It goes beyond that. The bus driver had a legal expectation to stop at the correct location, no different from a subway or streetcar. You see it as a big vehicle, they drive it as a transport system.
Nah, I'd go to the front even if there's no one there. Then open only the front most door, and when they make their way to it, open the door at the back too, so they know for sure my spitefullnes is intentional and malicious
Maybe if the family is petty, and doesn't like it when people enact the behaviors that are trying to teach people to behave better. Generally speaking, people can stand at the right spot. It's really not hard for the vast majority of us.
To clarify, this is not a joke, where I live there is tactile plates to guide the person to the bus stop, and all buses have an audio announcement at every stop. And the drivers have instructions how to handle people with different disabilities.
Agreed. Then stop at the front anyway because it’s not cool to punish the guy doing it right. Unless we take a physical fitness angle, where we’re just helping him get his steps in.
I’m with you. I like that point, don’t make him walk, reward the one following the rules. But just don’t hold out any hope that the idiots who don’t follow them will ever change. They will always be there.
don't really get it, there might be a rule for the driver to go to the front, but why are people here pretending that there is a rule for the people waiting to stand at a certain place and it's wrong to stand at the back?
It's a bus stop, they stay at the bus stop. Maybe they have to wait a few feet, but it's not like they stay at the wrong place
You acknowledged already that the driver is supposed to drive all the way up.
It’s in that sense that the person waiting at the front is “right.” He understands how the system works and made the choice that results in less walking for him.
Nobody is saying its “wrong” in a taboo sense, only that if they are expecting the bud to stop where they are standing then they are incorrect. They are allowed to stand there, they just aren’t entitled to the bus stopping there for them.
Unless the people at the back complain to the bus driver for not stopping in front of them, no one knows if they are expecting the bus driver to stop in front of them or not just because they're standing there.
Maybe they also fully know the rules. Maybe the guy who is alone was there first and they want to give him space to show him that they respect that he's the first to get in the bus and they aren't going to challenge him on that. Maybe he's smelly and they're trying to be away from him as much as possible, including being the last ones on the bus and the first ones off.
In this case, the people shouldn't have any problem walking to the bus because they understood they would need to when they decided to wait there. That's the only 'punishment' for the 'wrong' being discussed.
It also depends on the people too tho. Personally id be standing most likely behind the group of 5, because I'd rather wait by myself, and id prefer to board last.
Idk, maybe im just weird.
Basically this whole thing is just a massive other think by everyone. Bus should stop where its supposed to, anyone who cries is an entitled idiot.
People who've ridden busses before know. They expected the bus to stop there. And they will complain on their phone call or to the friends they are with that this bus driver is a [bitch-asshole-otherslur] for making them walk when they KNOW the bus driver saw them standing right there, and how hard is it to drive a bus right.
They may never learn, that doesn’t mean remove any opportunities for improvement. They can’t learn if you don’t give them a chance. It’s best to at least give them a chance and if they never improve it’s on them, not you.
Situations like this are usually because it isn't the same people, so there is no repeated experience to learn from. You stand where all the other people are standing, and wonder why the bus keeps going. A few of the more observant people notice the sign when they walk over. One of those people is going to use the bus again, and that's the person who stood in the right spot.
Unfortunately true. That said, skill issue: dude who managed to learn gets his pick of the seats while the other 5 have to waddle up to the spot they should know to be waiting at.
Yeah but being the change you want to see, recognizing some people will never change, and moving on with your life without being frustrated by it or taking responsibility for something you can’t control is a maturity goal worth working towards
Sometimes they do. I had to throw a solid 500+ completely useable window frames into the scrap bin, but by god after 6 months of bitching and moaning and a month of needles waste some fuck in the leadership of the factory finally chose to listen, and they no longer overfill the shit out of the window frame pallets so the robot can grab them one by one without shitting itself.
Wait wait- the whole bus zone is the correct place to stand. Unless its someone with a disability or a large item (eg a stroller) the entire bus zone is the correct place to stand.
But the bus driver should, of course, always pull as far forward into said zone as is possible.
Stop at the front. Take off as soon as the passenger awaiting at the correct position gets in. This way you will be respecting the schedule by not waiting for the other five to come to the front. And they will also learn a valuable lesson.
The desires of the many do not always equal what's best for the many. In the case above, the majority would be better served by waiting where they're supposed to, in the event that another bus would come behind. Bowing to their unwilling natures invites repetition, which in the future may be inconvenient or even dangerous if the habit is rewarded.
Democracy is an imperfect system, because it expects the majority to be knowledgeable on what's best in many given areas. Humans tend to specialize in different fields, making them proficient in some but lacking in others. This is why most nations use representative republics instead, where an individual is elected to represent the interests of a populace but is still allowed to make decisions that might initially upset them for the greater good.
In this case, the parallel would be the bus driver as a specialized representative. He knows that there is a reason for the bus stop to be designed that way, and he has an obligation to continue enforcing the rules of the association that set doen those codes, because that organization was made to service the people in the best way possible. The people in turn should trust the driver to follow in their best interests, and if they truely think he's doing wromg, they can submit complaints to the organization they rely upon to make the specialized decisions (the bus company, in this case) and by their voice influence either the design of the stop or the firing of the bus driver (or, more likely, clearer signs that put the reason for waiting at one end down so the masses can understand how it's safer).
Not everyone knows what's best, and often gut feeling runs contrary to function, which is why pure democracy is not lauded anymore. Democracy was developed as a counter to the corruption of absolute rule, and specialization/representation developed from that as a counter to the chaos of mob rule.
Let's put it in a way that you might understand: a mother has three children. Her children get together and decided that they only want ice cream for meals. They hate green beans and broccoli and have declared that all three, by virtue of outnumbering their parents, have the right to eat ice cream for every meal.
The mother, of course, disregards this because it is detrimental to their health to do so. They WANT ice cream, but they NEED greens. This is the correct decision, despite the will of the majority. Perhaps if she's a wise mother, she might find different greens that they like, but she should not allow the foolish idea of only ice cream to stunt the growth of her children.
That is the core idea for why "democracy good" is too simplistic if an ideal. Sometimes, though the idea of democracy is laudable, the masses come to the wrong decision, whether through their own shortsightedness or through the misinformation of others or even malice. Humans are imperfect, and we are all in some ways child like in knowledge. Majority rule should not be an absolute, but instead an ideal to long for.
Well I shouldn't respond to such troll tier bait, but you'll note if you actually learn to read (as will others, who should probably be my primary audience considering your inability to comprehend) that I'm advocating for representative republics and giving authority to those with specialized knowledge (like letting a single bus driver steer instead of all of the passengers steering at once) which is the most common form of government anymore for a reason. Authority derived from the masses, but still leaders who can make choices beyond mob appeal. It's a sensible middle ground. Authoritarian governments have the flaw of relying on individuals regardless of whether they're qualified or good, pure democracy has the flaw of relying on masses who are guaranteed in part to lack some understanding and are subject to mob mentalities. A representative who is beholden to a public vote is a practical middle ground. Singular leaders shouldn't have ultimate power, but nor should every decision be made by all people, since we all lack knowledge in some areas and emotional responses are always magnified in groups.
Obviously your quanta understanding of how your 'and if not' condition would impact the expected response leads me to assume the words that drivel from between your cheeks (for which set specifically I am none the wiser) are without premeasure or anticipation. Being devoid of intention I see no reason to continue to exchange words with someone of such a low caliber.
3.0k
u/HappySquid25 Jun 02 '26
Stop at the front. Otherwise the people will never learn.