That might have been the case 30 years ago but now that vehicles are transitioning from ICE to EV the validity of claims that restricting cars and decreasing speed limits will improve air quality and decrease emissions is steadily dropping...
We are currently at 4% electric cars in Germany, so no it still make sense to have a sane maximum speed limit. I actively hate driving from Lindau to Munich, because the road is full of (mostly swiss) €€€ sports cars driving like crazy, because it is the only road the can legally drive fast with their cars. Please give us the tempo limit!!
Yes but people correctly understand that once a speed limit is imposed, it will never be revoked, even once Germany is 90% electric. That's the nature of regulation.
And there is already a physical speed limit in many areas.
If the autobahn has no speed limit, but the right most lane is a basically "truck only lane" at 80- 100 mph, and its only two lanes, all vehicles pool to that one lane, and on that one lane, the slowest sets the speed.
Which is often lorries, slow vehicles etc. Thus even though you could drive the speed of sound in theory, in reality you can not, unless its very late at night.
This is mostly a law that is pushed by carbon groups, to rile up car-centric society against crazy "green" politicians.
Similar things can be seen with the refugee policies. Some Putin puppet pumps a refugeestream into the heart of europe, so that another putinpuppet can win elections. Thats how - if you have no good arguments, you win elections. By manipulating the narrative and forcing your oppossition into retarded splits between reality and principles.
> basically "truck only lane" at 80- 100 mph, and its only two lanes, all vehicles pool to that one lane, and on that one lane, the slowest sets the speed.
But this does not happen in practice. Even with Rechtsfahrgebot (you must default to stay on the right lane) most people will drive none stop on the left lane. I see this so often that even the right lane becomes faster, because all driver think that they are driving none slow vehicles like trucks, so the can just drive permanently on the left. It is so silly. This came especially clear to me after a two-week holiday in the states, where they have no such thing.
Haha, in terms of intellectual and rational quality, the debate regarding a possible speed limit on the Autobahn is comparable to the 2nd amendment discussion in the US.
It’s been going on for decades, there's really no good reason not to do it, and due to powerful lobbying, it’ll just never happen.
I'm not a car person so I had to look it up. Wikipedia says the former can do 0–100km/h in 3.9 seconds and tops out at 302 km/h (depending on which version you get within that series of course).
There's F1, race cars, and street-legal sports cars. To me, this sort of performance is on par with the latter category (as one never needs either of those specs in regular driving) and I can definitely see someone calling them a car capable of behaving like a sports car.
Why not drive at any speed, if behavior is consistent with the speed and safety? There are people driving excessively fast or near other vehicules or switching lanes dangerously on any roads: that should be the focus, not people driving faster but also respecting others on the road
because it isn’t consistent with speed and safety. there is no need to have opinions on this, there are statistics and comparisons made with any other country and they are 100% not if favour of no speed limit, easy. it’s simply a lobbying issue by car makers in Germany and that’s all there is to it.
cause it’s a public facility financed by my money and it should serve the society and the country. go pay a ticket for a race track and enjoy your version of fun if that’s your thing.
would you say flying airplanes faster or slower should also be responsibility of the pilots? what about speed boats within the city, should they be allowed? why on earth moving tonnes of metal at high speeds should not be regulated? considering 1,5 million people die per year from moving this metal boxes at hgh speed (comparable to the amount of people who died from pandemic that stopped the world for a year btw).
If you mean vehicles transporting hundreds of people, regulations on speed are very similar to them on the road. You won't see a bus speeding at 150 Km/h.
If you mean private vehicles, you'd be surprised how even more lax are the regulations for private-owned airplanes. It all depends on the class of your airplane. Speed limits apply mostly on air traffic control direct indications and things like being on the vicinity of airports/corridors.
So yes, flying faster or slower is responsibility of pilots to a great extent of their own travels.
Commercial passenger plane speeds are not dictated by regulations. They fly in the most economical way for the company. Private planes fly as fast as they need to. Airplane speeds are only dictated by ATC when you're on approach or departure to maintain separation in a busy area or for noise abatement regulations.
Buses will not do 200kmh not because nobody can build a really fast bus, but because it will not be great for passengers to go from 200 to 50 really fast :) Basically same as with planes, passenger confort is the priority.
Anyway, if you would read up on Autobahn death statistics, very few deaths are related to over speeding.
But I have to share the same street at my usual 120 max speed I am used to.
I can just say for me German autobahn with its rasers and semi hidden police vehicles around every other corner is always a scary experience. I honestly felt more safe in Bangkok on a scooter than some of these public racing tracks near Munich.
I'm in Germany for many years and drive tens of thousand kilometers across western Europe every year.
It is a rare sight that you even cross someone going at 200 km/h. First there are continuous construction works on the roads. Then you need to remember the constant traffic jams just about everywhere.
The picture on that article is from the autobahn in Frankfurt with direction to Darmstadt. It is one of the few places with 4 lanes where you can speed at your hearts content for about 10 kilometers and then slow down. This if you are lucky that slow drivers go the right-most lanes, often that doesn't even happen so you have to slow down again.
The only exception are fridays when driving to East Germany and Poland. On those roads you can speed and the large majority of them are just trying to get earlier home and enjoy more time with family.
Quite frankly, the most dangerous road in Western Europe have got to be French highways. In those you get young kids doing all kind of dangerous moves and speeding right behind you without respect. German drivers are noticeably more mature, you drive fast but with experience without thrills.
I'd take the French highway over the Autobahn any day. Yes it costs money, but people are driving in a much more civilized manner and they are well maintained.
I'm sorry but you certainly never had to cross France from one side to the other in recent years.
My favorite highways are the Spanish ones. You can drive for hours completely calm without a worry in the world. Very long straight roads with calm people driving. It is a complete breeze to drive for hundreds of kilometers without stressing you. The only problem is when driving close to urban centres over there.
If you look on statistical data, you will see that France keeps increasing the death on the roads since the past ten years, whereas Germany keeps lowering: https://etsc.eu/euroadsafetydata/
Thanks for the statistics, that's interesting. It can also be misleading, from what I could find, less than 10% of traffic deaths occur on motorways vs. rural/city roads and motorway deaths have actually been decreasing in France steadily since 1990 (this is only from a quick Google search).
Edit: According to the OECD itf (random source I found on the internet ;)) Germany had 317 deaths on motorways vs 201 in France in 2022.
> Cars racing at 200kmh+ just 30cm or so from you is not fun anywhere.
Funny that this only happens to people who are advocating for a speed limit. Maybe you should stick to the center of your lane which should be at least 2.50m on the Autobahn. With an average car with a width of 1.80m (VW Golf for example), there should be even 35cm space to the left side of your lane.
> You are either German are never driven a German autobahn. Cars racing at 200kmh+ just 30cm or so from you is not fun anywhere.
I am not German, but I drive in Germany frequently and I find it liberating when you see the all restrictions lifted sign and I can just floor it for the pure fun of it.
At first I found it pretty intense, but then when I saw space wagons doing 200+ with kids in the back I calmed down and its business as usual now. I just need to remember not to flash slower drivers to signal them to get out of the way.
And this is what upsets me, the no limit Autobahn is part of Germany and now under the guise of climate fight someone wants to take this away from people that actually enjoy it.
I'm outside of the 2nd amendment debate as I'm not a citizen of the US, but the 2nd amendment is one of the most powerful civil liberties in existence in the world for the common person. The right to bear arms is at its core the most pure one, because the one definition of a state is that it has a monopoly on violence, which it enforces to collect tax. A state giving its own citizens the right to bear arms in case its own government becomes tyrannical is philosophically one of the most pure "common person" freedoms there is because it takes power away from the state in a place it really might matter.
There's horrible externalities of course, which I don't deal with myself, but it's got nothing to do with a speed limit on one road in a country with speed limits on many roads already (can't even make a freedom of movement case).
> A state giving its own citizens the right to bear arms in case its own government becomes tyrannical is philosophically one of the most pure "common person" freedoms there is because it takes power away from the state in a place it really might matter.
Philosophically, I guess, but in actuality it's completely pointless.
If the state is taken over by a tyrannical dictator and the military themselves are complicit (don't attempt a coup/rebel against it) then someone owning a handgun is going to be scant resistance.
> If the state is taken over by a tyrannical dictator and the military themselves are complicit (don't attempt a coup/rebel against it) then someone owning a handgun is going to be scant resistance.
It's work keeping in mind that the amendment was written when the military and civilians had the same "hardware": muskets and cannons. In those times, protecting against a tyrannical government was entirely feasible with a large enough group. In fact, that's exactly what the USA did ~350 years ago. Granted, they had help from places like France, but they still did it.
This is largely, but not strictly, true. It's worth remembering that field artillery was in use in many battles prior to this period, and, in fact, had been a major component of the ability of the British government to put down the Jacobites earlier in the 18th century, in the form of movable mortars. (Rebels did have access to some fields guns, but they weren't as useful in the terrain of Scotland, where the high angle of fire of a mortar was particularly valuable.)
Moreover, what if the tyrant has the support of the people and that support is drawn rather plainly down political lines? What if, then, the 2nd amendment is actually used to defend the tyrant?
At best the 2nd amendment will just lead to another brutal civil war as the weapons are turned away from the government and to the people on the ‘wrong side’. Like the average Joe would ever stand a chance against a militarised police force anyway.
Philosophically pure, maybe, but philosophy needs to be messy if it aims to cover edge cases. Otherwise, too much is open to interpretation.
The county I am in (Ghana), had a spree of military dictators for over 30 years but the military didn’t go on a killing spree. Guns are available and the military had the weakest amount of influence in the countryside where many farmers had weapons.
Having the half the population armed with handguns would have been a huge restraint on the army since they wouldn’t have been able to operate safely in cities either.
While it’s true that it wouldn’t stop indiscriminate genocide committed by the government, most counties are factional and the military is made of people who have relatives in the general pop.
Thanks for illustrating the point I was trying to make. Sure any government could "nuke itself" or kill you in easy ways, but if you look at Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq I think you realize what an armed resistance that believes is fighting for their home can do, and how long they can last. Without guns this changes the balance quite a bit.
You should really ask anyone who has ever served in the US military what they think would happen if they had to fight the US public. There's a lot more to worry about than "someone owning a handgun". A lot of people think that the tyrant would just nuke parts of the country, but that's not how it would go. You need boots on the ground to occupy an area, and those boots would encounter a lot of resistance.
Also, do you remember what just happened in afghanistan?
This argument doesn't get any more compelling when you use expensive words to say it. Go make this argument to the warlords of Afghanistan or Vietcong. To use the parlance of my opponents, this theory has been debunked.
I think the key difference is that Germany doesn't have an excessive or unusual number of traffic deaths[1]. I personally (as a German) do not support a speed limit and worry that there could be second order effects that they don't keep in mind. But I don't hold a strong opinion as I drive 3-5 times a year in Germany.
Not being snarky, honest question. Is it something inherent with truck drivers or is it because they go faster and/or get caught off guard by speeding cars around them?
It has nothing to do with the other cars, even if you desperately want it to.
It's truck drivers not keeping enough distance and are distacted by their phones. Watch that accident in Great Britain where the driver looks up from his phone too late and killed a whole family. If there is a traffic jam on the autobahn, NEVER approach it on the right lane with your car.
Truck drivers aren't necessarily dangerous, but trucks are larger, slower to react, and have longer stopping distances. Truck drivers are more likely to have driven for longer, and may not be as familiar with the behaviour of either the cab they're driving or trailer they're pulling if they have to break/swerve etc.
It is not lobbying, people just do not want to get rid of it. I do not want it to be abolished. I do not want to be bound to a 130km/h speed limit if there is not much traffic. We are in 2023, cars have to go to inspection every 2 years in Germany, a driver's license is 3500€. I want something back for all that effort and money.
Stop interfering with other people's life. Noone prevents you from driving 130km/h or taking the train.
How do you feel about alcohol prohibition? Marijuana prohibition? Outlawing recreational intercontinental flights?
I'd argue there's plenty of things that we do that have negative effects on society or on the climate, which aren't really necessary to do, and which we allow only because people enjoy them.
Check the article on which you're commenting to find, in fact, more than "one" reason :)
Not saying the pros weigh against the cons, for anyone or for everyone, just that claiming there is not one reason is patently false in light of the submitted article which this thread is about. One could say, in response to your edited-in last sentence, that pretending there's no reason for it is a rhetorical trick!
> just that claiming there is not one reason is patently false
I don't know who that is directed to but that does not correspond to my comment.
> that pretending there's no reason for it is a rhetorical trick!
Well, good thing that I neither claimed nor 'pretended' that there is no reason, then...
Now, "emissions" is a weak reason that is used to justify about anything and everything these days, and as already mentioned in another comment, in this case that argument disappears with EVs... so I would not count that as a persuasive reason.
> There should be a good reason to add any legal restrictions
The title of the article states the reason for restrictions the study is making: "Autobahn speed limit would cut carbon and bring €1bn in benefits, study says"
I had an opportunity to drive on the German autobahn for the first time this year and quite a significant distance, close to 2,000 km in total. What I personally experienced is the road quality being sub-par for unlimited speeds, most cars driving close to 200 km/h that have no business doing that due to their technical capabilities (think 15 year old Volkswagen Passat), a lot of stress driving at night because sometimes you just cannot see anything approaching behind you and a few seconds later someone just passes by you.
There are reasonable middle-ground solutions, such as limiting the speed to 150 km/h if 130 is considered too low for majority but unlimited speed is just crazy because people tend to overestimate their driving skills and cars' capabilities.
As long as I'm not breaking any laws, why would I do that? Not to mention that usually there are more than two lanes available and the leftmost is for going as fast as you can on the portions with no speed limit.
What car did you do that on? I drove a 2022 A6 Avant (base model) from Berlin to Sylt and rarely topped 200 before feeling not so confident safety-wise. Would a bigger engine have helped or do you just have to lean into the extra speed and really focus?
Last one was a BMW 320i automatic. After about 180 I feel the road gets a bit narrower, but then you kind of get used to the new field of vision and and can go as fast as you want - traffic permitting and not encountering any road works.
More than twenty years ago, I drove from The Netherlands to Munich in a Volvo v70 at 210 KM/h most of the trip. I could see the fuel gauge needle move as for every 5KM it used 1L of petrol.
Driving this fast was awesome. You have to keep an eye on the horizon because you will be there in less than 10 seconds.
But it was absolutely nuts.
As I see it, from an environmental perspective, it's indefensible.
I'll miss the lack of a speed limit, as driving fast is absolutely awesome, but I can't justify the tax of this 'perk' on society.
Wow, another Volvo gas guzzler. My 170hp automatic S60 is 10l/100km by attempting to drive normally. As soon as I step on it though...
Even then because it breaks a lot I've never reached speeds above 170km/h and also because I haven't taken it out to a highway.
Yes the famous 5-cylinder 2.5L 140hp volvo engine was always 1:10 which was quite uneconomical. Sorry to see your S60 be that thirsty and unreliable. I have a 2010+ S60 which is basically a face-lifted Ford and that one is a modern 180hp turbo that at least does 1:14-1:16 if you drive normally.
But for me, as soon as I have the funds I'll swap it for electric.
It's a 2.4, but hardly matters. It's actually a 170hp model, the 140hp was a software limitation that closes the throttle plate at upper RPM around 4500RPM and up.
The modern S60(2010-2015) is a far cry from the sizes of the old models, it was made as small as the P1 era S40. The S80 P3 model is the size of the old S60 P2.
Honestly I cannot say why the engine is so inefficient, maybe it was the weight + it being an automatic, who knows really.
My dad had several wagons/stations V70 850 740? The all did 1:10 and where manual. I think the large displacement, the 5 cylinders (is indeed heavyer) and low HP/L + naturally aspirated = inefficient.
My S60 is from the Ford-era and is basically a Ford Mondeo with volvo interior and exterior. In some sense it's too bad, it's not a 'real' volvo, I always loved the 5-cylinder sound, but I'd rather do 1:14-16
I did similar trips through Germany when I was just old enough to drive. One time I was driving 200 in the left lane and a truck changed lanes just in front of me, because the driver didn't expect me to drive this fast.
I had to do an emergency break maneuver and almost crashed into the truck. Only then it dawned on me that driving this much faster than the other vehicles is very dangerous. To me it is completely nuts that this is allowed. If you want to drive fast, you can always drive on race tracks...
I rarely went over 130kmh since then, nowadays I mostly cruise at 100-110kmh, because it is the ecological sweet spot of my car and in general it's less stressful.
Back in the 90s, I went for 215 KM/h with a Audi 100, but found it too exhausting. Everything goes so fast, and you have to be super-aware at all times. I doubt I drove more than 5 minutes at that speed.
Similar here. My mom had a mid-90s BMW 5-Series 540i Touring that I was allowed to drive when I got my license. The thing had a manual fuel consumption indicator going up to 30l/100km which was crossed at the slighest touch of the pedal. Anything above 180km/h you could watch the fuel gauge needle move.
This is such a controversial issue in Germany (see other comments already here), for this marginal improvement in emissions... people will feel like they are already being impacted by government restrictions and refuse to do more, when switching to an electric vehicle (there's also lots of voices "you can pry my combustion engine from my cold dead hands") would halve the emissions today, let alone when the grid is properly renewable and not running on coal and gas with a whiff of wind.
It seems like the wrong battle to fight to me.
Also for myself: for most trips, I already drive 90~100 km/h on German highways, basically truck speed such that they don't have to overtake me and I'm not a nuisance, but very occasionally I want to save time and drive 120-140. We already buy green power from a provider that actively builds out renewable energy (still, we draw from the gray grid, but we do what we can), and sooner or later we'll be able to get charging infrastructure in a future home and get an electric vehicle. In such a scenario, why should I be impacted by others driving continuously fast in their combustion vehicles? If the goal is lower emissions, why isn't the solution allowing it only for emission-free vehicles? Every vehicle already has a green sticker to be let into low-emission zones, speed cameras can see them as well.
For most people not to feel impacted, the limit would have to be around 140 km/h, but then there's no point: the article already says that 130 helps a lot less than 100 km/h (as in, 4 versus 1.5 Mt, on a total of 148 MtCO2e for the sector). They'll also never get 100 km/h to pass, so any middle ground (such as 120) will have two losing sides.
Everyone is going to feel it's unfair, whether their reason is justified or not, and there are bigger 'favors' to ask of people such as home insulation, reducing beef/lamb consumption somewhat at least, installing a heat pump, using mass transit where available, etc.
Oh, yeah, and if you make walking mandatory instead you will bring much more "benefits".
One of the things I love about Germany is the Autobahns. If there is no speed limit, most of the time there are physical limitations like vehicles that make people go at reasonable speeds.
I believe going at 140Kph today in a highway is totally reasonable, but politicians want to make it illegal so they have more power over people and because they can fine-tax them billions.
That doesn't mean it matters from a political perspective. In democracies small but vocal and determined minorities matter a lot vs just people having opinions but no strong voting actions.
In this thread: Germans that argue that a universal Autobahn speed limit is bad because driving 250km/h "is fun" and that's why we should not change it.
That "study" does not even measure the costs of having more cars on the road for a longer time (congestion increases and increased accidents).
France has a speed limit and yet the car crashes there are more frequent, same for levels of pollution since they use older cars. Go fix France first, please.
In the US the flow of traffic typically is 10mph to 20mph faster than the speed limit. These laws incur costs of making lawmakers look like clowns to ordinary people, arbitrary enforcement, and excessive interaction between citizens and police.
I would favor variable open road tolling where someone doing "200km/hr" pays a higher, possibly premium rate.
reply