Wide awake in Every Day Life, Chapter 3, Part 2

+ Show full styles

Chapter 3, Part 2
There, too, it became clear what the core of the matter is:
defensive driving,
clear safety rules,
responsibility in everyday life,
and a strong network that carries this idea forward.
Another notable highlight was the invitation to present the ‘Max Achtzig’ project, which originated in Mannheim, in Geneva in March 2025 as an example of best practice.
That was more than just a trip.
It was a sign.
An accident prevention idea that had developed organically from practical experience was recognised on an international level.
This, too, showed just how far the journey had taken us.
The starting point remained the same:
the accident in 2018.
The shock.
The questions.
And the determination not to stop at simply being affected.
Another particularly important realisation in this development was:
In many situations, the driver is still the person best placed to prevent an accident.
That is precisely why simple, clear and repeated education is needed.
Max Achtzig’s rules are, at their core, simple:
no distractions,
no mobile phones at the wheel,
observe breaks and driving time limits,
no alcohol,
drive with foresight.
That sounds obvious.
And that is precisely why it is often underestimated.
But the obvious things save lives – if you really stick to them.
Over time, it also became clear:
Lectures alone are not enough.
Verbal communication is important.
But it remains fleeting.
A lecture is over.
A conversation ends.
An impression fades.
A book can do more.
It can bring things together.
Organise them.
Go into greater depth.
Make the information accessible for future reference.
Be passed on.
Be used in training courses.
And reach people who aren’t sitting in the lecture hall.
This is how the specialist book “Max Eighty – 40 Metric Tons of Responsibility” came into being.
It was not a by-product.
It was the logical outcome of years of practical prevention work.
What made it special was that it did not reduce the topic to just one area.
It was not just about technology.
Not just about the law.
Not just about psychology.
It brought the various levels together:
Accident analysis.
Behavioural prevention.
Technical safety.
Weaknesses in the infrastructure.
The shared responsibility of businesses.
Public perception.
And the human side of the silent victims.
It was precisely this connection that made the book special.
It was not purely a technical handbook.
Nor was it merely a book expressing concern.
It was an attempt to reveal a dangerous system in its entirety – whilst at the same time showing ways in which it could be improved.
It was no coincidence that this book struck a chord.
It was rooted in real-world experience.
It emerged from conversations with drivers, business owners, safety experts, accident researchers, journalists, technical developers and those affected.
That is why it contained not only knowledge.
But also experience.
And credibility.
An important companion on this journey was the Cologne-based specialist journalist Jan Bergrath.
His support was invaluable.
He did not merely report on this work in passing.
He explored key issues.
He sharpened the debate.
He highlighted connections.
And he gave the initiative a public profile that would have been almost impossible to achieve on our own.
He was more than an observer.
He was a contributor to the discussion.
A discussion partner.
And an amplifier.
Our shared focus on technical prevention – particularly on emergency braking systems – was also particularly important.
It became clear early on:
These systems represent progress.
But they do not fully solve the problem.
Particularly in the case of serious rear-end collisions at the end of a traffic jam, it became apparent time and again that, in an emergency, the warning, the system’s braking intervention and the driver’s reaction do not always interact as they should.
A critical issue here was the question of what happens in a moment of panic.
If a driver realises too late what is ahead of them, panics and reacts reflexively, it is precisely this moment that can determine whether a system helps – or whether it is not enough.
That is why the dialogue with experts, accident researchers and developers was so important.
It was not a question of disparaging technology.
It was about making it better.
The fact that the requirements for automatic emergency braking systems were subsequently tightened shows that such debates do not go unnoticed. Even if improvements often take time to become widely implemented in everyday life.
Another important sign for me was the invitation to the Daimler Truck plant in Wörth in May 2025.
A newly developed prevention app was unveiled there: Connected Traffic Warnings.
For me, this was more than just a technical meeting.
It was a sign that this work is also being recognised in the very places where concrete safety solutions are developed.
What particularly impressed me about it was this:
The system tackles a core problem head-on – the delayed perception of danger.

4990/7500

Chapter 3, Part 2 There, too, it became clear what the core of the matter is: defensive driving, clear safety rules, responsibility in everyday life, and a strong network that carries this idea forward. Another notable highlight was the invitation to present the ‘Max Achtzig’ project, which originated in Mannheim, in Geneva in March 2025 as an example of best practice. That was more than just a trip. It was a sign. An accident prevention idea that had developed organically from practical experience was recognised on an international level. This, too, showed just how far the journey had taken us. The starting point remained the same: the accident in 2018. The shock. The questions. And the determination not to stop at simply being affected. Another particularly important realisation in this development was: In many situations, the driver is still the person best placed to prevent an accident. That is precisely why simple, clear and repeated education is needed. Max Achtzig’s rules are, at their core, simple: no distractions, no mobile phones at the wheel, observe breaks and driving time limits, no alcohol, drive with foresight. That sounds obvious. And that is precisely why it is often underestimated. But the obvious things save lives – if you really stick to them. Over time, it also became clear: Lectures alone are not enough. Verbal communication is important. But it remains fleeting. A lecture is over. A conversation ends. An impression fades. A book can do more. It can bring things together. Organise them. Go into greater depth. Make the information accessible for future reference. Be passed on. Be used in training courses. And reach people who aren’t sitting in the lecture hall. This is how the specialist book “Max Eighty – 40 Metric Tons of Responsibility” came into being. It was not a by-product. It was the logical outcome of years of practical prevention work. What made it special was that it did not reduce the topic to just one area. It was not just about technology. Not just about the law. Not just about psychology. It brought the various levels together: Accident analysis. Behavioural prevention. Technical safety. Weaknesses in the infrastructure. The shared responsibility of businesses. Public perception. And the human side of the silent victims. It was precisely this connection that made the book special. It was not purely a technical handbook. Nor was it merely a book expressing concern. It was an attempt to reveal a dangerous system in its entirety – whilst at the same time showing ways in which it could be improved. It was no coincidence that this book struck a chord. It was rooted in real-world experience. It emerged from conversations with drivers, business owners, safety experts, accident researchers, journalists, technical developers and those affected. That is why it contained not only knowledge. But also experience. And credibility. An important companion on this journey was the Cologne-based specialist journalist Jan Bergrath. His support was invaluable. He did not merely report on this work in passing. He explored key issues. He sharpened the debate. He highlighted connections. And he gave the initiative a public profile that would have been almost impossible to achieve on our own. He was more than an observer. He was a contributor to the discussion. A discussion partner. And an amplifier. Our shared focus on technical prevention – particularly on emergency braking systems – was also particularly important. It became clear early on: These systems represent progress. But they do not fully solve the problem. Particularly in the case of serious rear-end collisions at the end of a traffic jam, it became apparent time and again that, in an emergency, the warning, the system’s braking intervention and the driver’s reaction do not always interact as they should. A critical issue here was the question of what happens in a moment of panic. If a driver realises too late what is ahead of them, panics and reacts reflexively, it is precisely this moment that can determine whether a system helps – or whether it is not enough. That is why the dialogue with experts, accident researchers and developers was so important. It was not a question of disparaging technology. It was about making it better. The fact that the requirements for automatic emergency braking systems were subsequently tightened shows that such debates do not go unnoticed. Even if improvements often take time to become widely implemented in everyday life. Another important sign for me was the invitation to the Daimler Truck plant in Wörth in May 2025. A newly developed prevention app was unveiled there: Connected Traffic Warnings. For me, this was more than just a technical meeting. It was a sign that this work is also being recognised in the very places where concrete safety solutions are developed. What particularly impressed me about it was this: The system tackles a core problem head-on – the delayed perception of danger.

0/500