Tuesday night. Don't even need a fight. All we have to say is very suspicous looking characters.

Michnic, if people are only likely to hurt themselves why not let them cycle drunk. A plus is their hangover will be smaller in the morning.

Following your logic we should arrest people for wearing unsuitable clothes in Winter and risking getting themselves a cold.

No, this is definitely true. A car driver is always at fault in Holland., even if you pull out straight in front of them. I experienced this benefits of this when working in Holland last year. You can cycle down the middle of a road and cars will be driving 10mph very carefully behind you!!

So you see Germany are not the only country to make monumentally stupid laws.

MadAxe, you're on a moving vehicle amongst other moving vehicles and pedestrians. The possibility of someone getting hurt is there even when you're sober. When you're drunk, your response time is slowed, your hand/eye coordination impaired and your propensity to follow the rules that keep you and everyone else safe doesn't function.

You're less likely to get caught doing it, so I can understand attaching a huge penalty to deter it. Laugh about your oil truck/school bus scenario; but if the possibility is there--and it is--then I'd rather see people forced into making responsible decisions than peddling around thinking they could do harm to no one but themselves.

Hang on. Laws that encourage people onto bicycles are GOOD !!!

Cyclists don't pollute, and there are fewer parking problems, and they cause less damage to others in accident.

Maybe the Dutch have gone too far with pandering to cyclists, but then they have gone too far, it is not monumentally stupid.

correct and make them pay for their own medical costs if they see a doctor.
self-inflicted ailments do not help the already overburdened health system.

I am both a cyclist and a car driver and I agree that laws that encourage people to cycle are good. But not at the expense of reason.

I had an accident involving a pedestrian a few years back in Ireland. I was driving through a green light, when I saw ahead of me a dumb shit running across the road without looking in my direction (complicated junction, but no excuse). I tried to avoid him and suceeded in smashing up my car and the asshole ending up running head first into the side of my car. I was judged in the wrong because, just like with cyclists, in accidents involving pedestrians in Ireland the driver is always in the wrong. I ended up paying my insurance excess, 3 years no-claims bonus, and now that I just bought a car here, it has come back to bite me on the ass again. I reckon I lost about €5000 hard cash because of this accident and the fucker got €20000 out of my insurance. Same shit.

the reason for this law is not actually humanitarian, it is financial.

if the cyclist were at fault, or if no-one were at fault, then in a country with socialised health care (i.e. nearly everywhere in Europe) the government (i.e. the taxpayer) would have to pay for the cyclists hospital bills, physio, etc

by introducing a law that puts the driver at fault no matter what, knowing that third party liability insurance is compulsory, the government shifts the cost to the private sector (car insurers and ultimately all drivers, since average premiums go up)

that was the official reasoning behind introducing this rule in Belgium and I am quite convinced that the same applies elsewhere, whether or not the people in charge of making and voting said law actually admit it

PS it is not mandatory to have a driving licence to ride a cycle, so unless you have a german driving licence (and if you have a licence from any other EU country you don't need to swap it for a German one, as we established in another thread a while back), you can very easily deny even having one and there is nothing your friendly neighbourhood green men can do about it, much less take it away from you or give you points

Yeah I'm pretty sure that (or something in that direction) is the reason, but it doesn't make it any more just.

Sometimes I have to shake my head because of German law as well. But in that case I totally agree with Big C

I am from the countryside where there is no public means of transportation and we always used the bike to get home. some got really badly insured and it wasn't nice to look at. The likelyhood that u hit somebody else (above mentioned scenario) is higher, than when ur sober.
I also agree in that when ur injured the government has to cover the cost which can be quite a lot and the government takes it from the people so taxes rise.
And who wants that? As a contribute to our society, we should think about that as well. Maybe I am alone with that opinion, but it gets me crazy if I pay taxes and other people get the advantage.
And in Munich u always can get home, by neither using the bike nor the car. U-bahn and nightlines or cab.
In other countries in Europe u get fined for drinking in public.
As i said, I agree it sounds stupid and I agree that it kinda encourages ppl to take the car ("if they catch me, i lose my license anyway, so what the heck...), but there are some reasonable reasons behind it.

How about this? Make health insurance private with optional coverage like in the US and when stupid accidents happen, you just prove who did what and who is at fault, and their insurance pays for it. Not this Government BS that forces everyone into its own system and then doesn't know what to do with all the idiots who are taking advantage of its system. Forced Pension? Come on! Wake up Germany. Every person needs to stand up on their own, and when they can't they (and they alone) suffer. If they 'need' help, the Govt. gives it to them at a minimum, not their families or the ones they made suffer in the first place.

I wouldn't exactly hold up the American health system as an ideal model.

sounds good and absolutely agree with u there but it's utopistic. In Germany we have a good social system and nobody has to live on the street and I think it should stay like that. Otherwise the the rift between wealth and poverty will be bigger and bigger and that causes slums. Sorry to say that and hope ur not offended but not everything in the states is awesome. in a country u have to take care of each other to a certain extent, willing or not.
I also agree that it is wrong to be forced into pension and health insurance.
The problem is that if all paying ppl go for private insurance than the government can't afford the health system anymore.
What definitely is wrong in Germany is that we pay incredibly high taxes and don't get advantage in the realtion we pay. as it looks like now they will fcuk it up completed. I didn't vote for them

I know, I know. Just listening to the Beatles 'Imagine all the people' again.
Sorry.

What do they do if you cycle drunk and don't have a drivers licence?

Do they take your legs, maybe?

Someone told me if you cross the road at a red man and are controlled you get a fine and points on your licence, (have no idea if this is really true!) and if you don't have a licence they store them up for later, so guess that's what happens with the bike thing.

You could lose your licence in this case, before you even get it ? that could be interesting !

Alright so you have to have a licence to drive a car here, your drunk. So your Licence is taken away.

Your drunk on your bike they take away your licence. (fair enough, same as above)

What about if you don't have a licence, or you don’t have a German licence - what happens to you then? Or do you have to have a bike licence here too?

Are they going to prevent you from acquiring a licence in the future? like it’s been said, someway or somehow somebody’s going to get punished?

they must give you a virtual one.
i got points for speeding but as i've got no german licence i think they must store them up somewhere 'til they realise your'e abusing the system and then come round your house in the middle of the night to make you talk...and they have ways. oh they have ways.

Friend of mine was nicked by the men in green whilst on his bike and got fined 1200 Euros!

@Bubblelady


That may be somewhat true for Bavaria, but I think there is more to Germany than this Utopian state.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/a...-460183,00.html

I think this will only be valid in the past tense soon or is it already?


Fine.
But where's the money coming from to keep Utopia in business?

eu?

There's where it's coming from.

-love my circular reasoning.

btw: what was your friend doing? Riding backwards, blowing bubbles, in a school zone, wrong side of the street, no light, no bell, riding a wheelie, listening to socialist radio, causing accidents, at night, and endangering the delicate balance of things in Deutschland as we know it?

But where's the money coming from to keep Utopia in business?

You're right, watching the news makes me shiver as well.
It actually is a huge political problem more than it is a financial one. We pay pretty much tax, Germany is still in debt and motivation to invest is on Ground zero.
Very scary indeed. In my opinion we have to motivate ppl who are rich to stay in germany and try to attract rich ppl from abroad. That doesn't work by high taxes and nearly no advantage.
If u wanna start a business here in Germany, you have to be pretty patient as you have to fulfill certain requirements and thousand forms. that is bullshit. Some rules are just needless and the administration is far too high.
Money will come from taxes but it has to reasonable.
Another thing, going back to the Health System, is that the pharma industry is far too powerful here. Medicine is much much more expensive than abroad. That should be changed at first.

Still I have to say that at least till now, we were in "Social Paradise" comparing to other States. (where else can u be six weeks off work and still get ur full wages?)And i know that Bavaria, as well as Baden Württemberg, is the island in the rough sea. That's why i love it so much

Well, my belief is, if the employment laws (betriebsrat) relaxed a little, then there would be more investment, and job creating in Germany from companies abroad.

Sunday openings !! 24 hour supermarkets.

Ahh.. I know, but this does not have to be a I must work, but more, I need money I will work. Job creation, and there are plenty of people around Ostbahnhof and Hauptbahnhof, that I think they would easily sell enough products to keep the shop in the black.

Another point, particularly in Baveria, and I believe they are trying to address this now. Reducing the number of Bank Holiday's. Since moving to Germany, I've never worked so little. The working week is only 35 hours here, and with all the other holiday's etc, companies are handing out money for people to sit at home and do nothing. So they are not likely to take on more employees, when the whole tax package (krankenversicherung, etc) is so high they have to pay more, and the productivity is so low.

I am definately in the wrong job / company !!

Well, think the average for most German companies is between 35 and 37.5 hours a week, whereas in Britain its 40 hours per week.

pepper,
agreed, 35- 37,5 hours per week are in most contracts, but somehow most people work far more than this, besides the civilian service maybe (my sister works there).
Btw, i doubt a reduction of the bank holidays would solve the problem.
But maybe on the other hand I´m in the wrong company as well

It depends on the sector and the skill level. Mine is 40 and all other companies (small / medium, IT) I know are also 40.

I don't understand why we should even have to work 35 hour weeks. The working week hasn't changed much since the war, even though the technological advancements have been so great in that time. Our ability to access information is infinitely more, we've had all these 'time saving devices' introduced - fast computers, mobile phones, personal organisors, etc. So where's all this time that we're saving? Or were people just as productive with a typewriter and a notepad?

With all these developments, working hours should be decreasing. But in recent years, the trend has actually been the reverse. Can anybody explain that?

Yeah, These damn penguin games!

Dead link (dead link removed by admin)

it is 40 hours/week here as well actually.
A few years ago they reduced it to 35 or 37.5 hours. The dumb thing about that is, that ppl work less but still get the same money!!! Thats why trade union activity should be reduced to a minimum by law. Trade unions will fcuk up free market economy as they are no longer represent the employee's interest but their own.

Hazza,
The time we save by having labour-saving devices is eaten up by the time we waste trying to get said labour-saving devices to do what we wanted them to do in the first place!!

Considering the amount of time I spend repairing the stuff that Microsoft and Word between them constantly 'pigs-ear' for me... I think I'd be a hell of a lot quicker with a plain old boring typewriter!

agreed. Unless they reduce the free time, particularly in Baveria (hey before anyone says it, come on... we have so much more free time here, then any of us would have working in the UK or America) this would increase productivity, and so initially less employees needed, reduce costs, sell goods at lower prices, this would then start a wheel, more staff, etc... reducing unemployment, reducing the amount of tax we need to pay (with 12% unemployed this causes problems for the goverment) and hey, your on the road to recovery.

The problem here, is that the Betriebsrat are too strong, and the goverment are affraid of them, and do not have a overwhelming contol in the goverment, due to a mixed green and labour goverment.

@ Pepper,

I disagree. I don't think productivity is necessarily achieved through longer working hours or less holidays. Productivity is influenced far more through agreeable working conditions. If you have a family and your employer is sensitive to your need to take time off, you'll put in more effort. If you gave someone already motivated an extra week of leave per year, you're likely to get someone who works even harder whilst there. Increase an unmotivated person's hours per week and guaranteed, productivity won't go up.

If there's already 12% unemployment, I fail to see how that will be reduced by getting people already employed to reduce their amount of holidays or increase the hours they work every week.

I think that the market should be more open - ie. it should be easier to fire people. That would get more people employed on a full-time basis.

@ Koala - get a typewriter then

I worked in the UK and the US before Germany and dont see much change in the working hours. In the Uk at least we had the weekends off. Here we work pretty much every other weekend and 80 hour weeks are not unheard of. Of course our bonuses depend on this so everybody here including the Germans work these hours.

Obviously Im in the wrong job!!!

partly agree Hazza, either way, you are right, the problem is the Betriebsrat, and the need to reduce there power.

Well everybody hated her, but Maggie Thatcher did exactly that in Britain over 20 years ago.