> The train starts moving. The driver announces there are “issues around Bonn.” He does not specify what kind. No one asks. We have learned not to ask.
This is one of those issues I keep mulling about; it seems train operators (and airliners for that matter) tend to avoid being technically specific about operation problems, and just say "problems" and - if they are kind - where the problem is. And I cannot decide whether this is the wrong or right approach: how much information is too much? The argument is that travellers don't care why the train cannot move or why it is delayed, they just want to know when the next train is.
The problem - however - is that train operators come off looking like idiots, when they really aren't. As an example, the S-trains around Copenhagen have recently switched to a CBTC signal system, which has increased punctuality to 97% (below 3 minutes, cancelled trains counted). At cold temperatures, railway points (or switches, if you will) might become inoperable, as their mechanism freeze (of course, there are systems to prevent this, but can occur anyway). This happened this November on the S-train lines, but the announcement was "signal failure"; which meant the train operator (DSB) (and the railway owner (Banedanmark)) kind of looked a bit stupid, since the whole point of CBTC was to eliminate signal failures entirely (in fact, if you're being pedantic, since CBTC has _no_ signals, there technically cannot be any signal failures), and had promised as much.
But - then again - travellers really just wanted to know what the next train was, but I still think train operators are doing themselves a disservice by being oblique about the actual problem. Particularly when a problem lasts for several days, "technical problems" just makes people think their engineers are incompetent, when in reality they have no idea about the severity of the problem (because it is not communicated).
I may of course be biased here, since I have a high interest in how trains operate, but friends of mine - whose interest is far lessen compared to mine - are also frustrated by these opaque messages; and I think the reason is a strong sense of lack of control - since (assuming one made it to the station on time) up until this point, the passenger have done everything right, and yet the system failed, and now they are not privy as to why.
Airlines are vague about this (at least in Europe) because different types of problems mean different obligations to compensate passengers.
After the incident they will determine what's the least expensive lie they can plausibly give (perhaps the weather will change fast enough that you can blame the weather, perhaps you can't lie about an equipment failure when everyone in the airport sees you swap out the airplane). If they tell the passengers the truth at the time they risk being held to that later.
Thankfully the EU at least has regulations requiring compensation. On my last business trip to Europe I got 650 euros for an overnight delay. The last time I got delayed in the US I got a hearty "fuck off" from the gate agent.
On paper yes, but every time my flight was delayed in EU the airlines (KLM, Lufthansa, RyanAir) always had a cop out, weather, airport issues, etc. and I didn't get compensated. Even though other planes managed to fly in the same conditions.
If they refuse you can escalate or hire a company that will negotiate for some percentage of profit. In most cases I had this problem they gave me a refund, but sometimes I had to argue a bit.
I used to work at one such company. The process can take a long time but it is mostly hands-off for the traveller and success rates are high once the case has been taken.
Edit: and also, these claim-assistance companies work on a winning fee.
Heh, on the other hand the one and only time I arrived hours earlier was in the US :) I was flying AMS to SFO via Portland, we cleared immigration unusually fast, and when I got to my gate (connecting flight was in like 4 hours) the lady there asked if I wanted to move to an earlier one, boarding in ~20 mins. I said sure, and I even got the checked-in luggage at SFO (she did say that there was a chance it'd get sent later).
Airlines are often happy to do this as the earlier flight is likely not full, and allowing you on it costs them nothing while it opens a seat on the later flight which they can then sell to a standby passenger.
Same, I was luckily just above the 1500 km threshold and got 400€, 3 hotel nights reimbursed (3 stars but 4 stars might have been ok), restaurants bills paid (beer included), a free replacement ticket , made new friends and visited museums. Lovely!
My boss and colleagues weren't delighted though...
Yet the very fact that airlines routinely do put people up in hotels when flights get cancelled is an example of the exorbitant privilege of air travel (another being tax-free kerosene).
Nobody expects this to happen with train travel. Perhaps they should.
I travel mostly by high speed train over very long distances and I fail to see it making more economical sense than air travel, even with taxed kerosene.
The costs of a high speed line are on the scale of 30 millions euros per km, with maintenance of 300,000 €/km/year. A TGV with 740 seats costs around 25 millions euros and has maintenance too. Most of the operating costs are per trip, a TGV typically does 2 to 3 500km trips per day.
A mid-range plane like the A320neo costs around 100 millions euros for 190 passengers and typical operating costs of 5 millions for a 2 flights per day average. A lot of these costs are hourly costs (fuel and maintenance) and airport costs. Fuel is 10%.
In France, trains and especially high-speed trains are heavily subsidised with a lot of tickets paid under various incentivized and subsidized schemes. SNCF (trains and railways) receives between 10 and 20 billions euros per year from various government entities (depending on what you include), i.e. 20% to 35% of revenue. There are also indirect subsidies through corporate tax schemes like commuting exemptions. Finally, long haul buses have long been forbidden and considered a threat to the train monopoly, and after a short golden age of EU-led monopoly breaking, they have been again heavily regulated so they can hardly compete. Similarly, short-haul flights have been almost banned.
The train is more practical but when I hear it is on par with air travel economically and more environment friendly I fail to make sense of the numbers.
My allusion was to environmental sustainability, not to the human construct of economic efficiency.
However counter-intuitive it may be, air travel is indeed far more energy-intensive, and therefore destructive, than train travel. Mainly due to the exponential increase of wind resistance with speed. On a planet of 9 billion people, airplanes will simply not be a sustainably form of transport by any metric.
The EU law applies, but companies get out of it by:
- encouraging you to take multiple tickets (so you can't claim compensation on the whole trip and becaise of missed transfers).
- saying it's not their doing (DB specialty).
- in some cases accepting an "alternate schedule" (typically by changing your ticket at the company's suggestion) will void any claims.
In some cases you have better chances hiring a taxi for 2000km and forcing the company to pay.
On the opposite, on (very expensive) French TGVs you get compensation starting at 30 minutes delay (connections counted) whatever the reason and SNCF will do their utmost to bring you to destination or ensure you get accomodation.
> The argument is that travellers don't care why the train cannot move or why it is delayed
Deutsche Bahn does not think this is true and neither do I. If this was ever the thinking, they've performed or read studies and changed their mind
You can very clearly hear the drilled setup "<delay info> grund dafür ist <error category>" rigidly being regurgitated every. single. time. a delay is announced. The middle words are (per my understanding) a formal way to say "because of" and it's not something you will hear in daily life, so I presume it's the output of a committee and corporate requires them to say this, no matter if they know anything more than "the signal is red". Whether they know or not, the detail is always at a level that sounds like malicious compliance. I'd rather they say "we don't know" or say nothing at all. And if they do know, I'd hope they make up a new sentence like "someone was spotted on the crossing up ahead after the barriers closed. Someone is checking the cameras to make sure it won't come to a collision" but we instead get the robotic "we have come to a stop on the grounds of person on track". It mimics their training samples and what colleagues got into the habit of saying so I guess they think it's good like this, but is not actually helpful
Idk what creates this useless information culture, but they clearly know that passengers do want this information
At the station itself, on the other hand, you might as well play "delay bingo". Is it an earlier training running late that is now slowing down other trains? Is it yet another Stellwerksstörung? Or maybe it's urgent track repairs? It might also be an Oberleitungsschaden!
To be honest, I don't care about excuses. Yes, problems happen, but this is systemic. Does it help me if I know the train tracks are broken yet again? It does not. The reasons (excuses) they bring up ring hollow. I don't feel that drivers or station staff would appear stupid if they don't tell. They are victims, too.
In the UK they do tend to say what the actual problem is, even if it's someone "under a train". But it has resulted in mockery for things like "leaves on the line" from people who apparently know how to run trains safely. You can't win really.
By always talking only about non specified "problems" and getting people not to expect any further information it is easier to hide when it's a suicide.
I cannot speak for other countries; but in Denmark, they are always crystal clear when the train has hit someone (»personpåkørsel« in Danish); and even when they suspect they might have hit someone; so when I say "technical problems", I mean technical problems. Besides, I am not sure I see the point of hiding when they've hit someone?
There's a lot of evidence for suicide being socially contagious, particularly through communications to the general public which will inevitably find their way to people who in that moment are particularly vulnerable. Newspapers publishing suicides causes an untick in subsequent suicides. Newspapers publicizing murder-suicides even causes an increase in murder-suicides. Publicized information about suicides by train increase the rate of suicides by trains.
It is therefore a beat practice to generally avoid mention suicide, because mentioning suicide means prompting people to think about suicide and in some cases that means prompting people to consider suicide. This is known as the Werther effect, you can look that up if you'd like to know more.
I'm in Norway, I was once at the railway station and someone collapsed on the platform and needed medical attention. Conductors of both trains currently at the platform attended the person, so train traffic was delayed.
The official reason for the delay, according to the Ruter app, the info screens and announcements over the PA system, was "signalfeil" ("signal error"). So at least in Norway, we clearly have a culture of describing all sorts of problems, including completely non-technical problems like someone having a medical emergency, as a problem with the train signals.
I am always a bit annoyed when the root of the problem is not explained. This is the case most of the time (DB of course). I would really like to have a bit more information. Even if there is nothing you can do, it helps to understand how big or small the problem is. Then you can make a decision based on it. Like getting out in the next station or something.
Part of the reason is that train drivers often dont even know themselves.
They might simply get the signal to hold the train or that it needs to be diverted.
I think they look stupider by not saying anything. They look stupid by all of these constant delays, cancellations, and the occasional utterly surreal self-inflicted problem like in the article. That's what makes them look stupid.
Just explain what's wrong. Arm passengers with the best info you can give them. And figure out a way to let people disembark close to where they need to be.
DB has become a complete joke. I've had to travel to and through Germany several times these past couple of years, and almost always there's a problem.
I once paid 80 euro for a taxi from Essen to Dusseldorf because they cancelled the train that would connect to the last ICE to Amsterdam. When I got to Dusseldorf on time, the ICE arrived at a different platform than announced. I only noticed that because some people were suddenly leaving the platform. I warned a few people who still hadn't noticed it. I bet a lot of people still managed to miss that train after all the trouble making it to Dusseldorf.
My sense is that this has happened over the last 20-30 years as overall competence has just dropped in many of these key positions. COVID was a good example of this - lots of humming and hawing about why decisions were being made, and garbled messaging about the reasons. Basically they get angry and defensive about blaming the "peanut gallery" or "armchair experts" while not being specific, because they themselves don't know why or how something is being done, and therefore being unable to defend their own positions from solid ground.
Perhaps it should also avoid putting too much emphasis on several comments to the same story: there was a story about VAT changes in Denmark, where I participated with several comments; but the generator decided that I apparently had a high focus vat, when I just wanted to provide some clarifying context to that story. I wonder how comments are weighed, is it individually or per story?
Specifically this roast:
> You have commented about the specific nuances of Danish VAT and accounting system hardcoding at least four times, proving you are the only person on Earth who finds tax infrastructure more exciting than the books being taxed.
Yeah, but I did it on the same story (i.e. context).
Though the other details it picked up, I cannot really argue with: the VAT bit just stood out to me.
In Denmark, you can buy a vanity plate (ønskenummerplade) for 8'000 DKK (needs renewal every 8 years), and it can be between 2 and 7 characters long; but the best part is that they permit all Danish letters, including Æ, Ø and Å. One could likely write a script quickly to check these platforms for short combinations, such as ØÅ, which appears to be available.
I'm imagining someone driving in England and the police having no way to input those letters into their system.
I wonder if the Danish system would prevent ÆØÅ and AEOA from both being registered. Would the Danish system Match "ÆØÅ" if someone input "AEOA"? There are unicode normalization rules, but I wonder if systems would be built to handle that. If you're Danish, you'd just use those letters so it wouldn't be a useful feature. If you're English, you wouldn't often encounter those letters so it wouldn't be a useful feature.
> I'm imagining someone driving in England and the police having no way to input those letters into their system.
I would assume the UK has worked out a way of dealing with this having had plenty of years of foreign plates being driven around the country.
Any Danish license plate driven in the UK will almost certainly have to a be an EU style plate with the blue band on the left with the "DK" country code. If someone needs to send a fine to the registered owner of this plate I'd guess they'd be handing over the camera footage/images to a contact in the relevant country and letting them confirm what the exact plate is.
(There may be some weird exemptions for old classic/vintage cars that can continue to be driven on their original number plates, in which case you really don't know who to contact.)
The UK is very strict on license plates. I don't think there's any valid reason for driving a car without some form of a license plate on display (cars being driven on trade plates placed in the front/rear windscreens are the closest thing I can think of). I'd expect the UK Police to pull over any car that didn't have plates on it if they spotted it. It's certainly considered very suspicious in the UK if a car is missing either of its plates.
>I would assume the UK has worked out a way of dealing with this having had plenty of years of foreign plates being driven around the country.
Based on my experience, the UK approach is to not even bother and try and collect fines from owners of foreign registered vehicles. They do sell them to some private company that has been sending me scary letters for 10 years soon.
My understanding is that most countries just don't bother; I once drove around North America on Danish plates; since European plates are much wider than North American style plates, none of their cameras could scan my plates; so camera-only toll roads were essentially free for me. I consider that it happens so rarely anyway, that they don't bother.
Similarly, I've been flashed for speeding in France, which does have cameras adjusted to my plates' size, but they also didn't bother sending a ticket. Germany - on the other hand - will send you a ticket, but since they allow Ö, Ü, etc. on their plates, their system can probably handle Æ, Ø and Å as well.
Edit: Obviously, they don't bother to a degree; severe infractions will obviously make local law enforcement do something, but it's a rather manual process. Most countries are signatures to a treaty, that recognises other countries' plates.
Apologies. I'm not familiar with the alphabet. I just looked up Danish unicode and it showed those characters. I'll stick with 0OO0O00 as my license plate
Amusing the title is the "Copenhagen Trap" (I know it's a reference to the Copenhagen Interpretation), since Denmark actually have laws about duty to help.
The Danish penal code § 253[1] punishes people with up to 2 years in prison, those who - without high risk to themselves or others - intentionally do not help someone after ability, who is clearly life threatened.
Additionally, the Danish rules of the road § 9[2] have rules for acting in the event of an accident; specifically, that they have a duty to help.
It's the same in France with "Non assistance à personne en danger” literally ”Not helping someone in danger" and the assistance expected is proportional to your immediate ability. A doctor who would not try to help someone injured is liable for example. There are precedents.
is unremarkable save for the fact that the rest of the world thought it unusual.
Many people are members of volunteer organisations, SES (Search and Rescue), St. John's (Ambulance and medical first responce), VFRS (Volunteer Firefighters) etc.
I think this varies quite a lot from one location to another. I grew up in an impoverished town in the US south. When I was a kid if your car broke down, a stranger would stop to at least give you a ride or possibly even try to repair it on the spot. If you so much as threatened a woman in public you could expect to have a number of men immediately step in to confront you.
Many year later in life I lived in Manhattan, where you could literally have a frail old lady being beat up in front of a crowd of grown men and everyone would either pretend they didn't see anything or at most pull out their phones to record it.
I don't know what my old town is like today, but a few years ago I was on a bus in Latin America far from any large cities and a pickpocket robbed someone, the passengers on the bus seized the guy, beat him up, striped him naked, and the bus driver slowed down and opened the door while they shoved him out onto the curb.
Same experience in my village. When you live far from public infrastructure (police, firefighters, doctors etc...) you need to rely on each other.
I miss this spirit in the city
This law is specific to situations of imminent or actual physical harm. Also notice the way the law is formulated: non-assistance (negative) and not a an explicit duty to assist (positive).
Yes, you are. That's the whole point of the law and what the precedents confirm. You have to assist to the extend of your ability too. If you witness something and don't call 112 (well 18), you are guilty. If you are a medic and don't do your best to stabilize the person, you are guilty to.
With the invention of steam ships, railways, aeroplanes and the automobile; travel became almost trivial. In conjunction with those inventions, states also became a lot more involved in people's lives; culminating in large welfare states. 3-4 centuries ago, a state did not care much about who lived in in their territory; these days, they are likely to provide them benefits, and have certain obligations according to international treaties about how to treat people within their own borders. These state operations, along with obligations, makes states care a great deal about who enters or leave their territory.
Whether internet is covered by § 72 seems undetermined; as far as I can tell the Supreme Court hasn't made a decision on it; but considering that it considered fake SMS train tickets to be document fraud, even though the law text never explicitly mentions text messages: it seems clear that internet communication ought to be covered, if challenged.
Regardless, this wouldn't run afoul of this. This is similar to restricting who can buy alcohol, based purely on age; the identification process is just digital. MitID - the Danish digital identification infrastructure - allows an service to request specific details about another purpose; such as their age or just a boolean value whether they are old enough. Essentially: the service can ask "is this user 18 or older?" and the ID service can respond yes or no, without providing any other PII.
That's the theory at least; nothing about snooping private communication, but rather forcing the "bouncer" to actually check IDs.
>considering that it considered fake SMS train tickets to be document fraud, even though the law text never explicitly mentions text messages
That has nothing to do with the medium of the ticket and is all about knowingly presenting a fake ticket. The ticket is a document proving your payment for travel. They could be lumps of dirt and it would still be document fraud to present a fake hand of dirt.
Except the Supreme Court deemed the case to be of a principal nature, and granted relieve (i.e. no cost to either party), since it was disputed whether a fake SMS train ticket counted as document fraud.
> Regardless, this wouldn't run afoul of this. This is similar to restricting who can buy alcohol, based purely on age; the identification process is just digital. MitID - the Danish digital identification infrastructure - allows an service to request specific details about another purpose; such as their age or just a boolean value whether they are old enough. Essentially: the service can ask "is this user 18 or older?" and the ID service can respond yes or no, without providing any other PII.
> That's the theory at least; nothing about snooping private communication, but rather forcing the "bouncing" to actually check IDs.
Hopefully the theory will reflect the real world. The 'return bool' to 'isUser15+()' is probably the best we can hope for, and should prevent the obvious problems, but there can always be more shady dealings on the backend (as if there aren't enough of those already).
Given the track record of digitalization in Denmark, you can be rest assured this will be implemented in the worst possible way.
This is Denmark. The country who reads the EU legislation requesting the construction of a CA to avoid centralizing the system and then legally bends the rules of EU and decides it's far better to create a centralized solution. I.e., the intent is a public key cryptosystem with three bodies, the state being the CA. But no, they should hold both the CA and the Key in escrow. Oh, and then decides that the secret should be a pin such that law enforcement can break it in 10 milliseconds.
I think internet verification is at least 10 years too late. Better late than never. I just lament the fact we are going to get a bad solution to the problem.
I've been using XFCE for the better part of two decades now (I still run into people upset about the changes XFCE made in 2003, i.e. 4.0), and I am perfectly satisfied. Though as the saying goes: what I don't know I don't know; so I may be missing out on a better experience, but at least I am content enough that I don't bother seeking it out.
Though, my monitors are also from 2010, so a lot of the visual problems people have with XFCE, I don't.
> Tall buildings are banned in Denmark so its actually surprisingly imposing.
False. Buildings higher than 5 stories require municipal council approval (whereas normally it's a functional approval, not a political one), but that's only in Copenhagen. Other municipal councils do not have the same restrictions, and there are plenty of examples of tall buildings in Denmark.
The restriction in Copenhagen is historical, due to the fires that consumed the city; so to increase fire safety, buildings were height restricted. That most of Denmark otherwise don't have a lot of tall buildings is primarily due to a lack of demand.
I see the point very easily? It's about directing government funds to improving the work lives of the officials (the ones who decide where the money goes) instead of towards the education of their children, which most people would agree should be a much higher priority. It's an example of government working for themselves, not working for the people, as is their remit.
You believe that because you don't understand budgeting in danish municipalities. There are several bins of funds, and dictates from the state on how much can be used on what. Money from a construction budget cannot be used on schools, and so on. Its a much more complicated piece of bureaucracy, and not something that is relatable to a minister of justice going off in the deep end.
Why was everyone upset then? Why was it in the press? Why are you talking as if you know anything about it? Why are you so upset about it? I literally have no idea why you are upset that someone brought up something that bothered them on a public forum. Are you working for the Danish gov in some capacity and terrified of any criticism. Like wtf man., its just a comment , soon this thread will go away and you can get back to your gov funded cupcakes or whatever it is ur protecting. You just attract attention by being so touchy.
EDIT > I removed the bit that said where it was ok? relax
You seem be the one that needs to calm down. I'm just straightening things out. You shared an anecdote about governance in Denmark, that is not related to the current discussion. Don't get riled up about something you clearly isn't that clever at.
A few details to note: The quote is from August 2024 (last year), and the question (from an MP) to the minister is from September 2024 and so is the response, which can be read here:
For those less familiar with Danish: the minister's answer is basically the same spiel about needing to protect children; and how people will still be protected by the legal system (you know, which is little consultation after you've been beaten up, swindled across borders or worse). So this quote is from a year before Denmark had the presidency in the EU and pushed Chat Control forward. (Though clearly they haven't changed their views on this.)
