A familiar shake of the head had just been unanimous about the situation in the world. At some point we had reached the "little things" that we could at least change. Meat consumption! Air travel! Should be restricted by law. And this New Year's Eve is also prohibited because of the risk of injury and fine dust pollution.
Then someone, as another long overdue "requirement of reason", had demanded a general speed limit of 130 kilometers per hour on German motorways. Eh sure, right?
"Well, I'm against a speed limit," I said lightly.
The sentence had escaped me. Now he stood in the room like one of those notorious opinions that "one" can no longer freely say today. In any case, the milieu-related harmony was gone, the conversation froze.
If someone had had a pin that evening, you could have heard it fall. It was like pleading for private ownership of automatic assault rifles. I felt like Ulf Poschardt in a chair from "Extinction Rebellion".
I hadn't raised my objection out of joy at the scandal. Or out of renown. Rather, it was the helpless attempt to be honest. I know that heavy catapults on highways are a problem and a common cause of devastating accidents. I know about the pleasant egalitarian gliding on highways in civilized neighboring countries with speed limit.
Who still controls their vehicle?
But I also know that quite a few accidents happen because truck drivers play "Candy Crush" or masturbate at the wheel. I know that with the increase in digital assistance systems, there are more and more bad drivers who don't even use the turn signals; the idea that a person must really be able to control his vehicle and drive accordingly is increasingly being forgotten.
I also know that according to current research, a general speed limit of 130 km / h would reduce the total CO2 emissions of our proud industrial nation by a maximum of 0.14 percent. No value that I would make fun of. This is more than nothing and would be a start.
It's just that I still like to drive fast.
Not everywhere, but wherever I can. Not by car, but by motorcycle. 130 are okay, 170 are optimal, more is due to adrenaline in its kinetic cannonball the absolute exception. It's not cool, it's just idiocy. I also know.
There is no difference in the whole
Consumption is skyrocketing, but remains at the level of the smallest car. It makes a difference whether a thick Volvo or a slim Moto Guzzi is on the road with 200 things. But there is no difference in the whole. And it's all about not rattling excuses.
I thought of that when I spoke out against a ban on excessive speed orgies. If I don't pretend to be in my own pocket, I like to celebrate such orgies from time to time - so I would always be outside the law with at least one leg. So where we all really belong, if we were honest?
Maybe our problem is a kind of intellectual pressure drop from us to me . At this point my reason is automatically curtailed, so to speak. A schizophrenic situation. Knowing that we should do something, I don't want to have to do anything. No giving up my daily steak, popping on New Year's Eve and vacationing in Tenerife. No windmill in my front yard and certainly no limit to my freedom to break my neck on the A2 between Braunschweig and Berlin.
What to do?
Man is considered to be a rational being. Which does not mean that he always makes enthusiastic use of this reason. We are all Immanuel Kant in cheap discussions, that is easy. But when it really matters, it is quite difficult not to become an animal. Sometimes we have to be protected from what we think we want.
My freedom to cross the street at any time is sometimes restricted by a red traffic light. The same applies to my need to smoke a cigarette in the office. Anyone who sees this as harassment and paternalism can no longer be helped. It is not a question of "prohibitions!" But rather meaningful rules for a smooth coexistence in society.
Not just implement and enforce - find majorities
It is up to politicians not only to implement and enforce such rules. It is also their job to win the necessary majorities for this in the free competition of opinions - and to dispel the impression that a principally hedonistic society would be prescribed asceticism from above.
I was against the smoking ban and I'm glad that it is now. I remain an opponent of "Tempo 130" - and will still be happy if there is. Well, maybe not exactly happy . But I will take it. Transgress here and there, as now. But hold out and probably have an insight soon: "Protect me from what I want". If you really have to, I can let the sow out at the Nürburgring. It belongs there.
In any case, what I will not do is "ban culture!" Crow, support "Fridays For Displacement", choose on the right or create weapon depots in the forest.
Perhaps in this sense it would thrive to work on solutions in parallel with a "ban on firecrackers". Research, you hear, is otherwise making tremendous progress in all areas. Why not also with the fine dust-free bang technique?
We will all soon be purring around with vehicles that are driven solely by our own good conscience. In the meantime, it could help to give a better sound to efforts to improve security and reduce CO2 - that is, reason. Smart "framing" is everything!
For years, a majority in Germany, for whatever reason, has been in favor of a "speed limit". And nothing happens. A "good speed law", on the other hand, would probably have been passed long ago.
