I was trying to get on the high-speed rail shuttle bus in Taiwan, and it kept coming by "full". Apparently they don't let on more people than there are seats. And that means if you aren't at the first stop, and it is a busy day, you just never get picked up. I waited for an hour and nobody let me on.
Finally I got on. Even though there weren't any seats, the driver still let us all on. And the people at the further stops as well.

I was thinking about this. The logic behind the regulation that every person has to have a seat is that the bus goes on the freeway and it is unsafe for people to not have seats. But obviously there are times traffic on the freeway is a crawl (like that night), plus there are no seatbelts on the bus anyway (like on most public transit busses around the world) so obviously they don't care enough for people's safety (versus the money it costs to install busses).

When is it good to have flexibility in rules? First-world governments often use examples of third-world countries to point out that rules are good for you (like in some countries in Asia and Africa where ferries get overloaded and sink). But I feel the driver did a good thing, weighing the risk of passengers without seats and the benefit of actually giving us a ride (I had been waiting almost two hours).