Paucity of coaches in Germany / Busse dürfen mit Bahn nicht konkurrieren

Die FTD berichtet, dass in Deutschland (Berlin ist eine Ausnahme) Fernbusse mit der Bahn nicht konkurrieren dürfen (§ 13 Personenbeförderungsgesetz)

Wenn die Lokführer der Bahn den Fernverkehr lahm legen, bieten Busse keine Ausweichmöglichkeiten. Ein uraltes Gesetz verhindert, dass Busunternehmer der Deutschen Bahn im Fernverkehr Konkurrenz machen.

The Financial Times Deutschland reports that an old statute prevents coaches competing with the railway on long-distance stretches. Berlin is the exception that proves the rule.

The provision dates from 1931, when income from the railways was needed to finance WWI reparations – so perhaps it’s all down to Versailles.

This explains the lack of a coach service from Erlangen to Fürth. This would be very welcome in the evening, when the trains are far apart. There comes a time when having another drink is a question of whether one wants to stay for an hour.

(Via Vorspeisenplatte)

9 thoughts on “Paucity of coaches in Germany / Busse dürfen mit Bahn nicht konkurrieren

    • That wouldn’t make it the only monopoly in Germany not yet dealt with by the EU. I thought the chimneysweep monopoly (mentioned recently) was on the way out.
      Apart from what it says in the article – some EU law on the subject of public transport has to be implemented by 2009 – Google reveals other problems (award of work to rescue service vehicles not transparent enough in some L

      • If I had a company operating a coach line, let us say, between Luxemburg and Vienna, the most sensible route would probably go through Stuttgart and Munich. I would certainly not accept that a silly old German statute interfered in my business.

  1. May I suggest that it is not just the Vorgaben part of the phrase that is the problem – which implies that the whole zwingende phrase can’t be translated with one word like: *imperatives or constraints (of or imposed by the Directive). Whenever I suggest fetters, some bright spark comes out with Middle Ages bondage jokes.

    I was going to claim a first. But, then, I cross-checked with EUR-lex bilingual versions which clock up in the singular: binding nature and restriction – and guess *what for the plural form?,271093:cs,256555:cs,324642:cs,313311:cs,&pos=2&page=1&nbl=5&pgs=10&hwords=zwingende%20Vorgabe~&checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte

    • I suppose we are speaking at cross purposes. None of your suggestions would work in my context, certainly not constraint or restriction. I’m not looking for one suggestion that was used in one EU document (they all vary anyway). Vorgaben means what the Directive ‘directed’. Your link gives:

      Die Gleichbehandlung aller Unternehmenskategorien, insbesondere der kleinsten Unternehmen, muss mehr als ein Ziel sein, n

  2. Then I suggest mandatory stipulations, with a caveat for aversion to the latter term by some translators and trans. agencies unfamiliar with e.g. intermediate stipulations in English contract law. Indeed, I have been ‘mandatorily’ directed to use clauses, terms and conditions instead, esp. for the Romance-lingo equivalents (stipulations/ estipulaciones).

    Also, what possible objection can there be to non-opt-outs – 3 words or one?

    • Stipulations of a directive is OK, but then you might as well say ‘provisions’, which is where I started – but unfortunately it doesn’t fit in all the sentences and variation in terminology is not desired (and might well confuse all the non-English-speaking potential readers).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.