I come from Germany / Bavaria. I've been driving on the A8 autobahn between Stuttgart and Munich for many years.
About 2.5 years ago, the maximum speed of 120 was introduced in a 10 km long section near Augsburg, from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.
There are some many exits in quick succession. It is generally very dangerous when people traveling at very high speeds (i.e. people who are just driving there) meet people who are traveling at very low speeds (i.e. people who are trying to get onto the motorway in slow cars or trucks).
There have been many accidents in the past. Since the speed was set at 120, there have been far fewer accidents on this section, and therefore fewer seriously injured / killed.
I generally observe a harmonization of traffic flow. And I'm less stuck in traffic!
There is a conundrum that you see in the Netherlands:
make perfect, immaculate highways and people will start getting bored and floor the pedal because even 130 will seem slow. "I can easily drive faster here"
Not a problem in 1970 when barely any car could reach that speed but in a modern automobile you can zip along.
So they had to fix this problem with speed cameras every few kilometres to keep people in check.
There is a solution which EU is actually implementing: automatic speed limiters in every car. Unfortunately the auto industry lobbies successfully to delay it and cripple it so instead of having it obligatory in every car 10 years ago we will have a crippled version of it in some cars (new ones) starting in a year. It's a start though. 20 more years and the problem will be solved.
As long as it can be turned off when it malfunctions, why is it a nightmare? At least in the Netherlands, most people are going the speed limit or near it. Everyone stays to the right unless passing. In this case, it doesn’t sound like a nightmare.
Somewhere like the US or where people speed often, yeah, it sounds like this feature could get you killed. Like somewhere like Atlanta, you’d probably get rear ended fairly quickly driving the speed limit on the interstate.
Cognitive load. A lot of speed limits are dynamic or based on the time of day or dependent on what city you’re in. For example, a nearby street to my house is a short 30 zone but the sign isn’t obvious so a lot of people are accidentally going 50.
Absolutely not, I want to stick to the speed limit (or go slower, 100km/h is fine). It's much easier to do that if everyone else is forced to do it too.
The problem is that safe drivers are bullied by aggressive ones, and the lack of punishment means the aggressive drivers become more emboldened. I’ve seen accidents caused by this where the guy honking at someone until they went an unsafe speed or ran a light drove off unscathed.
If cars can’t go faster than the legal limit, driving would be much less stressful with lower congestion as a bonus.
In my experience in the NL, the far right lane is held by people going under the speed limit (truckers, cautious drivers). But if it’s not being held, people move into it and pass as needed. If it’s busy, the second lane will be held by people going the speed limit and the third lane by people passing them. The fourth lane is usually open all the time except to pass people passing people. Speed cameras are usually based on “average speed” so you can “save up” speed by going slower than the speed limit for awhile.
That doesn't seem like a very good metric to me. There's no way there's any single number that can properly compare driving deaths between countries, but shouldn't this at least be normalized to account for number of drivers? Like what if Finland just has a lot of long, empty roads? Also doesn't there need to be a comparison within the German data on deaths on roads with and without speed limits?
Fatalities should be measured in terms of miles travelled. Not per mile of highway, or per number of cars, or per capita. Someone who drives five days a week, 60 miles per day is going to have a higher risk of getting into an accident that someone who drives only on weekends, 30 miles per day. This does have any bearing on how safe the roads are.
I agree with you that miles travelled is a better metric.
But traffic density would be another interesting metric. Temporary speed limits on the autobahn are typically dynamically adjusted to the traffic situation.
Not all motorways are made equal, and that may play a role as well.
I frequently drive over French, Italian, German motorways and can say the quality and maintenance of the road vary greatly between European countries.
Eventually, I see so many other factors that could enter the picture that I’m wondering if that comparison makes any sense at all (apart from proving the writer is trying to force his point?).
Finland doesn't have much of a motorway network and also has serious winter conditions, black ice on the roads for much of the year in all major coastal cities, etc. If anything it's an even more astonishing number when you account for this.
Not really, in my opinion. When conditions are obviously bad, people behave more cautiously. It is when everything seems fine and easy that people get too comfortable with pushing the limits, or things get too boring, and mistakes happen.
Finland doesn't have lot of motorways. So they are pretty well taken care of and possibly only risk is hitting a bridge. As there is quite wide shoulders. Add to this density is pretty low so in many parts there is not much traffic.
There is lot of highways though. And those can be middle of forest with 80 speed limit. So losing control and hitting upcoming traffic or tree is much more likely.
Speaking as an American, I spent a summer in Germany, Austria and Denmark delivering cars shipped from California. They were largely turbo diesel and stick shift, and I loved every minute of it. My friend's business had us hunting in LA for good used deals that went under the "old-timer" tariffs.
German roads are far superior in every sense: materials, construction, maintenance, drainage, etc. They pay a price in taxes and construction traffic to be sure. But driving there makes you realize that half your experience with a fancy car will be shit no matter what, if your roads suck.
Driving is really "a privilege and not a right" in Germany, not just a slogan. Last I checked, a license cost thousands of euros and there are many other ways to get where you need to go besides driving, compared to the USA (depending on where you live of course).
That's not to say I don't appreciate that I can buy and maintain German cars and usually spend less money than the Germans would at home, (awful!!!) here in the states, and we have tons of great roads, however the quality.
Any idiot can get a driver's license in the US. This is not true of Germany. The consensus among the Germans I knew when I was there was they are better drivers. (Of course they would say that, right?) And if there was a bad accident, it would be less frequent but bad. Totally anecdotal but that was the truth I felt/experienced.
The driving enthusiast in me could never accept additional speed limit restrictions in Germany, regardless of how rationally the data may argue against them. <shrug />
It's Mecca.
I always buy used/CPO German cars, with stick if I can get them, and I'll do that to my grave. (despite unfortunate changes to the market against the enthusiast). Love babying them, love the maintenance (really), love the superior feel and handling. :-)
When we lived in Deutschland in the 70s, my Dad would joke that the "D" sticker on German cars meant "Drag racing" as the Germans drove with their foot on the floor. He would putt putt along the autobahn at an agonizingly slow pace.
I asked him why he didn't enjoy driving fast. He replied that he'd firewalled Mustangs and SabreJets on the deck, and driving fast on the autobahn was boring in comparison.
If you vote for me for Governor of the state, I'll get some autobahns here in the US!
P.S. If you ever watch "The Battle of Britain" movie, in the first combat scene you'll see an Me109 flying balls-to-the-wall at about 10 feet off the ground. Incredibly fun, and incredibly dangerous. No model work with that shot.
P.P.S sometimes you'd see jets hedge-hopping over the countryside. I asked why didn't the citizens complain about that, he said they understood why the pilots had to train that way. Radar cannot see them, the flak gun crews cannot hear them coming, and they cannot move the gun fast enough to line up on the aircraft.
"Firewalled" and "balls to the wall" are aviation terms for full engine power, and refer to the forward wall of an airplane cockpit.
On a good day, the wall keeps any fire from the engine from entering the human-rated zone.
The engine power control, by convention, pushes forward to increase power. So full power is at the maximum excursion towards the front of the plane, towards the firewall.
In the very few general aviation aircraft I've flown, the throttle was literally a rod with a plastic sphere on the end. You grab the ball and push it all the way into the instrument panel for full power: that's "ball to the wall".
Also in the other direction, reducing the throttle setting, that's "pulling power": you pull it out. Usually on time. And yes all of the jokes are that childish and it doesn't matter because hey, you're flying and it's awesome.
It's not just the license requirements. The standard for maintenance and at a German TÜV inspection is far beyond most state level inspections in the US (if they are required at all in your state).
In Florida it was very common to see cars with bald tires, dangerous lifts and modifications, and plenty of heaps broken down littering the road side.
Even in New York where inspections are required annually and are stringent for the US, there's a lot of ways a poorly maintained vehicle will still pass. I wouldn't want a car with worn brakes, summer tires in the snow, etc trying to do 100+ on the highway, it would not end well.
Myth #1: is a non-reason to ban it. Non-usage of something is not a reason to get rid of something
Myth #2: I've never met someone who is like: oh if I cannot drive 200kmph I'll be late to my meeting. That's not why people drive fast. They do because it's fun!
Myth #3: Emissions are taxed. Car consumes more, so you pay more taxes.
Myth #4: You cannot push everybody to electric cars and then yell: oh but the electricity isn't clean...
Myth #5: This is the worst actually, it's missing a significant piece of information... which part of the fatalities happened > 130kmph?
Myth #2: counter example: the only five times I was in a car riding over 250km/h were taxis from an airport to another when lufthansa f'd up something and put me on a plane in the next airport. They didn't want to pay for a hotel stay, and I really wanted home. Turns out the taxi drivers got their orders 'as fast as possible' and I had no idea a car could go that fast. I looked at my watch, and closed my eyes praying, and there we were. Every time. With time to spare.
To be fair it happened to me in Belgium several times too and it wasn't as legal and it looked far more dangerous (people not expecting a 250km/h rocket on the left lane...).
> which part of the fatalities happened > 130kmph?
Usually (not always) you realize that something bad is going to happen so you are going to brake. Let's assume there is an obstacle in front of you that is 150m away. After a reaction time of 1 second, and with continuous braking over 100m you are able to get from 180kmh to 100kmh at time of impact, but if you had started from the generally suggested 130kmh, you would have stopped 40m before the target (assuming -8.83m/s^2 braking acceleration).
> I've never met someone who is like: oh if I cannot drive 200kmph I'll be late to my meeting. That's not why people drive fast. They do because it's fun!
There’s nothing fun about going 200+ in a straight line. It’s more fun to drive fast on a bendy country road. The thing is, most people have no clue how to handle a car. People drive fast on the Autobahn because of the ego and because it is allowed.
not sure the data you want for #5 is available anywhere or even tracked, since you would have to consider the speeds of all participants involved. I would argue that the given statistics might give an even stronger case because the speed-limited sections usually already have a higher probability of accidents (hence the limit), so being above that already says something.
But having written that, I have no drivers license and no real opinion either way. ofc I'm slightly leaning towards general speed limits (less externalities for me to pay) but overall I'm indifferent.
Is there a calculation as to how many hours would be lost spent on the road because of a speed limit? Like I don't know, say every day people spend a million hours driving on the highway, and a speed limit would bump it to 1.2 million hours (no idea, just made up numbers)?
Emissions are not taxed anywhere close to the cost of damage they cause. Electric cars still pollute (tires and brake pads).
In general cars and car infrastructure is very heavily subsidized and the least we should expect for it is drivers not engaging in wasteful and dangerous behaviors.
I’m kind of tired of debunking it, so let’s try putting the onus of proof on the person claiming EVs burn brake pads at any rate even remotely comparable to gas cars. Is there anything out there that says that?
It might be a lesser rate but they still burn them (and the tires). I am not claiming EVs cause more of it. I am claiming is a problem and reckless driving only magnifies it.
As to #2, “fun” is possibly the real reason people want it, it that’s just not a very convincing argument. There are also many people who want a speed limit because they experience a different emotion, namely fear.
As to #3, I don’t know what your argument is? People might pay for gas, but the cost is nowhere near enough to cover the externalities.
Despite having occasionally enjoyed letting ‘er rip at 160-180 (about 100-110mph), I lean towards a 130 general limit - having a kid changes a lot of one’s priorities, it turns out.
The author should have listed the fatalities by 100 million km driven - of course practically-empty Finland is going to have far fewer fatalities per 1000km of road than much denser Germany!
Having done 250kmph / 155mph on the German Autobahn I do wonder what why you feel like you should take the pleasure away from other people because you had a kid?
No-one forces you to drive faster (1) and when driving you can stick to the right lane (2) and check your mirrors when you need to pass (3).
The relative speed difference of 130km/h means you're closing in on the traffic in front of you at 36m/s. That doesn't sound like much but if you consider how long it takes from checking the mirror to changing lanes, that's often just not enough time. Numerous times I've had the situation where I checked the mirror and by the time I've changed lanes, some car almost rear ended me. Relative speed differences like that are just a recipe for disaster and the only way to fix that is to make the fast car go slower.
> why you feel like you should take the pleasure away from other people because you had a kid?
That argument works both ways - why do you feel like you should take away a person's right to safer roads just because you didn't have a kid? Any speed limit or lack thereof does not account for driving skill.
A victim of a car accident loses a lot more than a sense of fun.
When I ride my motorbike it rides comfortably at about 160km/hr. For that bike it is a very comfortable speed the bike likes. If I want to rip it can do 180plus. It maxes out at 200km/hr. Even at 200 really isn’t that fast for the open highways where I live. But a huge majority of the driver population has a hard time driving at sub 80km/hr speeds so we kind of need to adjust for the lowest denominator. I think the best system would be one where speed limits change based on time of day and weather. Also perhaps drivers could take extra testing and get licensed to go faster. Some people are just more capable then others. I personally feel very comfortable at 200km/hr.
How would you enforce per-driver speed limits? As it stands, car insurance sort-of does this: German policies usually reserve the right to refuse payment if you’re at fault and were going more than 130.
How could this be managed for all the non-German vehicles that pass through? How invasive would this be?
As a sibling comment said, the difference in speed is what makes for the danger, and the driver who stays well under 130 because he feels that’s safer for him and everyone around might be less-prepared to deal with you popping up at 200 as he’s trying to pass a truck lumbering along at 80.
> and the driver who stays well under 130 because he feels that’s safer for him and everyone around
That’s the other extreme that is a part of the problem. Both, the speedster and the slouch think their speed is safer for them. Driving too slow for the traffic around is as dangerous as driving too fast.
> It isn’t symmetric. Being X kph faster than traffic is significantly more risky than being X kph slower than traffic.
You're neglecting one very important fact:
A driver who is correctly taking advantages of the freedom of a derestricted section, following all the rules and driving fast "the right way" doesn't interfere with other traffic at all. Likewise for a driver who is driving in the same manner on equivalent roads in other parts of the world that don't respect their drivers in the same way. If you're driving fast the right way, you don't interfere with anyone else.
Compare that to a driver going significantly slower than the normal flow of traffic. That driver is always interfering with other traffic. Everyone wanting to drive the normal speed has to maneuver around them which creates problems for the next lane or two over. Depending on how easy it is to get around the slow driver they may also create road rage.
Now, obviously if you screw up while driving fast the consequences are generally going to be substantially more severe, but slow drivers cause problems of their own just by being there, no matter how well they're driving otherwise.
There's a reason most controlled-access highways require that your vehicle have a minimum level of power and some even have minimum speed limits. When the flow of traffic is X, a vehicle moving X-20 is a dangerous obstruction.
I recall on the local news a police officer urged people to "go with the flow". Don't speed but also don't doddle since the difference between speeders vs slow pokes is dangerous. If the speed is 100km/h and everyone is going 110km/h or 90km/h do what everyone else is doing.
You are putting others at risk by driving faster because for example the increased forces on your tire dramatically increase the risks of a blowout. They are less able to deal with avoiding obstacles not only from reaction time issues but because their increased momentum makes turning slower. And it keeps going, excess speed doesn’t seem like a big deal but there’s a reason it kills so many people in other vehicles.
> You are putting others at risk by driving faster because for example the increased forces on your tire dramatically increase the risks of a blowout. They are less able to deal with avoiding obstacles not only from reaction time issues but because their increased momentum makes turning slower.
The tires have a speed rating. Have a look at the tire wall. The letter on the tire tells you what speed they are rated for. If you don’t look after your tires, it doesn’t matter how fast you are going to be travelling. A friend of mine was killed in an accident at 20kph.
You need to know what you are driving and don’t be reckless.
Speed ratings aren’t guarantees by some all powerful creator, they are based around various assumptions and tests for manufacturing defects etc. At best you can get some estimates for the probability of failure given specific conditions but I sincerely doubt you have that.
In the end you can’t know what you are actually driving, only make reasonable assumptions about it. I know people that died at low speeds and high speeds, but statistically it’s high speeds that are the most significant risk and there isn’t anything you can do to eliminate those risks.
I have a great tolerance for people taking risks with their own life, oddly less tolerance for people misunderstandings the risks, and minimal tolerance for people putting others at risk.
Which is why I don’t object to people driving motorcycles at those speeds rather than cars. It greatly increases someones personal risks while slightly reducing the risk to others, which is a fine tradeoff. My only request is people take a closer risk assessment rather than blindly thinking they are meaningfully safer drivers than others when taking such risks is already putting them below average.
Feeling comfortable has almost nothing to do with actually being safe at those speeds.
People talk about the Dunning-Kruger effect all the time because it’s so insidious. Doing 200kph on a good bike is very unlikely to kill you the first time. You’re terrified and try and minimize the risks, but soon you’ve done it a few times and it feels old hat. What changed wasn’t skills just desensitization so people end up having higher risk as they start to feel more safe.
There are ways to actually get better, but it’s always going to be extremely dangerous and if you start to think differently it’s very much time to stop.
Just like the gun debate in the US, the speed limit debate in Germany has at its core nothing to do with rational arguments. It is about perceived restriction, limiting personal freedom, and potentially taking away a right people are used to.
> limiting personal freedom, and potentially potentially taking away a right people are used to
not a rational concern? Sure you might personally be of a different opinion, but to claim these things can’t be the subject of a rational argument is absurd.
It's not absurd because even presenting facts like: driving fast is more dangerous, induce fear in many other drivers, cause more pollution including noise pollution, is wasteful (less efficient fuel/component wear wise) meets resistance.
The rational argument would be: "I know more people will die in accidents, more will get cancer, more will live with uncomfortable noise levels and more will travel stressed and in fear but I value this less than my freedom to go 200+km/h.
You about never hear that though because supporting high or no speed limits goes hand in hand with delusional thinking about dangers and harms of driving.
Regarding the article, nothing I was going to say involved "perceived restriction, limiting personal freedom, and potentially taking away a right people are used to."
I guess you know best, "just like the gun debate".
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.
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".
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.
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, ...
I think what you mean to ask is whether the concern is more or less important to [some audience] than the pro-limit concerns. For this issue, there are rational arguments on both sides, but which side one finds more compelling isn't a criticism of whether it's more rational so much as being a reflection of what one prioritizes/fears.
The problem I have with this is always the “when is it enough”? Setting is speed limit of 130 is not unreasonable. But the exact same arguments apply for a speed limit of 120. Or 100. Or 80. Or 60. Or 30.
It basically the same as the Apple CSAM issue: where is acceptable to impose restrictions to freedom, or to impose inconvenience, for a marginal improvement to safety.
It’s frustrating to see essentially the same issue come up so many times, without having any real framework to discuss it. (See: gun-laws, speed limits, CSAM-scanners, porn internet filters like in the UK). It makes it very easy for the side advocating for stricter regulations to twist the argument into something that cannot easily be countered (“Think of the children! You surely don’t want [bad thing] to happen?!”)
Any road where you have a big differential between speeds by various road users is just inherently dangerous. If everyone would be doing 250km/h, it'd be safe. Same if everyone would be doing 120km/h. But when you mix 250 and 120 on the same road, it's inherently dangerous.
The issue with ground based traffic is that you have a lot of non-moving objects around you, like trees, walls, animals, etc. So even if all cars drive at 250 km/h, those non-moving objects still remain there and pose an ever increasing risk with increased speed. Furthermore, curves are more dangerous at higher speeds.
Due to topography, Autobahn roads can still be very curvy. The Albaufstieg [0] is an extreme example but not the only one. Notice the sign at 3:04, it's limited to 60 kmh. Weather can make those curves even more dangerous, e.g. rain or ice. As for objects, they still occur. One example is prior accidents. Another example is the end of a traffic jam. These are an especially bad problem for trucks [1], that actually drive way slower than 130 kmh even. The problem here is driver attention, but too fast speed can also contribute [2].
I know that A8 part. It’s pretty cool. The speed limit there is most likely due to how steep it is. Trucks are pretty slow there. The ICE goes around that mountain as slow as the traffic on the Autobahn.
The higher your speed, the higher your speed differential with the road and guard rail. A car nudging another at 250 km/h can cause the other to violently roll over, while a car nudging another at 40 km/hr can't. Speed differential between cars is not the only factor in safety.
I agree, and if we had decided to create an autonomous car only line where the speed gets controlled by a central computer, this would apply.
You still shouldn't ignore that the higher the speed, the more likely larger speed differences can appear. At some point external force will slow down cars significantly faster than the brake of the vehicle behind.
There are good points to discuss on this topic, but my opinion is that this "debunking" is full of junk with twisted facts or "opinion" being confused with facts.
From my own experience driving there, I noticed that the average speed on the left lanes are usually around 160 with faster cars around 180.
But the truth is that with the traffic, it is very rare that you can go fast because when there start to be a reasonable amount of cars there is no way you can go too fast without doing slaloms. So speed is more low in real average.
I also noticed that people were driving more seriously and safely than in other countries because of the no speed limit:
In France for example, some people will go very fast in a dangerous way like an race, because of the thrill of being outlaw or something like that. Otherwise, everyone will try to be stuck to exactly 130 or a few km/h more to be exactly on the limit. Reluctant to slow down when needed and having difficulties to overpass cars that are just a bit slower without exceeding 130.
Another surprising fact is that, in Germany, when there are speed limits, they are usually lower than in France and very strictly enforced. Like driving at 30 km/h on streets crossing villages.
> There are good points to discuss on this topic, but my opinion is that this "debunking" is full of junk with twisted facts or "opinion" being confused with facts.
You should carefully reread your own post, its actually all opinion being confused for facts! It's very striking, since the original article not only supports its claims with data and cited sources, but specifically refutes the points your making. Did you just read the title and decide to refute it?
First I don't give you "opinion", but the fact of my personal experience driving there. I dare you to tell me what is not factual in what I said. To be noted that I did not formulate conclusion/opinion based on my observation.
Second, I know that the article looks to be debunking with facts but if you read carefully you will see that a lot are biased or not really adequately justified.
the costs from time lost with a limit of 130 km/h were more than offset by the economic benefits of preventing traffic accidents.
Here for example, you compare apple and carrots. I don't doubt that a study somewhere tried to put an "economic value" to the time lost for a driver and to estimate an economic value of fatalities. But that is really shaddy.
Another example, there are a comparison of accidents on speed limited highways vs non speed limited parts in Germany. But this is again comparing apple and carrots. Roads are not the same, it is not like we had 2 times the same slice of road and decided to have one with speed limit and the other one without to see which is the best one. As they are all in Germany, you can assume that the one that are speed limited already have a reason for that or they would be unlimited. Maybe the limit itself is a signal to drivers that the area is more dangerous and to be more cautious.
And also, there is the possibility that as the drivers are free for unlimited speed on some parts of highways, they don't have frustration regarding that and then they are more serious in respecting speed limits where it is limited. But if all highways were limited, they would be a higher number of drivers driving dangerously slightly exceeding the mandatory speed limit, and that now could happen anywhere, even where there was already speed limits before.
A last point is that there is not even a justification of why limiting to 130 and not 140 or 100. It is a totally arbitrary value.
Proponents of unlimited speed Autobahn could argue: 1. The tourism value: I anecdotally know people visit Germany just for the Autobahn. (See Nürburgring, which is technically an Autobahn) 2. Sale of performance cars: The high actual minimum speed (from my experience you need to drive at around 150km/h in the middle lane, and 180-200km/h to pass on the left lane). Almost anywhere else in the world, the top speed of cars is irrelevant. In Germany, however, high performance cars (inevitably, German brand ones) can be desired for their better handling at speeds at or above 200km/h. 3. Germans collectively have excellent driving mannerisms and skills which were a result of unlimited speed. It is probably true that enforcing a speed limit today would decrease deaths, but the next generation would then regress to the mean.
I would be interested to see someone quantify the above points and compare them with the economic costs discussed in the OP article.
Blaming the safe driving of Germans on the danger of the Autobahn just baffles me. The driving style of Germans has everything to do with the process of obtaining a driving license in Germany as well as the strict (and properly enforced) traffic laws and harsh fines - most violations will get you points towards losing your license and in some extreme cases you might even be barred from obtaining a new driving license after losing yours. All that creates an environment where driving is viewed as an activity that requires a lot of attention and farsightedness. Being able to drive fast on the Autobahn has nothing to do with it simply because this driving style not only applies to the Autobahn but also to cities and smaller country roads.
You have it the wrong way around. The fact that German drivers have to go through rigorous driving lessons by a licensed teacher is the reason they are allowed higher speeds. If your driving license can be obtained by scooting around for a couple of hours with your dad at your side and then do a DMV test that consists of driving once around the block, you shouldn't be allowed to drive at dangerous speeds.
Well, but minutes after obtaining such license you can literally board a plane to Germany and go drive 200 km/h, the only obstacle being rental companies policies, which, if you have enough money, can be skipped. And personally, after having a license from another EU country for less than 2 months when I first drove in my car in Germany, I definitely didn't feel prepared.
There's probably only a small fraction of people with a foreign license who travel the Autobahn by car. That number might be on par or even smaller than the number of drivers with a German license who still have a poor sense of responsibility.
Half true: skill level is likely the same as any first world population, but they do have very good lane procedure: you won't often find slow cars in the fast lane, or people overtaking those rare instances via the slow lane. They will honk and flash if you're slow in the fast lane, but by German standards that too is correct. I've never had someone passive-agressive brake in front of me for wanting to overtake, or speeding up in the overtaking lane, things that happen too often in the US.
The Nürburgring is a private road and does not meet criteria for calling it an Autobahn (it's a one-way road without lanes, which kinda rules out Autobahn-ness).
It’s a closed toll road with two lane one way traffic but without markings. Overtaking only on the left, after overtake one should go back to the right. There’s no such thing as racing line. There are a couple of speed limits: 70kph by the exit in Breidscheid and 120kph on the Döttinger Höhe, before exit to the Touristenfahrten car park (going down to 50kph right before the exit).
During Terroristenfahrten, regular traffic rules of a two lane single direction road apply.
> Myth #4: The climate impact of speeding is obsolete with electric cars
LOL. Some myths may be tricky to debunk, but it's hilarious that this one even got to that stage.
People don't notice the fuel needle going down as much on ICE vehicles (they may notice their gas bill at the end of the month to have been substantially higher). But EVs have much more precise energy meters and people do notice a massive range reduction at higher speeds. The difference between 60Mph and 70Mph is massive.
Given the advantages mentioned in the original article, it’s becoming silly that there’s still no speed limit. Why isn’t there? Probably because the minority who wants to drive fast is very vocal about it.
This has been compared to gun laws in the US, which also seem to be defended by a vocal minority (source: too lazy to look up).
With which you 'voided the warranty', 'allgemeine Betriebserlaubnis' and any insurance. Which in case of an accident trashes your life, even if nothing really bad happened (to you).
There’s a difference between “legal” and what most people's insurance contracts say. Most normally-priced collision policies have clauses stating that if you were driving in excess of 130, the insurer reserves the right not to pay for damage you did to your vehicle, even if was otherwise legal for you to be driving over 130. Have fun even getting liability after that.
Modifying your car in a way that would make it fail TÜV (German car inspections, which other posters have noted are far more exacting than even the stricter US states) would be grounds for non-payment no matter what you were doing, as you’ve intentionally made your car non-roadworthy.
It’s also illegal to modify a car in a way that will fail TÜV, which means, in the eyes of the law, you’re doing the same thing as the guy driving a rust heap that he won’t bother bringing in for inspection because he knows it will fail.
Beginner's Guide to Germany: any course of action whose success relies on an inattentive bureaucrat or non-diligent technician is more likely to bite you in the bum than back home, unless “back home” is Singapore.
"The actual greenhouse gas emissions depend on the energy mix used for charging the batteries, but as long as we do not have abundant climate-neutral energy, it makes sense to save energy by driving at lower speeds."
This argument (often also applied to the size of cars) is something I often read. It's an instance of the perfectionist fallacy. Electric cars are more harmful than gasoline powered cars if the energy they are powered by comes from coal plants. We must switch to carbon free energy. If we take that as a given, speed limits don't make sense from a climate change perspective. There are still other reasons why speed limits are beneficial (safety for example), but I think people arguing with carbon intensive electricity production in cases like this are not doing climate friendly transportation any favors.
So many ways to have fun with speed: downhill mountain biking, kite surfing, skiing, snowboarding, car or motorcycle racing on a closed circuit. If that's not enough speed you can get into aviation and learn to pilot small aircrafts.
If you have to do it on public roads at least get a motorcycle, they are faster than 99%+ of cars even in performance category and you feel speed much more but at least you take your fair share of risk of your recklessness.
Instead you want to have fun in the most isolated dull way at the maximum cost to those around you. Maybe those lefties are onto something you know - letting others live their lives in peace without worrying about fun having maniacs killing them on their way home.
I drove through Germany few times. While there were mostly no speed limits on Autobahns, the were a lot of “repairs” when halve of the road was closed and another was converted into 2-way road with a speed limit of 60-70 km/hour and very narrow lines. And then such section can last for 10-20 kilometers with zero activity besides couple of spots. I have never experienced such way to do repairs in Denmark, France, Italy or Spain.
This is how they always do repairs in Denmark. I should know as I drive though such an area on the way to Odense 4 times a week. 80km/t speed limit for 10-20km and it has been there for years.
I'm happy I've been able to drive at high speed on the autobahn, but don't imagine it will last. It's excessively wasteful of energy for one thing. It's remarkable how much more efficiently your car can operate at just 55mph vs 75mph. Driving at 150mph? Quite the gas/electricity guzzler. I could see this killing the autobahn as we know (knew?) it before the safety concerns do it in. The one thing German society has going for it that the US never will is pretty strict social adherence to 'rules of the road', such as leaving the left lane open, using turn signals, etc. If/when that social trust breaks down, culturally, I imagine it would be hard for a highly-populated, high-speed highway to exist.
Emissions per km completely leaves time out of the equation. Fatalities per year in motorway traffic per 1000km of motorway ignores how many people drive on those 1000km in a year, an empty motorway is obviously safest but also pretty useless. Strange that they'd choose these, given that they're a statistics company and should know better.
I believe a speed limit would be useful. Maybe add more Nürburgring-style race tracks where people can drive their cars as fast as they want to.
I wonder how long before they come for the Nordschleife. “Because it’s an outlier on the pollution map and why would anyone want to drive so fast anyway. Let’s ban it.”
At the speed Germany moves, we'll probably have working brain-computer-interfaces by then. Just hook into your computer, load racetrack.exe and enjoy the adrenaline without having to travel far.
Hmm. I don't live in Germany but drove across a couple times. For one there are speed limits around cities and on busy stretches. They even have dynamically adjusted speed limits on electronic panels.
And two, I've generally seen traffic going at most 160. In a country with an 130 speed limit you can still go 160 if you want. Especially if you know where the speed cameras are.
When we get to intelligent highways and self driving cars I wonder how much difference various speed limits make.
In the Nordics Ive seen discussions to go from 130 to 110 because of climate.
Will self driving electric cars be trusted to drive as fast as the construction of the road plus population density permits?
Eco arguments are what they are. Regarding accidents, making speeders drive slower will not make general population improve their driving. I wonder how many accidents happened because the driver of the slower car didn’t even bother to check their mirrors when changing the lane.
I’m usually the one in the fast lane. If the driver of the slower car knows what the indicator is for, neither of us has any issues. You see, I’m an outlier. Speeding a bmw, using indicators and keeping the distance. In a region where every second person drives on my bumper and has no idea what a mirror or indicator is for.
the trend of having every aspect of life scrutinized for its worthiness by environmentalists is getting pretty tedious. octoberfest causes emissions, too. so do birthday parties, and weddings. are we sure those should make the cut?
Yeah, the planet is speeding down the road towards a brick wall and these dumb environmentalists just keep complaining whenever we push the gas pedal a little harder. What buzzkills…
Then let‘s introduce a general speed limit only for cars with combustion engine. In no time the adoption rate of electric vehicles in Germany would skyrocket.
people advocating for a 130 limit need to drive Austrian (which has this limit) A1 on a friday once. Three lanes all doing 140, so its not possible to change lanes at all. Ended up missing my exit to Vienna a couple of times because of this
Oh the saints here who talk about why speeding is bad...
Nobody cares. Much much more people die from processed foods/air pollution in the world than from motorway accidents. Around 120x more people die from cardiovascular/cancer related disease than motorway accidents. And not every motorway accident is caused by excessive speeding.
I do not believe it follows from "Much much more people die from processed foods/air pollution in the world than from motorway accidents" that nobody should care about speeding and motorway accidents. After all, far fewer people still are murdered, but the consensus seems to be that we care about murderers.
We can only think about one thing, and that thing must be the most horrible or offensive, rather than the more likely/dangerous. Hence the obsession with terrorists hiding under every rock while ignoring deaths from opioids, smoking, obesity, and COVID. Libertarians would rather be anal probed at every airport than wear a mask on a commuter train.
> Opponents of speed limits often claim that the majority of people do not regularly drive faster than 130 km/h, ... If we look at the data, however, the picture is quite different.
Actually, that's not what the chart says. It's not maximum speeds, it's all speeds. That includes many circumstances where you can't go that fast, e.g. due to slow traffic, accidents, speed limits etc. So 30% of all speeds surely is a lot.
Weird, it feels far more dangerous driving down the 101 from SFO to Palo Alto where a high proportion of people don’t know what indicators are for or are on their phone than anywhere in Germany. Similarly a yellow cab in NYC has the same effect…
Germany sure needs to considering policing the autobahn better. The number of drivers tailgating and flashing is atrocious. I dont understand how such a cool road system has become so aggressive.
a common misconception: per german traffic law flashing lights is a valid way to notify the car in front of you of your intent to overtake. of-course does not apply when both cars are in leftmost lane, there it is a punishable offence (drängeln)
a silly law if you ask me. pressuring people driving in front is extremely dangerous. it’s already clear that there is an intention to overtake since you are driving on the outermost lane, no need to be rude and agressive.
Or for stretches that had high accident rates in the past [0]
> According to official statistics from 2018, unlimited highways in Germany claimed about 71% of fatalities on highways.[86] However, autobahns without speed limits also account for 70% of the entire autobahn network, which puts the high proportion of collision fatalities on stretches without speed limits into perspective.[86] However, the often resulting thinking that speed limits would not make roads significantly safer is a fallacy, since it is precisely those roads that have a high volume of traffic and thus a high risk of collisions that are given speed limits.
Shameless plug: I’m a software engineer at Datawrapper and we’re currently looking for talented backend and fullstack engineers to build out our app and platform. Berlin and remote [1]. If you wanna help us build the most accessible charting tool out there used by the likes of the New York Times, Spiegel Online, etc. hit me up at marten@datawrapper.de
I come from Germany / Bavaria. I've been driving on the A8 autobahn between Stuttgart and Munich for many years.
About 2.5 years ago, the maximum speed of 120 was introduced in a 10 km long section near Augsburg, from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.
There are some many exits in quick succession. It is generally very dangerous when people traveling at very high speeds (i.e. people who are just driving there) meet people who are traveling at very low speeds (i.e. people who are trying to get onto the motorway in slow cars or trucks).
There have been many accidents in the past. Since the speed was set at 120, there have been far fewer accidents on this section, and therefore fewer seriously injured / killed.
I generally observe a harmonization of traffic flow. And I'm less stuck in traffic!
There is a conundrum that you see in the Netherlands:
make perfect, immaculate highways and people will start getting bored and floor the pedal because even 130 will seem slow. "I can easily drive faster here"
Not a problem in 1970 when barely any car could reach that speed but in a modern automobile you can zip along. So they had to fix this problem with speed cameras every few kilometres to keep people in check.
There is a solution which EU is actually implementing: automatic speed limiters in every car. Unfortunately the auto industry lobbies successfully to delay it and cripple it so instead of having it obligatory in every car 10 years ago we will have a crippled version of it in some cars (new ones) starting in a year. It's a start though. 20 more years and the problem will be solved.
> automatic speed limiters in every car.
this is literally the nightmare of every driver.
There is no need for any car to go faster than 80 or 90 mph. The fuel efficiency at those speeds is terrible.
such a generalisation when we have a whole planet driving is a bit absurd.
When do cars need to go faster than 80mph?
As long as it can be turned off when it malfunctions, why is it a nightmare? At least in the Netherlands, most people are going the speed limit or near it. Everyone stays to the right unless passing. In this case, it doesn’t sound like a nightmare.
Somewhere like the US or where people speed often, yeah, it sounds like this feature could get you killed. Like somewhere like Atlanta, you’d probably get rear ended fairly quickly driving the speed limit on the interstate.
so why would anyone need this tech if almost everyone already sticks to the limit?
Cognitive load. A lot of speed limits are dynamic or based on the time of day or dependent on what city you’re in. For example, a nearby street to my house is a short 30 zone but the sign isn’t obvious so a lot of people are accidentally going 50.
I'm a driver and would prefer that.
I drive to go from a to b and not to race.
I care more about not getting a fine than traveling as fast as possible
I am a driver to for some three decades or so and noticed when you watch the speedometer you generally don’t get fines.
I'm in Germany there are plenty of speed changes. Sometimes it's not always clear if I missed like a speedlimit cancelation or not.
Or they reduce from unlimited to 100, 80 and 60 in no time.
It's not a big issue but because I don't care for a hard limit it's for me a better deal
in general this is just a way for the state to collect money from drivers.
I think this is stupid and not true.
it’s not about racing. it’s about having the freedom to go fast if needed.
The single need to go fast (wtf?) Is not as important than the safety for everyone using a street.
For emergencies there are proper laws.
And no your taco bell getting cold is not a good reason
Absolutely not, I want to stick to the speed limit (or go slower, 100km/h is fine). It's much easier to do that if everyone else is forced to do it too.
you can do it yourself without a machine forcing you to do it.
The problem is that safe drivers are bullied by aggressive ones, and the lack of punishment means the aggressive drivers become more emboldened. I’ve seen accidents caused by this where the guy honking at someone until they went an unsafe speed or ran a light drove off unscathed.
If cars can’t go faster than the legal limit, driving would be much less stressful with lower congestion as a bonus.
How are you going to get laid if you cant demonstrate your ability to go fast in a car to members of the opposite sex?
What would you say is the average speed on every lane?
In my experience in the NL, the far right lane is held by people going under the speed limit (truckers, cautious drivers). But if it’s not being held, people move into it and pass as needed. If it’s busy, the second lane will be held by people going the speed limit and the third lane by people passing them. The fourth lane is usually open all the time except to pass people passing people. Speed cameras are usually based on “average speed” so you can “save up” speed by going slower than the speed limit for awhile.
"Fatalities per 1,000 kilometers of motorway"
That doesn't seem like a very good metric to me. There's no way there's any single number that can properly compare driving deaths between countries, but shouldn't this at least be normalized to account for number of drivers? Like what if Finland just has a lot of long, empty roads? Also doesn't there need to be a comparison within the German data on deaths on roads with and without speed limits?
Fatalities should be measured in terms of miles travelled. Not per mile of highway, or per number of cars, or per capita. Someone who drives five days a week, 60 miles per day is going to have a higher risk of getting into an accident that someone who drives only on weekends, 30 miles per day. This does have any bearing on how safe the roads are.
I agree with you that miles travelled is a better metric.
But traffic density would be another interesting metric. Temporary speed limits on the autobahn are typically dynamically adjusted to the traffic situation.
Not all motorways are made equal, and that may play a role as well. I frequently drive over French, Italian, German motorways and can say the quality and maintenance of the road vary greatly between European countries.
Eventually, I see so many other factors that could enter the picture that I’m wondering if that comparison makes any sense at all (apart from proving the writer is trying to force his point?).
Finland doesn't have much of a motorway network and also has serious winter conditions, black ice on the roads for much of the year in all major coastal cities, etc. If anything it's an even more astonishing number when you account for this.
Not really, in my opinion. When conditions are obviously bad, people behave more cautiously. It is when everything seems fine and easy that people get too comfortable with pushing the limits, or things get too boring, and mistakes happen.
Finland doesn't have lot of motorways. So they are pretty well taken care of and possibly only risk is hitting a bridge. As there is quite wide shoulders. Add to this density is pretty low so in many parts there is not much traffic.
There is lot of highways though. And those can be middle of forest with 80 speed limit. So losing control and hitting upcoming traffic or tree is much more likely.
Speaking as an American, I spent a summer in Germany, Austria and Denmark delivering cars shipped from California. They were largely turbo diesel and stick shift, and I loved every minute of it. My friend's business had us hunting in LA for good used deals that went under the "old-timer" tariffs.
German roads are far superior in every sense: materials, construction, maintenance, drainage, etc. They pay a price in taxes and construction traffic to be sure. But driving there makes you realize that half your experience with a fancy car will be shit no matter what, if your roads suck.
Driving is really "a privilege and not a right" in Germany, not just a slogan. Last I checked, a license cost thousands of euros and there are many other ways to get where you need to go besides driving, compared to the USA (depending on where you live of course).
That's not to say I don't appreciate that I can buy and maintain German cars and usually spend less money than the Germans would at home, (awful!!!) here in the states, and we have tons of great roads, however the quality.
Any idiot can get a driver's license in the US. This is not true of Germany. The consensus among the Germans I knew when I was there was they are better drivers. (Of course they would say that, right?) And if there was a bad accident, it would be less frequent but bad. Totally anecdotal but that was the truth I felt/experienced.
The driving enthusiast in me could never accept additional speed limit restrictions in Germany, regardless of how rationally the data may argue against them. <shrug />
It's Mecca.
I always buy used/CPO German cars, with stick if I can get them, and I'll do that to my grave. (despite unfortunate changes to the market against the enthusiast). Love babying them, love the maintenance (really), love the superior feel and handling. :-)
When we lived in Deutschland in the 70s, my Dad would joke that the "D" sticker on German cars meant "Drag racing" as the Germans drove with their foot on the floor. He would putt putt along the autobahn at an agonizingly slow pace.
I asked him why he didn't enjoy driving fast. He replied that he'd firewalled Mustangs and SabreJets on the deck, and driving fast on the autobahn was boring in comparison.
If you vote for me for Governor of the state, I'll get some autobahns here in the US!
P.S. If you ever watch "The Battle of Britain" movie, in the first combat scene you'll see an Me109 flying balls-to-the-wall at about 10 feet off the ground. Incredibly fun, and incredibly dangerous. No model work with that shot.
P.P.S sometimes you'd see jets hedge-hopping over the countryside. I asked why didn't the citizens complain about that, he said they understood why the pilots had to train that way. Radar cannot see them, the flak gun crews cannot hear them coming, and they cannot move the gun fast enough to line up on the aircraft.
"Firewalled" and "balls to the wall" are aviation terms for full engine power, and refer to the forward wall of an airplane cockpit.
On a good day, the wall keeps any fire from the engine from entering the human-rated zone.
The engine power control, by convention, pushes forward to increase power. So full power is at the maximum excursion towards the front of the plane, towards the firewall.
In the very few general aviation aircraft I've flown, the throttle was literally a rod with a plastic sphere on the end. You grab the ball and push it all the way into the instrument panel for full power: that's "ball to the wall".
Also in the other direction, reducing the throttle setting, that's "pulling power": you pull it out. Usually on time. And yes all of the jokes are that childish and it doesn't matter because hey, you're flying and it's awesome.
This is fascinating, thank you.
I hear you brother! Sounds like an awesome movie. Reminds me of the Reno Air Races :)
It's not just the license requirements. The standard for maintenance and at a German TÜV inspection is far beyond most state level inspections in the US (if they are required at all in your state).
In Florida it was very common to see cars with bald tires, dangerous lifts and modifications, and plenty of heaps broken down littering the road side.
Even in New York where inspections are required annually and are stringent for the US, there's a lot of ways a poorly maintained vehicle will still pass. I wouldn't want a car with worn brakes, summer tires in the snow, etc trying to do 100+ on the highway, it would not end well.
Genau!!!
I had to do several TÜV inspections. The requirement to have uniform headlight brightness and color is really awesome and much safer!
Myth #1: is a non-reason to ban it. Non-usage of something is not a reason to get rid of something
Myth #2: I've never met someone who is like: oh if I cannot drive 200kmph I'll be late to my meeting. That's not why people drive fast. They do because it's fun!
Myth #3: Emissions are taxed. Car consumes more, so you pay more taxes.
Myth #4: You cannot push everybody to electric cars and then yell: oh but the electricity isn't clean...
Myth #5: This is the worst actually, it's missing a significant piece of information... which part of the fatalities happened > 130kmph?
Myth #2: counter example: the only five times I was in a car riding over 250km/h were taxis from an airport to another when lufthansa f'd up something and put me on a plane in the next airport. They didn't want to pay for a hotel stay, and I really wanted home. Turns out the taxi drivers got their orders 'as fast as possible' and I had no idea a car could go that fast. I looked at my watch, and closed my eyes praying, and there we were. Every time. With time to spare.
To be fair it happened to me in Belgium several times too and it wasn't as legal and it looked far more dangerous (people not expecting a 250km/h rocket on the left lane...).
> which part of the fatalities happened > 130kmph?
Usually (not always) you realize that something bad is going to happen so you are going to brake. Let's assume there is an obstacle in front of you that is 150m away. After a reaction time of 1 second, and with continuous braking over 100m you are able to get from 180kmh to 100kmh at time of impact, but if you had started from the generally suggested 130kmh, you would have stopped 40m before the target (assuming -8.83m/s^2 braking acceleration).
> I've never met someone who is like: oh if I cannot drive 200kmph I'll be late to my meeting. That's not why people drive fast. They do because it's fun!
There’s nothing fun about going 200+ in a straight line. It’s more fun to drive fast on a bendy country road. The thing is, most people have no clue how to handle a car. People drive fast on the Autobahn because of the ego and because it is allowed.
Maybe it's not fun FOR YOU.
not sure the data you want for #5 is available anywhere or even tracked, since you would have to consider the speeds of all participants involved. I would argue that the given statistics might give an even stronger case because the speed-limited sections usually already have a higher probability of accidents (hence the limit), so being above that already says something.
But having written that, I have no drivers license and no real opinion either way. ofc I'm slightly leaning towards general speed limits (less externalities for me to pay) but overall I'm indifferent.
Is there a calculation as to how many hours would be lost spent on the road because of a speed limit? Like I don't know, say every day people spend a million hours driving on the highway, and a speed limit would bump it to 1.2 million hours (no idea, just made up numbers)?
Emissions are not taxed anywhere close to the cost of damage they cause. Electric cars still pollute (tires and brake pads).
In general cars and car infrastructure is very heavily subsidized and the least we should expect for it is drivers not engaging in wasteful and dangerous behaviors.
Hey look it’s the brake pad myth again!
I’m kind of tired of debunking it, so let’s try putting the onus of proof on the person claiming EVs burn brake pads at any rate even remotely comparable to gas cars. Is there anything out there that says that?
(My Nissan Leaf’s service manual says otherwise)
It might be a lesser rate but they still burn them (and the tires). I am not claiming EVs cause more of it. I am claiming is a problem and reckless driving only magnifies it.
They… really don’t. My Leaf has the original brake pads after 70k miles, with virtually no wear.
I have to deliberately use them every few months to scrub the oxidation layer off. That’s how infrequently an EV uses brakes.
Tires, yes. Brakes, no.
On #1 you seem to be acce-ting the “myth”?
As to #2, “fun” is possibly the real reason people want it, it that’s just not a very convincing argument. There are also many people who want a speed limit because they experience a different emotion, namely fear.
As to #3, I don’t know what your argument is? People might pay for gas, but the cost is nowhere near enough to cover the externalities.
#5: that data just isn’t available, I guess?
Despite having occasionally enjoyed letting ‘er rip at 160-180 (about 100-110mph), I lean towards a 130 general limit - having a kid changes a lot of one’s priorities, it turns out.
The author should have listed the fatalities by 100 million km driven - of course practically-empty Finland is going to have far fewer fatalities per 1000km of road than much denser Germany!
Having done 250kmph / 155mph on the German Autobahn I do wonder what why you feel like you should take the pleasure away from other people because you had a kid?
No-one forces you to drive faster (1) and when driving you can stick to the right lane (2) and check your mirrors when you need to pass (3).
The relative speed difference of 130km/h means you're closing in on the traffic in front of you at 36m/s. That doesn't sound like much but if you consider how long it takes from checking the mirror to changing lanes, that's often just not enough time. Numerous times I've had the situation where I checked the mirror and by the time I've changed lanes, some car almost rear ended me. Relative speed differences like that are just a recipe for disaster and the only way to fix that is to make the fast car go slower.
> why you feel like you should take the pleasure away from other people because you had a kid?
That argument works both ways - why do you feel like you should take away a person's right to safer roads just because you didn't have a kid? Any speed limit or lack thereof does not account for driving skill.
A victim of a car accident loses a lot more than a sense of fun.
When I ride my motorbike it rides comfortably at about 160km/hr. For that bike it is a very comfortable speed the bike likes. If I want to rip it can do 180plus. It maxes out at 200km/hr. Even at 200 really isn’t that fast for the open highways where I live. But a huge majority of the driver population has a hard time driving at sub 80km/hr speeds so we kind of need to adjust for the lowest denominator. I think the best system would be one where speed limits change based on time of day and weather. Also perhaps drivers could take extra testing and get licensed to go faster. Some people are just more capable then others. I personally feel very comfortable at 200km/hr.
How would you enforce per-driver speed limits? As it stands, car insurance sort-of does this: German policies usually reserve the right to refuse payment if you’re at fault and were going more than 130.
How could this be managed for all the non-German vehicles that pass through? How invasive would this be?
As a sibling comment said, the difference in speed is what makes for the danger, and the driver who stays well under 130 because he feels that’s safer for him and everyone around might be less-prepared to deal with you popping up at 200 as he’s trying to pass a truck lumbering along at 80.
> and the driver who stays well under 130 because he feels that’s safer for him and everyone around
That’s the other extreme that is a part of the problem. Both, the speedster and the slouch think their speed is safer for them. Driving too slow for the traffic around is as dangerous as driving too fast.
It isn’t symmetric. Being X kph faster than traffic is significantly more risky than being X kph slower than traffic.
It’s that damn Velocity squared term that always fucks things up.
> It isn’t symmetric. Being X kph faster than traffic is significantly more risky than being X kph slower than traffic.
You're neglecting one very important fact:
A driver who is correctly taking advantages of the freedom of a derestricted section, following all the rules and driving fast "the right way" doesn't interfere with other traffic at all. Likewise for a driver who is driving in the same manner on equivalent roads in other parts of the world that don't respect their drivers in the same way. If you're driving fast the right way, you don't interfere with anyone else.
Compare that to a driver going significantly slower than the normal flow of traffic. That driver is always interfering with other traffic. Everyone wanting to drive the normal speed has to maneuver around them which creates problems for the next lane or two over. Depending on how easy it is to get around the slow driver they may also create road rage.
Now, obviously if you screw up while driving fast the consequences are generally going to be substantially more severe, but slow drivers cause problems of their own just by being there, no matter how well they're driving otherwise.
There's a reason most controlled-access highways require that your vehicle have a minimum level of power and some even have minimum speed limits. When the flow of traffic is X, a vehicle moving X-20 is a dangerous obstruction.
There’s an apples to oranges argument here.
Someone driving slow can force other drivers to deal with them.
Someone driving fast avoids problems when they slow down to avoid traffic. If they don’t slow down when all lanes have someone in them …
Yeah, being too fast can be bad for you. Being too slow can be bad for many around you. A guess. An average, don’t take it literally.
I recall on the local news a police officer urged people to "go with the flow". Don't speed but also don't doddle since the difference between speeders vs slow pokes is dangerous. If the speed is 100km/h and everyone is going 110km/h or 90km/h do what everyone else is doing.
Being too fast is much worse for the people you get into an accident with because it’s simply a more energetic collision.
Being to fast is therefore much worse for the people around you. Slow drivers annoy other drivers, speeders tend to kill other drivers.
Slow drivers not paying attention kill other drivers. As proven by all fatalities in countries without such speed differences.
Yes, I get the kinetic energy argument.
Lack of attention while driving is the real killer. Speed can be a factor.
Fast drivers not paying attention are again much more dangerous because they over take other drivers and need to respond accordingly.
Slow drivers on the other hand are being overtaken and so their inattention is rarely an issue for others on a freeway.
There are fast drivers and reckless drivers. The latter ones are indeed dangerous, the former ones are usually more alert.
Of course, from an outsider perspective it is difficult to distinguish.
Being alert doesn’t change the laws of physics.
You are putting others at risk by driving faster because for example the increased forces on your tire dramatically increase the risks of a blowout. They are less able to deal with avoiding obstacles not only from reaction time issues but because their increased momentum makes turning slower. And it keeps going, excess speed doesn’t seem like a big deal but there’s a reason it kills so many people in other vehicles.
We can continue this discussion.
> You are putting others at risk by driving faster because for example the increased forces on your tire dramatically increase the risks of a blowout. They are less able to deal with avoiding obstacles not only from reaction time issues but because their increased momentum makes turning slower.
The tires have a speed rating. Have a look at the tire wall. The letter on the tire tells you what speed they are rated for. If you don’t look after your tires, it doesn’t matter how fast you are going to be travelling. A friend of mine was killed in an accident at 20kph.
You need to know what you are driving and don’t be reckless.
Speed ratings aren’t guarantees by some all powerful creator, they are based around various assumptions and tests for manufacturing defects etc. At best you can get some estimates for the probability of failure given specific conditions but I sincerely doubt you have that.
In the end you can’t know what you are actually driving, only make reasonable assumptions about it. I know people that died at low speeds and high speeds, but statistically it’s high speeds that are the most significant risk and there isn’t anything you can do to eliminate those risks.
Make your educated choice wisely. Like isn’t about how often you statistically die.
At the end of the day life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.
I have a great tolerance for people taking risks with their own life, oddly less tolerance for people misunderstandings the risks, and minimal tolerance for people putting others at risk.
Which is why I don’t object to people driving motorcycles at those speeds rather than cars. It greatly increases someones personal risks while slightly reducing the risk to others, which is a fine tradeoff. My only request is people take a closer risk assessment rather than blindly thinking they are meaningfully safer drivers than others when taking such risks is already putting them below average.
I’m happy for you.
Feeling comfortable has almost nothing to do with actually being safe at those speeds.
People talk about the Dunning-Kruger effect all the time because it’s so insidious. Doing 200kph on a good bike is very unlikely to kill you the first time. You’re terrified and try and minimize the risks, but soon you’ve done it a few times and it feels old hat. What changed wasn’t skills just desensitization so people end up having higher risk as they start to feel more safe.
There are ways to actually get better, but it’s always going to be extremely dangerous and if you start to think differently it’s very much time to stop.
Doesn't need kids to cringe for one's life is all I can say, and fine to take any fun for that away :p
Just like the gun debate in the US, the speed limit debate in Germany has at its core nothing to do with rational arguments. It is about perceived restriction, limiting personal freedom, and potentially taking away a right people are used to.
With the only tiny difference being that guns in the US kill orders of magnitude more people than driving on the Autobahn (~50000 vs ~300 annually).
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-da...
https://www.zukunft-mobilitaet.net/172160/analyse/tempolimit...
How is
> limiting personal freedom, and potentially potentially taking away a right people are used to
not a rational concern? Sure you might personally be of a different opinion, but to claim these things can’t be the subject of a rational argument is absurd.
It's not absurd because even presenting facts like: driving fast is more dangerous, induce fear in many other drivers, cause more pollution including noise pollution, is wasteful (less efficient fuel/component wear wise) meets resistance.
The rational argument would be: "I know more people will die in accidents, more will get cancer, more will live with uncomfortable noise levels and more will travel stressed and in fear but I value this less than my freedom to go 200+km/h.
You about never hear that though because supporting high or no speed limits goes hand in hand with delusional thinking about dangers and harms of driving.
Regarding the article, nothing I was going to say involved "perceived restriction, limiting personal freedom, and potentially taking away a right people are used to."
I guess you know best, "just like the gun debate".
You could say the same of the abortion debate. Or the free speech debate. Or the…
It's perfectly legitimate and necessary to argue about rights
there's also that niggling issue of the 2nd amendment and it's current interpretation under the eyes of the judicial system.
Those sound like rational concerns to me.
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.
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".
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.
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, ...
More rational or less rational than the pro-limit concerns?
I think what you mean to ask is whether the concern is more or less important to [some audience] than the pro-limit concerns. For this issue, there are rational arguments on both sides, but which side one finds more compelling isn't a criticism of whether it's more rational so much as being a reflection of what one prioritizes/fears.
The problem I have with this is always the “when is it enough”? Setting is speed limit of 130 is not unreasonable. But the exact same arguments apply for a speed limit of 120. Or 100. Or 80. Or 60. Or 30.
It basically the same as the Apple CSAM issue: where is acceptable to impose restrictions to freedom, or to impose inconvenience, for a marginal improvement to safety.
It’s frustrating to see essentially the same issue come up so many times, without having any real framework to discuss it. (See: gun-laws, speed limits, CSAM-scanners, porn internet filters like in the UK). It makes it very easy for the side advocating for stricter regulations to twist the argument into something that cannot easily be countered (“Think of the children! You surely don’t want [bad thing] to happen?!”)
Speed doesn't kill, speed differential does.
Any road where you have a big differential between speeds by various road users is just inherently dangerous. If everyone would be doing 250km/h, it'd be safe. Same if everyone would be doing 120km/h. But when you mix 250 and 120 on the same road, it's inherently dangerous.
Speed difference is also an issue. Speed certainly kills.
Increased speed limits in BC increased fatalities: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/fatal-crashe...
Road Safety Impact of Increased Rural Highway Speed Limits in British Columbia, Canada https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3555/htm sustainability-10-03555-v2.pdf
https://icsw.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/fars/speeding_data_visualizatio... 27% of fatalities were speeding-related
“There is a great deal of evidence that if you drive just two percent faster, your risk of being killed increases by 10 percent,” https://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/23/speeding-health-hazards/
Moreover, traffic flow is worse at higher speeds, and there's more pollution, and it's louder. And we have to spend more money on roads.
If one were to want to drive fast, the best place would be a race track.
The issue with ground based traffic is that you have a lot of non-moving objects around you, like trees, walls, animals, etc. So even if all cars drive at 250 km/h, those non-moving objects still remain there and pose an ever increasing risk with increased speed. Furthermore, curves are more dangerous at higher speeds.
We’re talking about the Autobahn, not a random road in the forest or a city. Those are designed for the speed.
Due to topography, Autobahn roads can still be very curvy. The Albaufstieg [0] is an extreme example but not the only one. Notice the sign at 3:04, it's limited to 60 kmh. Weather can make those curves even more dangerous, e.g. rain or ice. As for objects, they still occur. One example is prior accidents. Another example is the end of a traffic jam. These are an especially bad problem for trucks [1], that actually drive way slower than 130 kmh even. The problem here is driver attention, but too fast speed can also contribute [2].
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBbAvzXhwNQ
[1]: https://autofahrerseite.eu/sicherheit/524-lkw-unfall-stauend...
[2]: https://bz-ticket.de/massenkarambolage-auf-der-a5-kettenreak...
I know that A8 part. It’s pretty cool. The speed limit there is most likely due to how steep it is. Trucks are pretty slow there. The ICE goes around that mountain as slow as the traffic on the Autobahn.
Ok, so you are saying that more problematic road parts have (and should have) lower speed limits.
The higher your speed, the higher your speed differential with the road and guard rail. A car nudging another at 250 km/h can cause the other to violently roll over, while a car nudging another at 40 km/hr can't. Speed differential between cars is not the only factor in safety.
I agree, and if we had decided to create an autonomous car only line where the speed gets controlled by a central computer, this would apply. You still shouldn't ignore that the higher the speed, the more likely larger speed differences can appear. At some point external force will slow down cars significantly faster than the brake of the vehicle behind.
Trucks are only allowed to go at 100km/h at the highway in Germany and are therefore a major obstacle for the car drivers going at much higher speed.
There are good points to discuss on this topic, but my opinion is that this "debunking" is full of junk with twisted facts or "opinion" being confused with facts.
From my own experience driving there, I noticed that the average speed on the left lanes are usually around 160 with faster cars around 180.
But the truth is that with the traffic, it is very rare that you can go fast because when there start to be a reasonable amount of cars there is no way you can go too fast without doing slaloms. So speed is more low in real average.
I also noticed that people were driving more seriously and safely than in other countries because of the no speed limit:
In France for example, some people will go very fast in a dangerous way like an race, because of the thrill of being outlaw or something like that. Otherwise, everyone will try to be stuck to exactly 130 or a few km/h more to be exactly on the limit. Reluctant to slow down when needed and having difficulties to overpass cars that are just a bit slower without exceeding 130.
Another surprising fact is that, in Germany, when there are speed limits, they are usually lower than in France and very strictly enforced. Like driving at 30 km/h on streets crossing villages.
> There are good points to discuss on this topic, but my opinion is that this "debunking" is full of junk with twisted facts or "opinion" being confused with facts.
You should carefully reread your own post, its actually all opinion being confused for facts! It's very striking, since the original article not only supports its claims with data and cited sources, but specifically refutes the points your making. Did you just read the title and decide to refute it?
Hum what you write does not make sense.
First I don't give you "opinion", but the fact of my personal experience driving there. I dare you to tell me what is not factual in what I said. To be noted that I did not formulate conclusion/opinion based on my observation.
Second, I know that the article looks to be debunking with facts but if you read carefully you will see that a lot are biased or not really adequately justified.
Here for example, you compare apple and carrots. I don't doubt that a study somewhere tried to put an "economic value" to the time lost for a driver and to estimate an economic value of fatalities. But that is really shaddy.Another example, there are a comparison of accidents on speed limited highways vs non speed limited parts in Germany. But this is again comparing apple and carrots. Roads are not the same, it is not like we had 2 times the same slice of road and decided to have one with speed limit and the other one without to see which is the best one. As they are all in Germany, you can assume that the one that are speed limited already have a reason for that or they would be unlimited. Maybe the limit itself is a signal to drivers that the area is more dangerous and to be more cautious.
And also, there is the possibility that as the drivers are free for unlimited speed on some parts of highways, they don't have frustration regarding that and then they are more serious in respecting speed limits where it is limited. But if all highways were limited, they would be a higher number of drivers driving dangerously slightly exceeding the mandatory speed limit, and that now could happen anywhere, even where there was already speed limits before.
A last point is that there is not even a justification of why limiting to 130 and not 140 or 100. It is a totally arbitrary value.
Proponents of unlimited speed Autobahn could argue: 1. The tourism value: I anecdotally know people visit Germany just for the Autobahn. (See Nürburgring, which is technically an Autobahn) 2. Sale of performance cars: The high actual minimum speed (from my experience you need to drive at around 150km/h in the middle lane, and 180-200km/h to pass on the left lane). Almost anywhere else in the world, the top speed of cars is irrelevant. In Germany, however, high performance cars (inevitably, German brand ones) can be desired for their better handling at speeds at or above 200km/h. 3. Germans collectively have excellent driving mannerisms and skills which were a result of unlimited speed. It is probably true that enforcing a speed limit today would decrease deaths, but the next generation would then regress to the mean. I would be interested to see someone quantify the above points and compare them with the economic costs discussed in the OP article.
Blaming the safe driving of Germans on the danger of the Autobahn just baffles me. The driving style of Germans has everything to do with the process of obtaining a driving license in Germany as well as the strict (and properly enforced) traffic laws and harsh fines - most violations will get you points towards losing your license and in some extreme cases you might even be barred from obtaining a new driving license after losing yours. All that creates an environment where driving is viewed as an activity that requires a lot of attention and farsightedness. Being able to drive fast on the Autobahn has nothing to do with it simply because this driving style not only applies to the Autobahn but also to cities and smaller country roads.
You have it the wrong way around. The fact that German drivers have to go through rigorous driving lessons by a licensed teacher is the reason they are allowed higher speeds. If your driving license can be obtained by scooting around for a couple of hours with your dad at your side and then do a DMV test that consists of driving once around the block, you shouldn't be allowed to drive at dangerous speeds.
Well, but minutes after obtaining such license you can literally board a plane to Germany and go drive 200 km/h, the only obstacle being rental companies policies, which, if you have enough money, can be skipped. And personally, after having a license from another EU country for less than 2 months when I first drove in my car in Germany, I definitely didn't feel prepared.
There's probably only a small fraction of people with a foreign license who travel the Autobahn by car. That number might be on par or even smaller than the number of drivers with a German license who still have a poor sense of responsibility.
> Germans collectively have excellent driving mannerisms and skills
Myth number 6.
Half true: skill level is likely the same as any first world population, but they do have very good lane procedure: you won't often find slow cars in the fast lane, or people overtaking those rare instances via the slow lane. They will honk and flash if you're slow in the fast lane, but by German standards that too is correct. I've never had someone passive-agressive brake in front of me for wanting to overtake, or speeding up in the overtaking lane, things that happen too often in the US.
I don’t know if I’ve offended Germans or Americans or both.
The Nürburgring is a private road and does not meet criteria for calling it an Autobahn (it's a one-way road without lanes, which kinda rules out Autobahn-ness).
It’s a closed toll road with two lane one way traffic but without markings. Overtaking only on the left, after overtake one should go back to the right. There’s no such thing as racing line. There are a couple of speed limits: 70kph by the exit in Breidscheid and 120kph on the Döttinger Höhe, before exit to the Touristenfahrten car park (going down to 50kph right before the exit).
During Terroristenfahrten, regular traffic rules of a two lane single direction road apply.
> Myth #4: The climate impact of speeding is obsolete with electric cars
LOL. Some myths may be tricky to debunk, but it's hilarious that this one even got to that stage.
People don't notice the fuel needle going down as much on ICE vehicles (they may notice their gas bill at the end of the month to have been substantially higher). But EVs have much more precise energy meters and people do notice a massive range reduction at higher speeds. The difference between 60Mph and 70Mph is massive.
Another myth would be „people want to ride fast“ - indeed, the majority of Germans now support a speed limit on the Autobahn: https://www.adac.de/verkehr/standpunkte-studien/positionen/t...
Given the advantages mentioned in the original article, it’s becoming silly that there’s still no speed limit. Why isn’t there? Probably because the minority who wants to drive fast is very vocal about it.
This has been compared to gun laws in the US, which also seem to be defended by a vocal minority (source: too lazy to look up).
Related and completely missed by this is the 250 km/h Gentlemen’s Agreement that is designed to limit extreme speeds in Germany. Posted last week:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33816948
Easily removed with a gentlemens ECU reflash.
With which you 'voided the warranty', 'allgemeine Betriebserlaubnis' and any insurance. Which in case of an accident trashes your life, even if nothing really bad happened (to you).
Does it void insurance? AFAIK as long as you have correct rated tires its legal.
There’s a difference between “legal” and what most people's insurance contracts say. Most normally-priced collision policies have clauses stating that if you were driving in excess of 130, the insurer reserves the right not to pay for damage you did to your vehicle, even if was otherwise legal for you to be driving over 130. Have fun even getting liability after that.
Modifying your car in a way that would make it fail TÜV (German car inspections, which other posters have noted are far more exacting than even the stricter US states) would be grounds for non-payment no matter what you were doing, as you’ve intentionally made your car non-roadworthy.
It’s also illegal to modify a car in a way that will fail TÜV, which means, in the eyes of the law, you’re doing the same thing as the guy driving a rust heap that he won’t bother bringing in for inspection because he knows it will fail.
Beginner's Guide to Germany: any course of action whose success relies on an inattentive bureaucrat or non-diligent technician is more likely to bite you in the bum than back home, unless “back home” is Singapore.
"The actual greenhouse gas emissions depend on the energy mix used for charging the batteries, but as long as we do not have abundant climate-neutral energy, it makes sense to save energy by driving at lower speeds."
This argument (often also applied to the size of cars) is something I often read. It's an instance of the perfectionist fallacy. Electric cars are more harmful than gasoline powered cars if the energy they are powered by comes from coal plants. We must switch to carbon free energy. If we take that as a given, speed limits don't make sense from a climate change perspective. There are still other reasons why speed limits are beneficial (safety for example), but I think people arguing with carbon intensive electricity production in cases like this are not doing climate friendly transportation any favors.
> Electric cars are more harmful than gasoline powered cars if the energy they are powered by comes from coal plants.
This has been debunked over and over. Even EV’s charged by coal power plants have lower lifetime emissions than similarly-situated gasoline vehicles.
It simply doesn't matter. You can replace the source of electricity of an EV without building a new EV and the emissions will drop.
You can't do the same with a gas powered car.
FYI https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better...
https://archive.vn/LssUq
Thanks!
Typical article by a lefty who wants to ban fun.
So many ways to have fun with speed: downhill mountain biking, kite surfing, skiing, snowboarding, car or motorcycle racing on a closed circuit. If that's not enough speed you can get into aviation and learn to pilot small aircrafts.
If you have to do it on public roads at least get a motorcycle, they are faster than 99%+ of cars even in performance category and you feel speed much more but at least you take your fair share of risk of your recklessness.
Instead you want to have fun in the most isolated dull way at the maximum cost to those around you. Maybe those lefties are onto something you know - letting others live their lives in peace without worrying about fun having maniacs killing them on their way home.
The word "bansturbation" was invented to describe such people.
I drove through Germany few times. While there were mostly no speed limits on Autobahns, the were a lot of “repairs” when halve of the road was closed and another was converted into 2-way road with a speed limit of 60-70 km/hour and very narrow lines. And then such section can last for 10-20 kilometers with zero activity besides couple of spots. I have never experienced such way to do repairs in Denmark, France, Italy or Spain.
This is how they always do repairs in Denmark. I should know as I drive though such an area on the way to Odense 4 times a week. 80km/t speed limit for 10-20km and it has been there for years.
I'm happy I've been able to drive at high speed on the autobahn, but don't imagine it will last. It's excessively wasteful of energy for one thing. It's remarkable how much more efficiently your car can operate at just 55mph vs 75mph. Driving at 150mph? Quite the gas/electricity guzzler. I could see this killing the autobahn as we know (knew?) it before the safety concerns do it in. The one thing German society has going for it that the US never will is pretty strict social adherence to 'rules of the road', such as leaving the left lane open, using turn signals, etc. If/when that social trust breaks down, culturally, I imagine it would be hard for a highly-populated, high-speed highway to exist.
Emissions per km completely leaves time out of the equation. Fatalities per year in motorway traffic per 1000km of motorway ignores how many people drive on those 1000km in a year, an empty motorway is obviously safest but also pretty useless. Strange that they'd choose these, given that they're a statistics company and should know better.
I believe a speed limit would be useful. Maybe add more Nürburgring-style race tracks where people can drive their cars as fast as they want to.
I wonder how long before they come for the Nordschleife. “Because it’s an outlier on the pollution map and why would anyone want to drive so fast anyway. Let’s ban it.”
At the speed Germany moves, we'll probably have working brain-computer-interfaces by then. Just hook into your computer, load racetrack.exe and enjoy the adrenaline without having to travel far.
Hmm. I don't live in Germany but drove across a couple times. For one there are speed limits around cities and on busy stretches. They even have dynamically adjusted speed limits on electronic panels.
And two, I've generally seen traffic going at most 160. In a country with an 130 speed limit you can still go 160 if you want. Especially if you know where the speed cameras are.
When we get to intelligent highways and self driving cars I wonder how much difference various speed limits make. In the Nordics Ive seen discussions to go from 130 to 110 because of climate.
Will self driving electric cars be trusted to drive as fast as the construction of the road plus population density permits?
Eco arguments are what they are. Regarding accidents, making speeders drive slower will not make general population improve their driving. I wonder how many accidents happened because the driver of the slower car didn’t even bother to check their mirrors when changing the lane.
> I wonder how many accidents happened because the driver of the slower car didn’t even bother to check their mirrors when changing the lane.
You can check your mirrors all day, but when then speed differential is over 100km/h you may still crash.
I’m usually the one in the fast lane. If the driver of the slower car knows what the indicator is for, neither of us has any issues. You see, I’m an outlier. Speeding a bmw, using indicators and keeping the distance. In a region where every second person drives on my bumper and has no idea what a mirror or indicator is for.
I’m dying on this hill.
Article ignores that people killing themselves speeding has largely positive effects for society.
the trend of having every aspect of life scrutinized for its worthiness by environmentalists is getting pretty tedious. octoberfest causes emissions, too. so do birthday parties, and weddings. are we sure those should make the cut?
Yeah, the planet is speeding down the road towards a brick wall and these dumb environmentalists just keep complaining whenever we push the gas pedal a little harder. What buzzkills…
Yeah, these people need to read Chicken Little. And before any of you jump in to insist it is indeed falling, please consider the following: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/opinion/climate-change-sh....
Then let‘s introduce a general speed limit only for cars with combustion engine. In no time the adoption rate of electric vehicles in Germany would skyrocket.
people advocating for a 130 limit need to drive Austrian (which has this limit) A1 on a friday once. Three lanes all doing 140, so its not possible to change lanes at all. Ended up missing my exit to Vienna a couple of times because of this
Oh the saints here who talk about why speeding is bad...
Nobody cares. Much much more people die from processed foods/air pollution in the world than from motorway accidents. Around 120x more people die from cardiovascular/cancer related disease than motorway accidents. And not every motorway accident is caused by excessive speeding.
I do not believe it follows from "Much much more people die from processed foods/air pollution in the world than from motorway accidents" that nobody should care about speeding and motorway accidents. After all, far fewer people still are murdered, but the consensus seems to be that we care about murderers.
We can only think about one thing, and that thing must be the most horrible or offensive, rather than the more likely/dangerous. Hence the obsession with terrorists hiding under every rock while ignoring deaths from opioids, smoking, obesity, and COVID. Libertarians would rather be anal probed at every airport than wear a mask on a commuter train.
> Opponents of speed limits often claim that the majority of people do not regularly drive faster than 130 km/h, ... If we look at the data, however, the picture is quite different.
> [graph showing 30% drive faster than 130km/h]
So the data actually confirms the 'common myth'.
Actually, that's not what the chart says. It's not maximum speeds, it's all speeds. That includes many circumstances where you can't go that fast, e.g. due to slow traffic, accidents, speed limits etc. So 30% of all speeds surely is a lot.
30% isn't a majority.
Right. Which is what I was pointing out. The chart disproves the point he was making.
I once drove from Stuttgart to Munich (230km) in 1h.
I never feard so much for my life.
Go to the Polish A2... that’ll be an experience you’ll never forget. A4 is even better. And hey, they have a speed limit!
Weird, it feels far more dangerous driving down the 101 from SFO to Palo Alto where a high proportion of people don’t know what indicators are for or are on their phone than anywhere in Germany. Similarly a yellow cab in NYC has the same effect…
Germany sure needs to considering policing the autobahn better. The number of drivers tailgating and flashing is atrocious. I dont understand how such a cool road system has become so aggressive.
a common misconception: per german traffic law flashing lights is a valid way to notify the car in front of you of your intent to overtake. of-course does not apply when both cars are in leftmost lane, there it is a punishable offence (drängeln)
a silly law if you ask me. pressuring people driving in front is extremely dangerous. it’s already clear that there is an intention to overtake since you are driving on the outermost lane, no need to be rude and agressive.
reread post above please.
The problem with the Autobahn are the 120 km/h speed limits that are there on a sizeable portion of it for no reason.
They should remove all the speed limits, not add more.
Most of those limits are for noise levels and surface conditions.
Or for stretches that had high accident rates in the past [0]
> According to official statistics from 2018, unlimited highways in Germany claimed about 71% of fatalities on highways.[86] However, autobahns without speed limits also account for 70% of the entire autobahn network, which puts the high proportion of collision fatalities on stretches without speed limits into perspective.[86] However, the often resulting thinking that speed limits would not make roads significantly safer is a fallacy, since it is precisely those roads that have a high volume of traffic and thus a high risk of collisions that are given speed limits.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Safety
For noise, they should either build a barrier or buy out the properties nearby, certainly not limit the speed.
And for surface conditions, repave the road.
Yes, and throw in free massages and a nice gift basket for the fastest driver!
Let me guess... Do you drive a BMW or AUDI?
I drive a BMW. What’s your point?
Shameless plug: I’m a software engineer at Datawrapper and we’re currently looking for talented backend and fullstack engineers to build out our app and platform. Berlin and remote [1]. If you wanna help us build the most accessible charting tool out there used by the likes of the New York Times, Spiegel Online, etc. hit me up at marten@datawrapper.de
[1] https://www.datawrapper.de/careers