April Fool's Day in Brussels: What bureaucracy we still absolutely need

Contents

For as long as I've known Heise-Verlag intimately from the inside (and that's over a quarter of a century now), there's been an endearing but inherently misguided cardboard nose faction there that, apart from carnival, loves April Fool's Day pranks, which they practiced with abandon for decades. Only recently have majorities spoken out in favor of no longer playing April Fool's Day jokes, because times have changed. The published April Fool's joke has been suffering for at least 15 years from the fact that we live in a post-satirical world. As proof, here is an official announcement from the White House. In the past (tm), it would only have appeared on onion.com, including "the fake news losers at CNN".

Additional April Fool's jokes here are like throwing matches into the Chernobyl inferno: technically irrelevant and potentially socially inappropriate. With this context in mind, instead of annoying readers with April Fool's jokes that are indistinguishable from news, we came up with the idea of laughing with them about things that would otherwise make us cry. For example, about European and German bureaucracy. As a little joke, I propose a few new laws for the transport sector that must be implemented, in the hope that nobody in Brussels will read them and seriously consider them, which could well happen these days.

Less cycling

Over the past 20 years, the bicycle has made some progress, both socially and technically, which has increased its popularity enormously. It is no longer a sign of poverty to ride a bike, but of resource awareness and physical fitness, and a carbon fiber e-bike at a motorcycle price is an excellent way to set yourself apart from the precariat. In short, it's time to put a stop to this success! It's time for regulation.

The biggest problem with bikes is their low threshold. Today, you can get a used bike for a penny that you can use for another twenty years. The EU has already eliminated many such low financial thresholds. It's very simple: minimum technology is prescribed, because it costs money and therefore raises the threshold. The EU should therefore introduce mandatory ABS for bicycles as soon as possible. Large cargo bikes also need airbags and active side impact protection as soon as possible. Think of the CHILDREN! Bosch is already rubbing its little paws.

More obligations, fewer rights

ABS also solves another problem with bicycles: after a five-minute visit to the YouTube academy, even laypeople can easily service a bike if they want to – again, far too low-threshold! The upcoming ABS (and cargo bikes in general) should only be serviced in laboriously certified specialist workshops, and a regular bike MOT must also be introduced so that no one thinks to skimp on maintenance. And speaking of MOTs: they could be introduced for scooters (FS class M) to reduce their popularity.

There is another lesson from Italy about scooters that could be applied directly to bicycles. In April 2000, the Italian government introduced a general helmet requirement for scooters, which had previously only existed to a very limited extent. This time it was enforced, which meant that the market for small scooters halved within a few years. Of course: if I can no longer simply sit on my Vespa, then I might as well ride a real motorcycle or a large scooter with a helmet, thought the Italians and did so.

We should take a leaf out of their book. A helmet requirement for all bicycles could revive the starving, expensive model sectors "S-pedelec" and "e-bike from 25 km/h", which already require helmets, and at the same time raise the threshold so that children or other financially weaker EU citizens are not so quick to get on the devilish single bike. Compulsory full-face helmets, preferably tomorrow! With a test seal and helmet MOT!

The railroads are not coming

The role of the railroads is also problematic. From a technical point of view, railroads are so efficient per unit distance due to their unrivaled low rolling resistance and aerodynamically favorable interlinking in trains that only brute bureaucratic efforts can make them comparable in terms of cost to, say, a Bentley Bentayga: Bentley Bentayga. We don't need to hide our light under a bushel here, Germany can certainly feel like an international leader: Nobody runs a worse rail service with more money over a longer period of time than we do. Period.

That's why we should export this virtue. It would be easy to roll out the German standard throughout Europe, because it is always easier to make something worse than to improve it due to the peculiarities of entropy. So my suggestion would be to make Deutsche Bahn responsible for train services throughout Europe. This would quickly solve the problem of locally popular rail travel in the EU. Then we would just have to quickly force the Swiss into the EU.

Heating hammer under the hood

There is also a major regulatory gap when it comes to cars. Their very name is misleading, because most of the time they only provide mobility, i.e. they are de facto real estate. Their (supposed!) drive, on the other hand, produces on average 80 percent heat. So it is not a drive. It is a heating system. In a property. It is therefore time for the Building Energy Act (GEG) to be applied. This means: 65 percent renewable energies in the energy source for heating. BMW should start warming up the test benches for ethanol engines.

When it comes to electric cars, it is noticeable that direct electric heaters (i.e. heating resistors) are enjoying great popularity as an unfortunate bad habit. However, for these power wasters to be permitted, a property must be insulated accordingly (see §71d GEG). Future electric cars with heated seats would therefore have to be insulated in accordance with the KfW 40 standard. After Mercedes has already (cough) celebrated great success with the penguin design of EQS and co., they could take the manatee as a design model for future aerodynamics insulated to real estate standards. Plenty of room for design flourishes everywhere! "More to love", as the fatfluencers say.

Thumbs: screw it in or cut it off

Our colleague Martin Franz also contributed ideas that revealed his Bavarian influence, as they contain more than a hint of early medieval torment. He proposes that the already prescribed EU temponerv system (ISA) should be significantly tightened, with a minimum noise level of 71.49 db(A), vibrations in the seat and steering wheel and, of course, the current switch-off option should be removed. Perhaps people could also have their fingers automatically cut off when they exceed 1 km/h.

Mr. Franz sees similar potential for thumb-screwing when it comes to fuel consumption: "Real consumption measurement (FCM) is mandatory anyway. So you could quickly force people into it. Anyone who is above the numerically massaged fleet limit will be forced to ponder their sinful consumption for at least 23 seconds before starting the car. If the driver does not look at the instrument cluster, the counter only starts again after another glance. If the sinner doesn't improve, the car will gradually reduce its performance and maximum speed until it is within the manufacturer's specifications (and on its way to the loony bin). In deep southern German Catholicism, you could also demand a compulsory confession to be documented.

Capitalistic Back Propagation

Colleague Florian Pillau, on the other hand, suggested systematically using the return channel of the eCall emergency call system. The police could make announcements there: "Observe the speed limit! If it beeps, maybe you're driving too fast, maybe not, but pay attention!" But why stop there? Capitalism has made (some of) us rich, why shouldn't some of us be allowed to make further profits by renting out the emergency call-back channel to advertisers? Perhaps you will be grateful to have been informed that "Carglass is repairing" in the ditch with a smart tune.

The measures proposed by the car department should go a long way towards ensuring that the car can only be used with pain (and potential loss of fingers), which will certainly reduce its popularity. Preventing mobility of all kinds has so many advantages. Without traffic, for example, there are no traffic fatalities and no traffic emissions. And vice versa: who wants more traffic? You back there? A-ha! So you ultimately want to kill people and pollute nature. I knew it. Hand me my first throwing stone!

A light at the end

The last stupid idea almost comes close to practicality, so it's miles ahead of typical EU regulatory ideas. It's about a simple light. The rear fog light is one of the most hated car components because most learner drivers reliably forget the conditions under which it should be used five seconds after their driving test. This annoys a minority who a) remember the conditions and b) can hardly stand it when someone else breaks the rules, like Sheldon Cooper in "The Big Bang Theory". You'd think that would be rare, but given all the meme images on anti-social media about rear fog lights, I'd like to think the opposite is true. There are more Monks and Coopers than is generally acknowledged.

So you could make an almost serious suggestion: When the rear fog light is switched on, the limiter automatically switches on at 50 km/h, and if you switch off the limiter (or otherwise drive faster than 50), the light also goes out. Is there any disadvantage to this? Perhaps this could be used as a smokescreen in the EU. As long as they are discussing such moderately stupid ideas in Brussels, at least they can't detonate any more stupidity bombs like the AI Act.

(cgl)