Justification
Sensory Overload and Distraction
Modern vehicles issue acoustic or visual warnings in many situations that are not immediately safety‑critical.
This over‑warning leads to:

• distraction from the driving task,
• habituation effects that devalue genuine danger alerts,
• stressful situations, especially in dense traffic or complex driving scenarios.

Human‑factors research shows that excessive warnings worsen attention rather than improve it.
Impaired Vehicle Control
Some warnings occur at moments when the driver is consciously making a decision (e.g., lane changes, acceleration, overtaking).
Excessive acoustic signals can:

• disrupt concentration,
• trigger incorrect reactions,
• impair vehicle control.

Lack of Configurability
Many systems cannot be permanently deactivated or can only be switched off for the current trip.
This contradicts the principle of technical self‑determination and fails to account for the diversity of real‑world driving situations.
Regulation Detached from Practice
The intention behind GSR2 is understandable, but its implementation shows clear weaknesses:

• warnings occur too frequently,
• in situations without acute danger,
• or at unnecessarily high volume.

Other countries rely on adaptive warning systems that adjust to driving style, environment, and risk profile. The EU regulation lags behind modern technical possibilities.
Safety Through Quality, Not Quantity
Fewer but more targeted warnings increase effectiveness.
A revision of the GSR2 warning logic would:

• improve road safety,
• increase acceptance of assistance systems,
• reduce distraction,
• and focus attention on truly critical situations.

This petition calls for a practical, scientifically grounded adjustment of EU warning‑system regulations. Vehicle users should not be patronized but supported. The EU should ensure that warning systems are used sensibly, proportionately, and in line with contemporary technology.