“I know NOTHING!”
You may think I’m talking about myself, but actually it’s a quote from a character in “Hogan’s Heroes,” an iconic 1960’s sitcom. Sergeant Schultz was a Nazi guard at a WWII prisoner of war camp. Did I mention it was a comedy?
Schultz was a favorite of the scheming prisoners because he was easily scammed. When they couldn’t trick him, it wasn’t difficult to bribe him with Hershey Bars – he weighed 325 pounds.
Part of his shtick was that he obeyed orders literally, regardless of whether they made sense. When things went awry and the happy throng of prisoners made the camp’s leaders look foolish, he whined “I know NOTHING!”
Over the years I’ve been disrespectful to regulators and bureaucrats. This is a bit of a mea culpa (a smidgen of Latin to make me look smart).
In some ways they’re caught in the same trap as poor Sergeant Schultz, compelled to promulgate and enforce rules that often make no sense, imposing Draconian solutions on sometimes non-existent problems.
On the rare occasion when they admit things aren’t working as planned, they point to the lawmakers who either wrote, or authorized, the regulations and utter the immortal words “I’m just following the rules” (bureaucratic speak for “I know NOTHING”).
And they are, to an extent, right. Should they dare to do things differently, or use common sense, they might befoul the bureaucracy, which thrives on mindless consistency.
A wizened bus industry executive recently chastised me, pointing out that it wasn’t fair to blame a robot if it was programmed incorrectly. We should be taking a closer look at where the silliness starts.
Some of you read this column and say, “Who writes this nonsense?” We might want to redirect that sentiment to the current steaming pile of regulations.
Lawmakers either write them or authorize regulators to do it. There seem to be at least three forces at work as rules are written.
First is the politics. Every time there is a visible problem, politicians feel they must “do something.” It has to be quick because the public’s attention span is measured in nanoseconds, and it has to be visible because the real goal is re-election.
Nothing says it has to be a comprehensive, or even effective, solution. It just has to look good on Twitter.
After the Bluffton accident the political pressure to mandate seatbelts was overwhelming. (Ironic because this was the kind of crash where seatbelts would have done more harm than good).
Seatbelts may be effective, but isn’t it possible they should be part of a comprehensive scheme? For decades our industry grunted, but never tested, “compartmentalization”. We eventually got a regulatory slap. Some of the onus is on us.
A school bus driver just burned to death when he couldn’t get his belt off. One misguided soul thought the lesson is that we need better physical exams for drivers so they’d be strong enough to unbuckle.
A broad safety scheme would consider what happens when a coach full of buckled-in seniors catches fire.
A really comprehensive study would have taken too long for the election cycle. We live in a republic because the founders knew that pure democracy was too impulsive. Elected officials should offer thoughtful leadership rather than dashing to the front of the regulatory lynch mob.
The second force is the industry itself. The Big Guys have figured out that extensive regulation can drive smaller competitors out of business and provide cover when things go bad. They can afford their own lobbyists to influence legislation to their benefit.
When events turn poopy, they whine, “I’m just following the rules.” They were in compliance with regulations that they helped write (or bury).
That, by the way, only works sometimes. Civil juries don’t always bite.
In third place, sadly, is the genuine desire to solve real problems. Too often this one is abused by the first two, and is used to push through misguided mandates.
So much of what we THINK we know turns out to be wrong that a little humility might be in order. One generation’s common sense is often the next generation’s punch line.
Regulations shouldn’t be written by politicians chasing votes, Big Guys seeking protection in the guise of safety, bureaucrats searching for relevance, or grieving relatives wanting something “good” to come quickly out of “their” tragedy.
They ought to be the result of long-term comprehensive studies that we, as an industry, should support.
Instead, in the current age, they’re often reaction to Twitter feeds masquerading as facts. Both the industry and the regulators should be ashamed that, to the best of my knowledge, there has only been one modern “crash test” of a full-sized motorcoach in the U.S.
Collectively we don’t know too much more than Sergeant Schultz.
Dave Millhouser is a bus-industry marketing consultant and freelance writer. Contact him by email at Davemillhouser@gmail.com.
