Speed as a scapegoat of a convenient and short-sighted transport policy

It is now part of the fixed ritual of the public debate to reflexively declare the speed of the main culprit in every serious accident. This convenient shortening distracts from the actual complexity of traffic and replaces careful analysis with moral outrage. Drivers are made flat-rate scapegoats while structural deficiencies and politicalfailures are out of sight. Anyone who would seriously examine the causes would have to admit that accidents are rarely due to a single factor, but rather a combination of numerous influences.

Complex causes are systematically suppressed

Weather, visibility, road conditions and traffic density work together at every moment and have a significant impact on the risk. In addition, there is distraction, fatigue or the influence of alcohol, which is proven to weigh heavily and still recede surprisingly often in the political debate. Equally crucial is the quality of the infrastructure, which in many places has a conditionresembles, who seems more improvised than thoughtful. Potholes, unclear traffic management and poor lighting create dangers that do not disappear due to flat-rate speed specifications. Anyone who ignores all of this and instead stares at speed alone is crudely simplified that does not do justice to reality.

The myth of the tempo rule as a panacea

The claim that strict speed specifications automatically led to more security, does not stand up to a sober view. There are regions with restrictive rules in which the accident is by no means noticeably low, while there are no dramatic deviations to be seen elsewhere despite the freer conditions. This discrepancy is often ignored because they are not included in thedesired picture fits. Instead, a simple narrative is spread that is easy to convey politically, but distorts the actual connections.

Technical progress is deliberately downplayed

The significant improvement in vehicle safety has made a significant contribution to mitigating the consequences of accidents in recent years. Modern systems intervene before collision or significantly reduce their severity. Seat belts, airbags and advanced assistance systems are not a marginal phenomenon, but the result of intensive development and investment.Nevertheless, this advance in political argumentation is often downplayed because it does not fit into the simple equation that is speed as the main problem. This ignorance of technical achievements is not only dishonest, but also a hindrance to a factual discussion.

Revenue instead of real prevention

A particularly unpleasant aspect is the obvious role of financial interests. Speed controls are placed in many places in such a way that they are less of a risk prevention than generating income. The impression is that a comfortable instrument was found here to stuff household holes without getting involved with the more elaborate and more expensiveto deal with measures of real road safety. This practice undermines trust and reinforces the impression that it is less about protection than about cash.

Neglected infrastructure as an underestimated risk

While the focus is on tempo rules, the condition of many roads remains frightening. Construction sites drag on endlessly, diversions are poorly organized, and necessary maintenance is delayed. These deficiencies significantly increase the risk of accidents, but are rarely discussed with the same vehemence as speed. It would be a determined action hererequired to sustainably improve security. Instead, work is done on symptoms while the causes remain untouched.

Lack of incentives for real security gains

It is remarkable how little interest is in specifically promoting the use of particularly safe vehicles. Anyone who would be seriously interested in reducing the consequences of accidents would have to start right here and create incentives that would accelerate the use of modern technology. Instead, it remains with half-hearted measures while at the same time controlling speedsis expanded. This imbalance clearly shows that the focus is not on the most effective solutions, but the simplest.

A debate full of contradictions

The public discussion appears contradictory and superficial on closer inspection. On the one hand, security is the top priority, on the other hand, central influencing factors are neglected or deliberately hidden. Speed is raised to the sole standard, although reality paints a far more differentiated picture. This one-sidedness is not only professionalquestionable, but also politically comfortable because it avoids difficult decisions.

Need for an honest change of course

A serious improvement in road safety requires the courage to recognize the actual causes and act accordingly. This includes investments in infrastructure, promoting technical innovations and a differentiated view of traffic. Presenting a flat rate specifications as an all-purpose solution is an expression of lack of ideas and comfort.Anyone who continues to stick to this simple logic prevents progress and accepts that the actual problems remain unsolved.