[mqus]

maybe rational, but purely subjective. "Restricting freedom" - the "freedom" to reach your destination in an arbitrary speed? what kind of freedom is this? esp if we talk about a difference of what, 10 minutes over 2 hours of driving time? "potentially potentially taking away a right people are used to" it wasn't really a right (=set in law), it just was not forbidden, just like a lot of other things that get restricted all the time. the argument "but this was allowed before" is not really a good objective argument.

[aksss]

I'm not sure you're articulating your argument very well. I get what you're after, but no, restricting freedom is not purely subjective. For example, "I can do this today, and I can't do this tomorrow", is a pretty objective evaluation. You're really making an argument about balancing interests or prioritizing some concerns over others. There's an assumption implied in your argument that you personally would consider an appeal to general safety more compelling than any appeal to fahrvergnügen, for instance. How we each weight these (prioritize them) is what's subjective. Your attack on the opposing view relies on simplifying and devaluing it. This is rhetoric to persuade but is no form of "objective truth".

[sokoloff]

For 260 km of Autobahn driving, 130 kph results in 2 hours for that distance. Even a mere 160 kph (~100 mph) saves 22.5 minutes rather than the 10 minutes you're suggesting.

[ygra]

It's rare that you actually are able to go that fast for prolonged periods of time. For one, lots of stretches of the Autobahn have a speed limit. Secondly, there's also other traffic, traffic jams, construction sites, ...