@@reinhard8053 yes that's correct, also EV´s are slower too, it was more a bit of irony - but in reality the average speed is below 130 km/h on the autobahn.
As a professional driver who has spent many hours on the Autobahn (mostly Aachen to Heilbronn), I believe the current situation is about right. I personally wouldn't bother going over 130km/h myself, because I'm a skinflint and fuel is expensive. Let the quiet autobahn remain derestricted, and put limits on the busy or less safe sections. Even if I'm well below the limit when I get to it, it's a sign to pay more attention, as limits are put in for a reason, usually anyway.
I regularly drive from the UK to Germany. In fact, as a dual national British and German citizen, I spend about half my time between the two countries. I'm actually in Hannover right now writing this and will be travelling back through the Netherlands to the UK in two days time. I also regularly drive the entire length of Germany North to South. There are several myths here that people believe: 1) That the Autobahn is all completely derestricted. It isn't! The reality is that you tend to get relatively short stretches which are but then are punctuated by either permanently restricted or temporarily restricted for some reason. This makes it virtually impossible to maintain seriously high speeds for a lengths long enough to materially shorten your journey times. You'll just end up being slowed down soon even if it isn't by loads of traffic...and there's often lots! 2) That Germans are better drivers , better taught and show greater discipline on the Autobahn. That might be true...for Germans. Unfortunately again, it needs to be realised that Germany is right in the middle of border-free Europe and its Autobahns act as a crossroads for Europe. So far from it being well-trained and disciplined Germans only it is a mish mash of all-comers...including Belgians!!! 😲 3) The quality of German Autobahns is really good. Also a myth. Many are old, worn out and even just two lane. You need very big balls or to be very stupid to drive ar 200 km/h past an articulated lorry next to you who may decide to pull out. Whether it's legal from him to do so isn't really relevant if he doesn't know or apply that rule, pulls out and your impact speed is 120 km/h into the back of him! When you do reach an unrestricted segment, it almost doesn’t matter how fast you are going you better be prepared for someone trying to prove they can go faster. That means one second there can be nothing coming up in your rear view mirror and the next moment something could fly by that you hadn’t even noticed the last time you looked, at 300 km/h just as you were about to pull out at 250km/h. That’s a truly scary experience and means that once you’ve experienced it you’ll be looking in your rear view almost continuously. That in itself becomes really wearing. You get people who can't differentiate between whether you are "allowed to" and whether "you should" drive as fast as you like/can. There are lots of cars these days that can (with limiters removed) approach 200 mph. That combination of performance and derestricted public road is no longer appropriate! I like driving fast...I have quite a fast BMW but driving on Germany's Autobahns is not a particularly pleasant experience because of the intermittent derestricted sections. I think they've really had their day.
Agreed, German roads and Autobahns can be pretty good, but they can also be terrible. Dutch highways are always very good (but you may want to include Luxembourg and Austria as well). The water permeable highways of Holland are finally finding their way across the border. Driving in the rain through Germany, I found some stretches of road that have that surface meaning very litty water on the driving surface with greatly reduced wheel spray as a result.
@@Lenny-kt2th Oh, I wasn’t aware that the Dutch motorways had a surface to reduce spray. That’s a good thing! When I drove through the Netherlands to get here a month it was really rainy day. It probably would have been much worse then without that surface? I try to always do my journey on a Sunday so that there aren’t many lorries. The thing I don’t like about the Dutch motorways are I actually find the speed limit a bit too low! 110 km/h during the day is a bit soporific when you have to cross the whole country.
I agree with most of what has been said here. I have driven on that stretch of the motorway between Hamburg and Berlin and experienced the sudden appearance when overtaking another vehicle of a fast car in the rear view mirror and when driving a diesel car, it’s not easy to accelerate away! I also appreciate the Dutch motorway surface that reduce water spray.
@@derin111 FYI 110 km/h is actually slightly higher than the typical speed limit on most US highways. Here in NY State, it's 88 kph for most Parkways [curvier limited access roads] or 104 kph for the NYS Thruway and the sections of Interstate Highway in the state. But out in the Great Plains, where exits can be 50 km apart … or further! … the speed limit is often 120 kph. And that's for the very reason you cite: sleep-inducing. When you're driving on I80 through Nebraska, or I70 through Kansas, which are nearly-completely straight and entirely flat section of highway going on for hundreds of km with _Zero_ change in scenery, it becomes easy to zone out.
The speed limit vs firearms comparison is correct - because in both cases some people on both sides of the issue are deluded in thinking they are correct and that they need to protect other people from themselves or that a higher power blesses them with a right. Speed limits make sense: on specific sections where due to weather or geography or density of traffic getting a uniform and lower speed is worth the effort. Just to reduce fatalities is never a valid reason. Want to reduce fatalities ? Set the limit at 30. It’s all a trade off. If there is no limit that doesn’t mean you have to drive super fast. You can drive 120 in an unrestricted zone. Same with guns. You dont habe to get one and you certainly don’t need to be concerned about the wellness of burglars. Everyone. Yep there are fools in all cases that will cause harm. They cannot be avoided. But don’t let that mean we have to spoil things for the entire population.
The comparison of the German speed limit debate to the American gun control debate is absolutely spot on. In both cases, a rational discussion seems to be impossible.
Like in America the Debate is poisoned by a small, very loud "silent majority". I oppose a general Speed Limit, but I definitely agree with more flexible Electronic Speed Limits whenever Traffic Density necessitates it. The A11 at Night is practically empty and I like to put the Cruise Control at 180 and just cruise. Making Public Transport more affordable and practical to use with E-Cargo Bikes would already solve many issues, creating Holland Style Road Networks and Bicycle Infrastructure would make many Speed Limits unnecessary, as Road Design naturally enforces it. And just generally making it cheaper to go by train than by Car or Plane (I have flown Cologne to Munich for 19€ because I didn't feel like paying 138€ for an ICE Ticket).
@@bavariancarenthusiast2722 True. It is the second amendment, a group of ten amendments implemented shortly after the constitution was written. It having been agreed when the constitution was implemented that further work was required. But there are complications. Here is the text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now what exactly does that mean? Well it is up to interpretation by the Supreme Court, which happens to have a bunch of recent appointees by former president Trump. There are those who argue (for example) that what this actually means is that each state is allowed to have its own army. What used to be called the state militias and now are the branches of the National Guard, still under the control of each governor. It's complicated.
@@danielcarroll3358 yes I understand - thank you for trying to explain. it looks different from the outside world, not in a good way. There are so many gun death and violence which could be prevented. But it's up to you guys in the US.
While I do favour a speed limit, I think someting like 160 km/h would be completely sufficient and a good compromise. The main problem is the relative speed between vehicles when you cruise along and a sports car zooms past at 240+ km/h.
If you drive on rual roads with 100 km/h you have a speed difference of 200 km/h. If someone drives with 100 km/h on the Autobahn, you would need to drive 300 km/h to have the same speed difference.
160 would be the perfect speed limit in my opinion. You can move quite smoothly but you drastically reduce the chance of getting killed by a frustrated male who wants to compensate his small d… with a big sports car
The issue I observe in countries with speed limit is that lane discipline is generally bad as people think they don't need to move over if they are travelling at or close to the speed limit. People simply don't expect anyone approaching from behind and hence don't see the need to optimise the usage of road space. I'd be happy to have a speed limit, if we can maintain lane discipline.
The only road discipline I have seen in the 12 years of driving is that everyone and their mother goes on the left lane the second they are on the road
If someone tries to overtake you while you're going at the speed limit, you should only do so if it's necessary for safety reasons. It's not good discipline to enable dangerous driving.
@@Warentester I agree, but someone shouldn't be overtaking you if you're going the speed limit at the same time. Catching up to someone doing the speed limit necessarily requires going over it, so it wouldn't optimise road use unless someone slows down momentarily. Now that you have two cars going the speed limit side by side, the one in the overtaking lane cannot actually overtake without breaking the speed limit, and now they're using the overtaking lane as a fast lane. The right etiquette should really be don't overtake someone driving at the speed limit.
I know the section you are talking about on the way from Hamburg to Berlin. While the speed limit made sense during the day when traffic was dense, it was a pain when returning from Hamburg to Berlin on a late Sunday evening, when you had do crawl along on a totally empty road instead of being able to get home faster. So, speed limits should be adapted to the situation, and otherwise it should be up to the responsible citizen how to drive.
I for one do think that no limit at all is rather freightening, regularly driving over the Autobahn. I normally drive at around 170km/h where allowed, which I think is not dangerous at all, since you can relatively easy comprehend the speed difference of other traffic going at around 130-150km/h. The problem imo is that sometimes you get overtaken by a car with at least a speed of 230km/h, that, even at 170km/h, it seems like you're standing still. The difference between the majority of the drivers and the speed demons becomes so large that you can not really tell how long you have time to overtake a guy because someone might show up far away in your mirror and wanting to overtake you within seconds. Edit: I think 200km/h is the sweet point of freedom of speed and safety for others.
Yes, when cars overtake you at 230 + km/h even if you’re doing 170 it’s frightening because literally one second there was nothing in your mirror, next second something flies past that you hadn’t seen😲😲😲😲 So you find yourself constantly looking every second in your mirror so it’s really stressful.
Yep but if you are doing a proper passing maneuver the guy approaching at 250 is the one with the duty to slow down and keep his distance. It’s not your obligation to speed up to get out of the way. Complete the pass and change lanes again. No stress. The high speed driver had all the stress with the constant acceleration and then braking and waiting and acceleration and braking and …
@@derin111 I drive usually between 160 and 180. I never had any issue or fear from other who drive faster. Most annoying are the slow folks who don't know what a mirror is. They are dangerous even at 130 because they change lane even when you are already only 10m behind them. I would say that people who drive 130+ are usually focused on driving, while others more on zombie mode.
Well as a Brit, as with most people who have driven on a British motorway are aware, that the 70mph/113kmh^-1 speed limit is universally ignored. I believe it was originally set as a fuel saving measure and never removed. I often find this makes for dangerous situations where one really should drive faster to get out of a dangerous situation, but cannot due to the limit. It must be said, the British limit is far too low. They key advantage of a limitless system is that one is not constantly focusing on the speedometer, rather on your surroundings and the road situation. You don’t hyper focus on it as it feels out of place due to what everyone else is doing, and that the police will get you for doing a few over. I’m of the opinion a) No limit, adding in local limits where appropriate is the better solution and b) if there absolutely has to be one, that it should be no lower than 130kmh^-1, as this feels like the most appropriate motorway speed.
Wherever there is a speed limit, most people drive with their "Tachometer" (cruise control?) these days anyway. So you don't have to focus on the speedometer.
@@Nils.Minimalist admittedly cruse control does help to fair extent, although most of the cars I’ve driven haven’t had it. It’s a fair point. I still find non limited motorways preferable, I usually have a nicer time driving on them, when I’m in Germany I never drive over 130 anyway. It’s often also a case of wanting to overtake another vehicle going a few kmh^-1 under the limit and wanting to overtake, but not being able to for causing an obstruction to overtaking traffic exceeding the limit.
No, the original 70mph speed limit was not set as a fuel saving measure. It was introduced in the mid 1960s, along with a whole host of other measures, such as the breathalyser laws, to tackle the UK's alarmingly high road fatality rate, well over four times what it is now. There was a lower speed limit of 50mph introduced as a fuel saving measure following the fuel crisis of the early 1970s, but that was entirely unconnected and has, of course, long been abolished.
On the basis that your driving can become impaired by drinking before you are perceived as being drunk. There are specific laws about drunkeness in other situations, which require a rather higher barrier to be crossed.
“Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you.” ― Jeremy Clarkson Why do you assume that nothing else changed? That Autobahn near Berlin you mentioned is probably used by many eastern european vehicles with lower degree of regulary checks by law and eastern european drivers with less intensive training to get a driving license. But especially Poland (which is quote close there) made very much progress since they started receiving money by the EU to be able to meet the standards to become EU member which finally happened in 2004. Before COVID I drove more than 30,000km/year, mostly on the Autobahn. Even if only driving 130km/h where's no speed limit, the biggest problem are bad drivers who don't even try to announce early enough that they want to change to the lane left of them and don't even try to increase their speed early enough to reduces speed differences before changing the lane. That's the core problem. There're even multiple times a year news from our area in the local newspaper that again somebody from the acceleration line immediately changed to the left lane (crossing right and middle lane) and there was an accident because of that, probably because he didn't even drive 130km/h. Lower speedlimits will make such people just more reckless because they're feeling more safe when they're doing such reckless things. E.g. since "more safety for cyclists" is intensively discussed in Germany, I'm also experiencing more reckless cyclist, no matter if I'm driving my car or on my bicycle. Concerning the CO2 argument: More than the half of cars first time registered in 2022 can drive at least "part time" with electricity from the grid and nearly 1/5 are pure electric (BEV). BEVs are in average driven significantly more km per year than ICE cars. But many studies e.g. by the Umweltbundesamt are still basically using numbers collected the 2010s :-( And just saying "130km/h because less CO2" is nonsense, because you can use the same argument for 100, 80, 50, 30 and 0km/h. So we'll have that discussion quickly again, just with a more lower speed *facepalm*
Great work putting the density argument right after saying the netherlands is similair to germany. They have a really crowded network, lots of cars, many highways with lots of connections VERY reguarly (just about every 20km two highways connect)
It would be helpful for this discussion if the driving speed was included in accident information (from analysing brake marks, or reading out the car's computer), but that information is left out of the statistics in Germany on purpose.
Most of the time during these discussions, especially with statistics, is that people that are going faster than 130 are considered to be super fast drivers beyond 200 kph. That is bulls***. Most people going faster than 130, are usually somewhere between 130 - 160. But often times, media makes it look like everyone that is going over 130 kph, is going at least 200kph. That is completely divorced from reality.
@@LS-Moto The problem is that the police statistics in Germany leaves out that information. Without actual facts being published all talk about 130km vs 200km accidents is indeed bullshit
@@LS-Moto I am one of those in the middle people that actually wants a 200 or even 180kph speed limit. 180 makes more sense for me, but 200 is an even number. What im getting at is that going above that is where most drivers are overestimating themselves.
@@anthonvanderneut True. There is nothing wrong with going 160 kph on a staight section of Autobahn without much traffic. But what really worries me is "speed tourism", i. e. drivers that just want to go above 200 kph for their own experience without properly knowing their driving capabilities.
I don't mind a general speed limit on German Autobahn, I just hate the current political debate "should we make it 120 or 130?".. how about starting with 160 or even 200? It's usually the crazy racers that cause accidents, and at those extreme speeds the risk of accidents followed by injury or death is significantly increased (braking distance increases with the square of speed). Statistically, the largest share of Autobahn drivers travel below 170 km/h and so wouldn't even be affected by a limit in that range, but if we could cut the worst and most dangerous racers out of the picture, we would already have gained a lot. Also helps to consider that many recent cars, especially the electric ones, are limited to ~180 from the factory already, and the increased power consumption at high speeds really cuts into your purse anyways.
I remember driving 370km/h in modded twingo on autobahn. Had time of my life. There is apsolutely no race track where you can drive at these speeds as german raceways, ones that are left are just bunch of turns where you would be lucky to hit 100km/h
While I do see the life saving and fuel saving aspects, I really loved driving fast on the Autobahn as a 17 yr old with my mom in her Golf GTI but that was the A5 between Darmstadt and Frankfurt Airport, which is literally a 5 Lane (per Direction) Highway which has a 10km long straight section, where I truly believe you do not need a speedlimit, but overall, if you look at the facts and stop caring about feelings a speedlimit of 130 km/h would be the thing to do, but I think a nice compromise would be these Digital Signs everywhere, every couple of kilometres that adjust the speedlimit automatically to make it safe based on weather, traffic, terrain, etc. because if there's no traffic and it is a dry night I don't see why you should not be able to go as fast as you'd like
I, as a German, am convinced by now, that the national speed limit of 60-80 is slowly being implemented simply by making more and more never completing stretches of construction sites along the Autobahn. Well, that and increasing numbers of crumbling bridges that will take 10y+ to replace, forcing you through even more congested alternative routes, that also leave residents of (formerly) peaceful and quiet villages rightfully enraged. (And their roads devastated, which then will in turn have to be renovated, which will also take several years. Each.) We don't need no laws for that. Decades of negligence have already paved the road.
With petrol prices rising and E-cars you have to recharge multiple times (appr. 3-5x) on a 600km journey the faster you drive, a general speed limit is not worth a discussion in my opinion. Some politicians like to discuss it anyways to gain attention or due to the absence of other topics. Most of the times the majority of the traffic flows something between 110km/h and 160km/h even without a speed limit. There are people who prefer to drive faster. So why shouldn't they if road and weather conditions aren't against it.
As a regular driver on the Autobahn, I see no rational reason to go over 140 or 150 km/h. Anything above that is an absolute waste of fuel / energy and poses a bigger danger for anyone driving at a normal speed
As someone who doesn't drive in Germany, I don't know what side I would back personally. On the one hand, it's undeniable that speed limits reduce the fatality rate of accidents and there are also significant environmental gains to be had, but on the other hand I do think the lack of speed limit is a novel and important part of Germany's culture. It's famous worldwide and I sympathise with those who find it fun. Nobody likes the fun police.
Greetings from Germany. I'm not sure if I agree with your point about the "important part of Germany's culture", and the "fun police". Would you apply the same argument to gun control in the US?
Speaking from an engineer's point of view: the higher the speed the greater the risk. Our bodies don't deal very well with injuries sustained due to a high speed collision. A good example is the accident happened with Jessi Lang several years ago.
The physics can't be ignored either. The kinetic energy to be dissipated goes to the square of speed. The distance travelled during your reaction time is proportional to speed, and braking distance varies roughly to the square of speed too. So, less time to react, more violent impact and you will generally arrive at the scene having retained a higher proportion of that energy than when travelling slower.
Germany adopted a ban on heating private pools in the winter as one of the measures to combat the energy crisis. At the same time they did not enforce blanket speed limits on the Autobahns to achieve the same goals. I like Germans and Germany, but lets face it, in reality, they're as environmentally "friendly" as the Americans.
Рік тому+2
I don't see how speed limits can help with the energy crisis or the environment...
@ Please let me help you see: The formula that calculates drag shows that the effect of the speed (velocity) is squared. Going faster simply requires more energy than going slower over the same distance. At around 80-90 km/h, a road vehicle is about at its most efficient. It's not a coincidence that the USA imposed such low speed limits during and after the oil crisis of 1973 and on.
@@Lenny-kt2th our energy crisis was mainly because a lack of natural gas. we don't have a lack of petrol or Diesel. Only a small amount of all driven kilometers are fast on the Autobahn, so even on the petrol side, it would be the drop on the hot stone.
@@dr2okevin Yes, in the grand scheme of things, you are right. But by the same argument I would say that heating private pools should have been allowed to continue as IMHO it's an ever smaller drop.
@@Lenny-kt2th I don't know anything about heating private pools. In my opinion everything should be regulated through the prices. If we are short on oil, oil needs to be more expensive until the demand fits to the supply. And everyone can then chose by himself how he saves.
I am strictly against a general speed limit. I would rather prefer dynamic speed limits based on the current traffic. There is no reason why I shouldn’t be allowed to go 200kph on a empty Autobahn at night.
There are plenty of reasons. One being the waste of producing totally overpowered vehicles, who only can acutally use this power at night on an Autobahn, i.e. less than a few % of the time. The rest (90+%) of the time, precious ressources are wasted by carrying around a way too big and heavy engine. I would HEAVILY tax anything about ~50 KW. Like 1% of income per KW. If there is no income, then I'd take a percentage of net worth.
I remember 5 years ago, where me and my family were driving into the holidays in the south of france. As soon we left Germany the ride was way more comfortable because of the speed limit, and the whole attitude people had while driving. So its not only an objective lesser risk, but also a subjective one, at least for me. So when there is no real reason against the speed limit, why don't we do it like all the other countries in europe.
Well if you have this freedom like forever, the system ist build for it, you are trained for it, the accident rate is lower then other countries..its just prohibiting and have a new law restricting you.
it is even more of a problem if you are driving a slower car. When I'm driving in Germany that's mainly with an RV which has a peak at 130km/h (on a flat road with lots of time 🙂) and which I drive mostly at 90-100km/h. Overtaking even slower cars is not that easy if the small spot behind you might be a car with 300km/h.
I can absolutely second that. And from my experience, it is not the fact that there is a specific speed limit. What I find sort of "more relaxing" when driving is the fact, that in those countries, France, Italy, ... pick your choice. All cars go about the same speed. But what I find the most tiring is actually that you have to adapt your speed all the time to the traffic. Sure, with a decent equipped car and assisted driving, the car can mostly take care of that. And personally I find it less tiring that way compared to manually adapting the speed all the time. But If you cannot go another 3 km until you are stuck behind someone enjoying the ride at a mere 70 or 80 km/h forcing you to slow down, because you cannot get out behind with everyone else left of you going 150 and more, that is annoying. At least in the past, in other countries I did not nearly experience as many people voluntarily going that slow, I don´t know why. And don´t get me wrong, if someone feels comfortable going just 80 or 90, that should be perfectly fine. Maybe it is indeed, that with everyone keeping within the limit, it is just way easier to overtake the few going slow. My choice of speed usually is 130 when allowed, and I found it sometimes on some sections really taking a toll on my ability to concentrate, if I have to go 100 with no curves, no insane amount of traffic and a 6 or even 8 lane Autobahn or whatever it is. Not sure why, but it almost feels like falling asleep any moment.
Same opinion max. speed 150 km/h would be fine, but the proponents of speed limits always go for 100-130 km/h which is a no-no for me. Personally i think digitalisation and having a speedlimit that fits the time of day, weather, maintanance of the road and how many cars are currently on there would be much more benefitiary. Also we need to spent more money on rail to get more trucks away from the Autobahn onto rail again and make a more viable option because for many it isn´t (luckily for me it is).
@@paha4209 Yes, great opinion. A lot of people who drive to work or longer distances like to argue against spending money on public transport. They don't understand that improving trains and subways will also improve driving for them in better traffic. A lot of the debate is purely "car vs public transport", but it really goes hand in hand. :)
@@Cornyfisch It does. I enjoy driving myself and have no problem with driving on the autobahn at 160-180 km/h (car isn´t fast xD). However i also enjoy good public transport getting to work or getting to relatives. I personally see no reason why the DB can´t be as good as the OBB or train system in Switzerland. I fact i believe that it should be our aspiration to be as good as them.
@@paha4209 No. It should be everyone's aspiration to have better public transit than everyone else. That way it will improve constantly, world wide. Same goes for small vehicle (bicycle and similar) infrastructure, and pedestrian infrastructure. Every mode of transit, public or private, should be as good as possible. (Also, unintuitive but very important point: Better public transit results in a better car driving experience, because less cars are on the roads.)
its irrelevant what you consider fair, but what is considered acceptable in a democratic society. Any speed limit would kick out the party proposing it of parliament. So I think the Greens should go for it, I would not miss them a bit
We had a blast while stationed in Germany and driving our newly issued Army pickup trucks as fast as they could go. Fascinating how much gas the truck used when going 100 mph.
Should autobahns close for roadworks overnight then? UK always seems to close the motorways overnight or even a full weekend (Fr 9pm to Mo 5am) for such a simple task, although lane closures are also done. Not sure if other european countries follow suit but even then, still less than UK. Does closing roads actually increase safety to workers?
As the world is transitioning towards e-mobility, the carbon footprint of transportation will ultimately decrease. In light of this, there is no need for a speed limit in the long run. Furthermore, low speeds lead to monotony while driving, reducing drivers alertness and tempting them to engage in distracting activities like using their smartphones. This is probably the biggest issue. This in general a very important thing in safe driving. Humans aren't made for observing tasks. Humans must be held active. It is easy in cities with all the traffic signals and turns. But a wide straight Autobahn is the most monotony thing you can experience while driving. Moreover, different people have varying comfort levels and experiences when it comes to driving speed, and a one-size-fits-all approach speed limit is impossible, without a limit everyone can choose his own perfect speed. It is important to note that a speed limit does not guarantee that drivers will adapt their speed to the road conditions. Unadapted speed is one of the major cause of accidents on the Autobahn, and some drivers continue to drive at the same speed regardless of the weather or road conditions. I have seen it myself multiple times that a 120-130 drive keeps his speed unchanged after a sudden weather change with heavy rain. I had it also once that this driver caused an accident costing me hours in a traffic jam. Instead, drivers should learn to be more aware of their surroundings and adjust their driving accordingly. Additionally, maintaining a safe following distance from other vehicles also help prevent accidents on highways, regardless of the speed limit. Unfortunately, safety distance is only rarely enforced. Finally, most accidents I see in the newspaper occur during rush hour when traffic is at its peak. At such times, driving at high speed is physically impossible due to the high traffic volume. Therefore, there is no need to impose speed limits.
As long as the ADAC and the car industry have a voice there won't be a reasonable discussion. Still a miracle how catalytic converters became a thing with their resistance.
I do like driving fast. Really. Fastest speed I ever gained was about 230km/h. Anyway, I desire a general speed limit including a dense control of speed enfprcing the limits. Why? Well, after having an expérience of roughly 1million kilometers on the road, I am convinced that a lot of dangerous sotuations arise from different speeds (imagine a 2 lane street, where a heavy truck is cruising at 80km/h and a car switching to the left lane at 120km/h while from behind another car approaches at 200km/h... Fürthermore it helps protect the climate. I will not quantify the effect, because in the current situation we need every bit of reduction of carbon-dioxide. And thirdly it will reduce stress while driving. Go to Austria (speed limit of 130km/h), where the autobahn is as good as in Germany or even better) and give it a try...
There is a stringent reason to discuss speed limits on highways again. Electrical cars which can go at totally unreasonable speeds with 1000 HP, e.g. the Tesla. Almost no combustion car can go 300km/h. An alternative to speed limits on highways is speed limits built into the car, e.g. 180-200 km/h. Just regulate them down. I go slower in Austria and Switzerland than in Germany. This is sort of annoying but on the other hand, the much more uniform speed on highways in the Alps makes for a much more comfortable driving experience. While I have an opinion I'm not militant about it. The comparably high incident rates on Dutch highways are easy to explain. Belgium and Dutch are really bad drivers. This may be a prejudice, a stereotype but a consolidated experience. I am not racist against Dutch and Belgians, they are culturally more or less the closest brethren but I'm a lot more careful when I meet them on the road. They are really erratic. As to fuel consumption, this is clearly not an admissible argument but a social warrior paradigm. You can't force people to use twingos and cinquecentos instead of Mercedeses because you believe they are not allowed to produce more exhaust than what is strictly necessary, just like you can't tell people to eat soya "cheese" instead of steak to avoid methane. You not driving, why do you care at all? Now that I getting older I use the train more often just out of convenience, not because someone tells me. But my choice, which I don't want to impose on others, is just as little as my diet.
As to me, I wouldn't mind a speed limit on the Autobahn. My car can do well over 200 km/h, but I rarely drive that fast. 140 is an excellent cruising speed for long distances. I know, opinions on this may vary, and I also have a long history of speeding tickets on country roads, so who am I to preach? However, if you drive your car at maximum speed, there is no room left for an emergency maneuver, and braking isn't always the best thing to do. Having said this, here's a song for y'all: ua-cam.com/video/EDuSc0J28ns/v-deo.html
130. The logical move would be to turn the undeniably very sensible recommendation never to exceed 130 into an obligation. I am strictly against higher limits. Either 130, or no limit at all. Anything in between is pointless.
@@arthur_p_dent 130 is so boring slow that my brain would search for other things to do, like using the phone which is dangerous. A 200 limit would be ok for me.
@@dr2okevin if you can't concentrate on driving when doing 130, i suggest consulting your doctor about the problem. best abstain from driving until the problem is fixed.
@@arthur_p_dent you don't understand. If the brain doesn't have much to do, it will search for other things to do. This is normal human behavior. Driving faster gives the brain more signals at the same time so the brain doesn't feel the need to do other things. Texting while driving is very dangerous, and as slower as people drive, the more they tend to do such dangerous things.
@@dr2okevin speed limits encourage drivers to text? Well, I would argue that whoever these drivers are, they need their licenses revoked asap. Speed limit or not. That said, your brain is in fact doing A LOT of work while driving. Most of it it is doing subconsciously (unless you are an absolute beginner), but that doesn't mean it is idling. Sure, if you go very fast, your body will produce adrenaline, which will increase your attention. But at the same time it will also tire you - which at some point will reduce you attention, and increase your reaction time. And this happens MUCH SOONER THAN YOU THINK. At the same time, you will have MUCH LESS TIME to react to any developing situations. All this taken together, driving much faster than 130 will increase both your risk to get into an accident and your stress level. At the same time, it won't even save you much time. At any rate, the notion that the absence of a general speed limit makes the German autobahns safer is preposterous.
Well yes Speed limit is a heated discussion right now in Germany - its more religious then rational - but in reality its a mood discussion since we are on the way to all- electric fast. I don´t see this resolution for weapons in the US.
Just wait another 2 generations in the US. When the only people in the US are ones that had to go through active-shooter drills in school, and there is at least one elementary-school shooting massacre per decade, and _nothing_ can be done about it because the Supreme Court keeps citing the last 9 words of this "2nd Amendment" thing … Yeah, I guarantee you that this future generation of Americans is gonna go, "Well if the Supreme Court keeps using the 2nd Amendment to strike down every attempt we make to stop killing small children, then we _must_ get rid of the 2nd Amendment." That's the direction I see things going. After I'm dead, mind you. I'm Gen-X, so we only had to do fire-drills, not mass-murder-drills in school. That makes mine one of the generations that needs to die off.
I think a general speed limit of about 160 or 180 km/h would be reasonable. I feel that whenever I'm driving at 120 or 130, my mind wanders away because it seems so mundane a speed. When you're used to more, concentration slips at that point, and that's when it get's dangerous. I'm generally not a very quick driver, but having sections where you're able to drive a bit faster (given the conditions, of course!) are good just to raise your awareness. The worst thing for concentration is to lock in the tempomat at 120 and than just cruise along and start thinking about other stuff. It's good to adjust your speed every now and then.
Speed limits definitely make sense in more dangerous areas of the Autobahn but I really dislike the idea of a general speed limit. Clearly German streets already are very safe and most of the time people only drive between 100-150 km/h. There is a reason why German driving licenses are comparably so hard to get. And with fuel prices that high most drivers are trying to safe as much as possible anyways.In 19-15 years Combustion engine cars are going to be mostly outlawed anyways. So no reason for a speed limit for that reason as well
Wir müssen als Gesellschaft akzeptieren, dass das Leben ein einziges Risiko ist. "Es werden weniger Menschen sterben" als Totschlagargument zu benutzen ist sinnlos. Dann könnten wir auch eine Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung auf 5 km/h setzen. Das würde fast alle Verkehrstoten verhindern. Ist es sinnvoll? Natürlich nicht. Wir müssen uns als Gesellschaft nicht die Frage stellen, ob wir diese Tode und Emissionen per se verhindern wollen. Wir müssen darüber diskutieren, ob es uns Wert ist, für diese prognostizierte Reduzierung von Toten und Emissionen unsere Geschwindigkeitsfreiheit mit ihren Vorteilen zu opfern. Wir müssen mehr auf die Verhältnismäßigkeit gucken anstatt auf absolute Zahlen. Das würde sicherlich viele Emotionen aus der Debatte holen und sie wieder sachlicher werden lassen.
Does anyone else find German drivers on the Autobahn just… really bad? I see tailgating all the time, cars swerve between lanes regularly, the fast cars belonging to men with small, er, egos are aggressive and come very close. I see the opposite in Britain when I return. The drivers there give a good amount of distance and there is rarely a speeder. There are tailgaters and men with small egos, but they are less prominent on the road.
Next topic by Rewboss: Should the U.S.A., Australia and New Zealand be given back to their native populations? You can already leave your comments here.
@@chrisko6439 There were about 60 million people in the Americas before Europeans arrived there. 90% of them were dead within a few decades, and what remains today of the native population of North America is a fraction of that. Who do you want to give the land back to? And what's that supposed to look like, the decolonization of Africa? The sad truth is that any such attempt would create an unstable and unsustainable country. Not to mention the problem of what to do with all the other people. When European countries gave up their colonies in Africa in the 20th century, they had always remained a tiny minority in those colonies. That's not true in either the US, Australia, or New Zealand. If you're talking about giving back a proportional fraction of the land, you're talking about reservations. I don't think that's such a great solution.
Introduction of speed-limit = collapse in numbers of videos about Germany in UA-cam and other social media and in the arrivals of tourists from abroad! 😂
The thing is, when speeding with a certain speed limit is in order, then people would drive at this speed no matter what. One example not on the autobahn: If it is snowing, people drive very slowly. But when the snowing is over, even when the road is icy, than they drive at the speed limit. That is, because the people had let others think for them. When the speed limit is 60 km/h and it isn't snowing, then it has to be okay to drive 60 km/h. What I think is: If there are absolutely no speed limits (nowhere), then people would have to think on their own, how fast they are driving. The problem is the time from implementing to it being normal. The opposite thing could be seen with the first navigation systems. When people shut on the navigation, they seem to shut down their brain. I don't have another idea, why else people drove into rivers, when they had navigation on, but not if not.
On the Autobahn without a speed limit, I trust the road to be build in a way, that it would not lead me into situations where the speed is going to launch me off the road. That is not a given on other roads. Sure, if I know a road, I can drive quicker on it, but if I don't know the road, a speed limit is an indicator to me, that at this speed I will not suddenly run into some turn, where I'm too fast for it.
_"If there are absolutely no speed limits (nowhere), then people would have to think on their own, how fast they are driving."_ Do you have any idea just how many people are completely incapable of thinking on their own?!
Not having a speed limit is potentially a good idea, but only combined with specialized road infrastructure that limits what speed people are comfortable with. In the Netherlands especially, a lot of urban streets are designed to make drivers uncomfortable when driving too fast. The rules are reinforced by the design of streets and roads.
Interesting video - I thought the Dutch speed limit was 130kph, which would make it a higher speed limit than Belgium, Ireland, Spain (120kph) or UK (70mph or approx. 110kph)
In France there are two limits on all roads, the higher for dry conditions and the lower for when it is raining, which seems eminently sensible. The gendarmerie will be out in force when it is raining to catch all those drivers ignoring the lower speed limit, and there will be plenty!
@@thomasfeild8380 not collectively. A lot of people will just continue at around 100. It's a small country and you don't gain a lot by driving faster.
Does that mean that the Autobahn speed limit is to Germans what marihuana legislation is to us Dutchies? A complicated mess with unclear legal status causing massive disagreements between people and especially politicians? Also, when looking at the road death statistics, keep in mind that while the Netherlands have the lowest speed limit because we have a very dense, complicated road network and a tiny country. Especially in the west, increasing the top speed isn't going to get you places more quickly, but it will increase the chance of accidents and cause more pollution. And last but not least: I'm curious what the argument is for a reduced number of accidents, injuries and deaths when the speed limit is lifted. I know which side I'm on, but I've missed things before and I'm curious to learn.
I think a common argument for why no speed limit may be safer is that people focus on what's happening outside, rather than on their speedometer. I'm not sure I find it compelling, but it's an argument that people make.
Another argument that I have seen in this comment section is that going fast on an empty road at night makes you less likely to fall asleep behind the wheel.
I like to call the rules that apply to the Autobahn "Schroedinger's Speed Limit". It is legal and illegal at the same time to drive faster than 130 km/h. It is complicated, but to (nearly over-) simplify it: if you go faster than 130 and nothing happens you cannot be fined for it. Go faster and be involved in an accident - even if you not caused it in the first step - and you will be partially at fault, risk your insurance and if something really bad happend and someone died you could even find yourself in court for vehicular manslaughter. So drive as fast as you like but be aware of the possible consequences. Better off though if the limit existing morally became absolute anyways.
Fazit: besser wäre eine Geschwindigkeitsgrenze, aber viel ändern würde sie auch wieder nicht. Beide Seiten können also bitte ihre vor Zorn gesträubten Nackenhaare wieder einfahren. Edit: ich weiß, dass mein Appell genau das Gegenteil bewirkt 😁. Wenn dich so eine Kleinigkeit wütend macht, solltest du dringend mehr meditieren 🤣
I live in Spain where the speed limit on motorways is 120 km/h. I am so used to it now, that I just stick to it when I pass France (where I could go at 130) or spend my holidays in Germany. The engine sound just sounds too aggressive to me when I go over 120.
"When the government imposes a speed limit on a dangerous section of autobahn, it would be foolish to lift it because there are now fewer accidents on that section... right?" There is a difference between correlation and causation. 😊Apart from that, if you sacrifice freedom for perceived safety, you are going to lose both sooner or later. Besides, the government usually doesn't reevaluate the effects of measures taken, so who cares that people have been taken their freedoms away, right? 😏 There are already temporary speed limits on the Autobahn because of perceived danger, so you imply that someone should throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak in spite of that level headed approach if I am not mistaken.🙋♂
The lack of speed limit is a nonsense. Car journeys are highly inefficient and dangerous. Next time you're on the autobahn, or any high way, for an extended period, you'll notice that it's often just the same cycle of cars overtaking each other repeatedly. One speeds up temporarily, one slows down temporarily. And broader inefficient behaviour like accelerating rapidly when a light turns green, just to have to stop in 300m for another set of traffic lights. It's all just a massive waste of fuel and ultimately more dangerous.
Your agrument makes no sense. Do you talk about Autobahns or city traffic? Yes, city traffic is the most inefficient, but the idea that you are overtaking the same cars over and over again on the Autobahn, is bulls***.
@@LS-Moto I clumsily mixed two separate points in my reply, though both are on the topic of inefficient driver behaviour. I've driven long distances from Austria to West Germany after a holiday. Frequently, people going to the same region are traveling the same Autobahn, at the same time. I have noticed - often - the same cars just overtaking each other repeatedly, or cars who drove at a very high speed just being caught after a few KMs at the next "Stau". Watch this for behaviour if you find yourself making a similar journey. I would bet my life that introducing speed limits would have a completely negligible impact on journey times.
@@dellerbeller I drive a lot of Autobahn and I rarely go beyond 160kph. But I don't overtake the same vehicles again. Massive traffic jams happen during holiday season, but are not a regular thing, where you would be stuck for hours. I could make the same argument for city traffic. Bicycles always catch up to the vehicles again, only to be overtaken again until the next light. Should be now limit the speed of cars to bicycle speed?
It's really interesting to see how much Germany has harmed you, how much this disgusting society and the belief in prohibitions, restrictions and limitations have affected you. The good news for you is that it's going to get worse and worse. Someday soon the government will decide what you will eat for dinner and you will love it. ☺
Yea, by that logic lets set the speed limit to zero and bum no car accidents and no fuel consumption at all. Problem solved. Some people, simply dont get a good night sleep when there is something left that is not regulated yet. Freedom of the one ist just the inury of the next, so lets remove it all. Dont forget to forbid to breathe. Breathing out makes other people sick.
@@Lunarpenguin-d1s yes they are. I don’t get your Logic. Millions got the flu, must be good then?? Or when we take away the Freedom of a sufficiently large number of people that makes it better then ? Crazy people. Oh i got another one. I dont drive that fast. Speed Limit is ok for me. So take away only those freedoms I dont value myself. Fuck the rights of other people as long as I am not affected?
@@Lunarpenguin-d1s i dont get your point. so take away peoples freedom because others do as well? think of this: i dont have to argue why i want to keep my freedom. you need to have damn good reasons to convince me to give it up. thats how things are working, not the other way around.
I think there shouldn't be an absolute limit. The things you pointed out are true so naturally anybody driving on these sections can drive as slow as they like (as long as they're not disruptive and maintain the minimum speed). If it's about reducing co2 emissions those that want to reduce can slow down. If its about being less likely to die in case of an accident, then those that want to be safer don't need to drive as fast. Not everything has to be a law and regulated to an imagined optimum. Let people have their freedom even if it means sacrificing some other things.
I agree. Apart from that, when it comes to CO2 emissions, there are other things that way more polluting than the few people going fast on the Autobahn. I see no protest against ships going up and down various rivers, not just polluting the air, but also affecting the water quality negatively.
Speed is rarely the main problem with accidents, it's the speed difference. So going slower for your personal safety makes absolutely no sense at all. The whole idea behind a speed limit is to make everyone go at approximately the same speed, at least in the same neighbourhood (e.g. between 80 and 130km/h on the Autobahn).
Driving slower on your own isn't going to help you if someone else crashes into your car with 200 km/h. It _has_ to be regulated for it to have any effect. You can be the best driver in the world, in the end you only control your own car.
@@gymnasiast90 yeah because that happens everyday all over the place, not to mention you only encounter 1 car per several thousands km travelled on the Autobahn, that is actually going 200 kph.
§ 3 Abs 2 (c) StVO: "Diese Geschwindigkeitsbeschränkung [...] gilt ferner nicht auf Straßen, die mindestens zwei durch Fahrstreifenbegrenzung (Zeichen 295) oder durch Leitlinien (Zeichen 340) markierte Fahrstreifen für jede Richtung haben."
A few years ago I was traveling in Austria and driving on the autobahn there. They have a speed limit of 130 km/h. It was such a relaxed ride. You didn't have to be afraid when you overtook a truck that someone would hit your trunk at 250 km/h.
Read and think before answering. I wrote it is relaxing not to have to be worry. If all vehicles were going more or less the same speed there are way fewer traffic jams and lesser stressed drivers. That's a profit for all.
@rewboss In Italy we have the SS (Strada Statale, "State Road") 148 "Pontina", from Rome to Terracina, some 80 km down south on the Tyrrenian coast. The road is almost a long straight, but it's so badly maintained and so full of potholes/blind access ramps that it's almost guaranteed for you to have an accident. So, to both buy time for the repairs to finish and to limit the number of accidents, the speed limit on the whole road was limited from 90 to 60 km/h. *Accidents and deaths doubled and now it's known as "The most dangerous road in Italy".*
In Austria we have a part of the Bundesstraße which was used a lot for traffic to the south (Yougoslavia...) with the normal 100km/h. But there were lots of accidents. They changed it to 70km/h and forbid overtaking for a long stretch and it was much safer. Several years later they went to 80km/h and that also seems to work. By that there is nearly no (legal) reason to overtake in the first place.
Hey you could do the US way. Limit it to 115kph with wide open spaces and people die because they dozed off from the boredom of having to drive that slow for so long.
That may sound like a daft comment, but I agree with it. My ex was Austrian, so we drove to Eastern Austria, via the busy motorways of Belgium and Germany almost every summer. But one year we got an invite to friends in Stuttgart. But going from the French ports to Stuttgart mainly via the empty French toll roads was so dull that I knew we had to be careful for that reason. I have to admire long distance truck drivers.
3:40 You said that the Netherlands has the lowest speed limit on motorways. However, based on googling the general speed limit on motorways in the Netherlands is 130 km/h whereas here in Finland (and probably some other European countries too) the highest speed limit is 120 km/h.
Also: if you go way over 130 on a section without a limit and have an accident, insurance might haggle with you about how much they'll pay at all, since you consciously chose to drive at higher speeds than recommended and willingly put yourself at risk, immediately adding a huge risk that you take part in fault for the accident. This all requires you to be alive in the first place afterwards though.
I think once the Ukraine war started the fuel savings alone should have been a reason enough to impose some kind of speed limit on all Autobahns. For comparison, here in Finland there weren't any speed limits on roads outside populated areas before the '70s. Once the '70s oil crisis hit a limit of *80* *km/h* was imposed everywhere without a prior limit in order to save on fuel. Once the crisis dissipated the limits were raised to 120 km/h at a maximum but there was no going to prior situation without limits.
There is no likelihood of car accidents. They're entirely deterministic events. Every car accident either happens or doesn't, and physics only permits one of those outcomes. You could (correctly) say that lower speed limits decrease the RATE of car accidents, if that's true (which I would expect).
Super channel! Genau über diese Sache habe ich mich aufgeregt, selbst die Polizei war dagegen, aber die Politiker müssen natürlich auch nicht die Opfer aus den Autos herausschneiden, der Vergleich mit den Waffengesetzen in den USA ist auf dem Punkt!
Speed limits has another advantage too. If it makes driving times longer, it makes trains faster in comparison. So more people take public transport. Less cars, less danger around the road and that is better for the environment.
You know what would have a much greater effect on how many people use public transit? _Improving the quality of service of public transit._ Invest in train infrastructure, make sure there's enough trains for everyone, make them reasonably cheap or perhaps even free. This would also mean less congestion on the Autobahn, less drivers, and safer drives in spite of the lack of a speed limit. People feel the need to drive because the trains as they are right now are simply _not good enough._
Germany has a carbon emission reduction act which was passed in 2019 and which states that each sector has to reduce its emissions year by year. The traffic sector didn’t reach its goal for a second year in a row now (and 2020 it probably only did because of the lockdowns). I’m 100% sure that the general speed limit will come very soon in order to reduce the emissions. Not because the liberal party (FDP) (which is in charge of the traffic ministry) wants to do it but because they have to do it by law.
Very nice explanation If I were a politician I would suggest no speed limit at all anyway in any road. But in the event of a fatality the surviving bad driver would spend his or her life supporting the victims’ family for 3 generations The best and ideal was to avoid the accident, but how I don’t know 🤷♂️ so many stupid drivers out that, and gut drivers having a bad day. Distracted pedestrians looking at their phones while walking
Discussions are not real (politics is not real). The decisions are made by others. (And what does this fact tell us about the "democracy" idea?? Could it be a theater?)
I am against speed limits.... in the end fuel prices will regulate the speed anyway ... new EV are usually limited to 160 kph anyway ... PS: Dangerous driving however should be punished harshly ...
![The Autobahn in Germany [BEYOND No Speed Limit]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1i3dLuKZwNI/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Wrong Way to Set Speed Limits [ST06]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bglWCuCMSWc/mqdefault.jpg)
So are we ignoring the fact that there is a well established speed limit of 299792km/s?
If you can bend physics it might be even higher ? Just use a Warp Drive.
Well you are not wrong - there is a voluntary speed limit with 248 km/h max from the car manufacturers
@@bavariancarenthusiast2722 Only from some manufacturers. Volvos are even slower.
@@reinhard8053 yes that's correct, also EV´s are slower too, it was more a bit of irony - but in reality the average speed is below 130 km/h on the autobahn.
@@reinhard8053 It is, indeed, higher: 299792458 m/s, exactly.
As a professional driver who has spent many hours on the Autobahn (mostly Aachen to Heilbronn), I believe the current situation is about right. I personally wouldn't bother going over 130km/h myself, because I'm a skinflint and fuel is expensive. Let the quiet autobahn remain derestricted, and put limits on the busy or less safe sections. Even if I'm well below the limit when I get to it, it's a sign to pay more attention, as limits are put in for a reason, usually anyway.
I regularly drive from the UK to Germany. In fact, as a dual national British and German citizen, I spend about half my time between the two countries. I'm actually in Hannover right now writing this and will be travelling back through the Netherlands to the UK in two days time.
I also regularly drive the entire length of Germany North to South.
There are several myths here that people believe:
1) That the Autobahn is all completely derestricted. It isn't!
The reality is that you tend to get relatively short stretches which are but then are punctuated by either permanently restricted or temporarily restricted for some reason. This makes it virtually impossible to maintain seriously high speeds for a lengths long enough to materially shorten your journey times.
You'll just end up being slowed down soon even if it isn't by loads of traffic...and there's often lots!
2) That Germans are better drivers , better taught and show greater discipline on the Autobahn. That might be true...for Germans. Unfortunately again, it needs to be realised that Germany is right in the middle of border-free Europe and its Autobahns act as a crossroads for Europe. So far from it being well-trained and disciplined Germans only it is a mish mash of all-comers...including Belgians!!! 😲
3) The quality of German Autobahns is really good.
Also a myth. Many are old, worn out and even just two lane. You need very big balls or to be very stupid to drive ar 200 km/h past an articulated lorry next to you who may decide to pull out. Whether it's legal from him to do so isn't really relevant if he doesn't know or apply that rule, pulls out and your impact speed is 120 km/h into the back of him!
When you do reach an unrestricted segment, it almost doesn’t matter how fast you are going you better be prepared for someone trying to prove they can go faster. That means one second there can be nothing coming up in your rear view mirror and the next moment something could fly by that you hadn’t even noticed the last time you looked, at 300 km/h just as you were about to pull out at 250km/h. That’s a truly scary experience and means that once you’ve experienced it you’ll be looking in your rear view almost continuously. That in itself becomes really wearing.
You get people who can't differentiate between whether you are "allowed to" and whether "you should" drive as fast as you like/can.
There are lots of cars these days that can (with limiters removed) approach 200 mph. That combination of performance and derestricted public road is no longer appropriate!
I like driving fast...I have quite a fast BMW but driving on Germany's Autobahns is not a particularly pleasant experience because of the intermittent derestricted sections. I think they've really had their day.
Agreed, German roads and Autobahns can be pretty good, but they can also be terrible. Dutch highways are always very good (but you may want to include Luxembourg and Austria as well). The water permeable highways of Holland are finally finding their way across the border. Driving in the rain through Germany, I found some stretches of road that have that surface meaning very litty water on the driving surface with greatly reduced wheel spray as a result.
@@Lenny-kt2th Oh, I wasn’t aware that the Dutch motorways had a surface to reduce spray. That’s a good thing! When I drove through the Netherlands to get here a month it was really rainy day. It probably would have been much worse then without that surface?
I try to always do my journey on a Sunday so that there aren’t many lorries.
The thing I don’t like about the Dutch motorways are I actually find the speed limit a bit too low! 110 km/h during the day is a bit soporific when you have to cross the whole country.
I agree with most of what has been said here. I have driven on that stretch of the motorway between Hamburg and Berlin and experienced the sudden appearance when overtaking another vehicle of a fast car in the rear view mirror and when driving a diesel car, it’s not easy to accelerate away! I also appreciate the Dutch motorway surface that reduce water spray.
@@derin111 FYI 110 km/h is actually slightly higher than the typical speed limit on most US highways. Here in NY State, it's 88 kph for most Parkways [curvier limited access roads] or 104 kph for the NYS Thruway and the sections of Interstate Highway in the state.
But out in the Great Plains, where exits can be 50 km apart … or further! … the speed limit is often 120 kph. And that's for the very reason you cite: sleep-inducing. When you're driving on I80 through Nebraska, or I70 through Kansas, which are nearly-completely straight and entirely flat section of highway going on for hundreds of km with _Zero_ change in scenery, it becomes easy to zone out.
The speed limit vs firearms comparison is correct - because in both cases some people on both sides of the issue are deluded in thinking they are correct and that they need to protect other people from themselves or that a higher power blesses them with a right.
Speed limits make sense: on specific sections where due to weather or geography or density of traffic getting a uniform and lower speed is worth the effort.
Just to reduce fatalities is never a valid reason. Want to reduce fatalities ? Set the limit at 30. It’s all a trade off.
If there is no limit that doesn’t mean you have to drive super fast. You can drive 120 in an unrestricted zone.
Same with guns. You dont habe to get one and you certainly don’t need to be concerned about the wellness of burglars. Everyone.
Yep there are fools in all cases that will cause harm. They cannot be avoided. But don’t let that mean we have to spoil things for the entire population.
The comparison of the German speed limit debate to the American gun control debate is absolutely spot on. In both cases, a rational discussion seems to be impossible.
The difference though is that the Americans have put their gun laws into their constitution, which makes regulating them nearly impossible.
Like in America the Debate is poisoned by a small, very loud "silent majority". I oppose a general Speed Limit, but I definitely agree with more flexible Electronic Speed Limits whenever Traffic Density necessitates it. The A11 at Night is practically empty and I like to put the Cruise Control at 180 and just cruise.
Making Public Transport more affordable and practical to use with E-Cargo Bikes would already solve many issues, creating Holland Style Road Networks and Bicycle Infrastructure would make many Speed Limits unnecessary, as Road Design naturally enforces it.
And just generally making it cheaper to go by train than by Car or Plane (I have flown Cologne to Munich for 19€ because I didn't feel like paying 138€ for an ICE Ticket).
@@LS-Moto well yes - that's also in the constitution its called amendment - there are many of them
@@bavariancarenthusiast2722 True. It is the second amendment, a group of ten amendments implemented shortly after the constitution was written. It having been agreed when the constitution was implemented that further work was required. But there are complications. Here is the text:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now what exactly does that mean? Well it is up to interpretation by the Supreme Court, which happens to have a bunch of recent appointees by former president Trump. There are those who argue (for example) that what this actually means is that each state is allowed to have its own army. What used to be called the state militias and now are the branches of the National Guard, still under the control of each governor. It's complicated.
@@danielcarroll3358 yes I understand - thank you for trying to explain. it looks different from the outside world, not in a good way. There are so many gun death and violence which could be prevented. But it's up to you guys in the US.
While I do favour a speed limit, I think someting like 160 km/h would be completely sufficient and a good compromise. The main problem is the relative speed between vehicles when you cruise along and a sports car zooms past at 240+ km/h.
If you drive on rual roads with 100 km/h you have a speed difference of 200 km/h. If someone drives with 100 km/h on the Autobahn, you would need to drive 300 km/h to have the same speed difference.
160 would be the perfect speed limit in my opinion. You can move quite smoothly but you drastically reduce the chance of getting killed by a frustrated male who wants to compensate his small d… with a big sports car
@@Darude453 the perfect speed is for everyone different and depends also on the situation. On a Sunday morning I like to drive 200.
@@dr2okevin it also comes down to the car. 20 years ago going 200 was probably pretty terrifying, in a modern car its much easier
@@dr2okevin What YOU LIKE to do is less important than the safety of EVERYONE.
Unfortunately in all the statistics there was no mention of how many of the accidents on the limited routes are caused due to ignoring the limit.
Yes, that is why speed cameras are genuis with the best being average speed cameras.
The issue I observe in countries with speed limit is that lane discipline is generally bad as people think they don't need to move over if they are travelling at or close to the speed limit. People simply don't expect anyone approaching from behind and hence don't see the need to optimise the usage of road space.
I'd be happy to have a speed limit, if we can maintain lane discipline.
The only road discipline I have seen in the 12 years of driving is that everyone and their mother goes on the left lane the second they are on the road
If someone tries to overtake you while you're going at the speed limit, you should only do so if it's necessary for safety reasons. It's not good discipline to enable dangerous driving.
@@timotheatae If you are not overtaking you shouldn't be in a overtaking lane. There is no right to be in the "fast" lane.
@@Warentester I agree, but someone shouldn't be overtaking you if you're going the speed limit at the same time. Catching up to someone doing the speed limit necessarily requires going over it, so it wouldn't optimise road use unless someone slows down momentarily. Now that you have two cars going the speed limit side by side, the one in the overtaking lane cannot actually overtake without breaking the speed limit, and now they're using the overtaking lane as a fast lane.
The right etiquette should really be don't overtake someone driving at the speed limit.
@@timotheatae How do you know you are doing the speed limit?
I believe all cars are allowed to have their speedometers inaccurate by up to 10%.
I know the section you are talking about on the way from Hamburg to Berlin. While the speed limit made sense during the day when traffic was dense, it was a pain when returning from Hamburg to Berlin on a late Sunday evening, when you had do crawl along on a totally empty road instead of being able to get home faster. So, speed limits should be adapted to the situation, and otherwise it should be up to the responsible citizen how to drive.
I for one do think that no limit at all is rather freightening, regularly driving over the Autobahn. I normally drive at around 170km/h where allowed, which I think is not dangerous at all, since you can relatively easy comprehend the speed difference of other traffic going at around 130-150km/h. The problem imo is that sometimes you get overtaken by a car with at least a speed of 230km/h, that, even at 170km/h, it seems like you're standing still. The difference between the majority of the drivers and the speed demons becomes so large that you can not really tell how long you have time to overtake a guy because someone might show up far away in your mirror and wanting to overtake you within seconds.
Edit: I think 200km/h is the sweet point of freedom of speed and safety for others.
Yes, when cars overtake you at 230 + km/h even if you’re doing 170 it’s frightening because literally one second there was nothing in your mirror, next second something flies past that you hadn’t seen😲😲😲😲
So you find yourself constantly looking every second in your mirror so it’s really stressful.
Yep but if you are doing a proper passing maneuver the guy approaching at 250 is the one with the duty to slow down and keep his distance. It’s not your obligation to speed up to get out of the way. Complete the pass and change lanes again. No stress. The high speed driver had all the stress with the constant acceleration and then braking and waiting and acceleration and braking and …
@@derin111 I drive usually between 160 and 180. I never had any issue or fear from other who drive faster. Most annoying are the slow folks who don't know what a mirror is. They are dangerous even at 130 because they change lane even when you are already only 10m behind them.
I would say that people who drive 130+ are usually focused on driving, while others more on zombie mode.
@@dr2okevin If you’re 10 m behind someone at a speed of 130 km/h, you’re 55 meters too close.
@@yatil I talk about people changing lanes. I'm left, the slow driver right, and the slow driver changes to the left without checking mirrors.
Well as a Brit, as with most people who have driven on a British motorway are aware, that the 70mph/113kmh^-1 speed limit is universally ignored. I believe it was originally set as a fuel saving measure and never removed. I often find this makes for dangerous situations where one really should drive faster to get out of a dangerous situation, but cannot due to the limit. It must be said, the British limit is far too low.
They key advantage of a limitless system is that one is not constantly focusing on the speedometer, rather on your surroundings and the road situation. You don’t hyper focus on it as it feels out of place due to what everyone else is doing, and that the police will get you for doing a few over.
I’m of the opinion a) No limit, adding in local limits where appropriate is the better solution and b) if there absolutely has to be one, that it should be no lower than 130kmh^-1, as this feels like the most appropriate motorway speed.
Wherever there is a speed limit, most people drive with their "Tachometer" (cruise control?) these days anyway. So you don't have to focus on the speedometer.
@@Nils.Minimalist admittedly cruse control does help to fair extent, although most of the cars I’ve driven haven’t had it. It’s a fair point. I still find non limited motorways preferable, I usually have a nicer time driving on them, when I’m in Germany I never drive over 130 anyway.
It’s often also a case of wanting to overtake another vehicle going a few kmh^-1 under the limit and wanting to overtake, but not being able to for causing an obstruction to overtaking traffic exceeding the limit.
No, the original 70mph speed limit was not set as a fuel saving measure. It was introduced in the mid 1960s, along with a whole host of other measures, such as the breathalyser laws, to tackle the UK's alarmingly high road fatality rate, well over four times what it is now.
There was a lower speed limit of 50mph introduced as a fuel saving measure following the fuel crisis of the early 1970s, but that was entirely unconnected and has, of course, long been abolished.
My biggest takeaway from this video (which is admittedly very high quality) is that Brits say drink-driving and not drunk-driving
On the basis that your driving can become impaired by drinking before you are perceived as being drunk. There are specific laws about drunkeness in other situations, which require a rather higher barrier to be crossed.
who woulda thunk that, eh?
“Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you.”
― Jeremy Clarkson
Why do you assume that nothing else changed? That Autobahn near Berlin you mentioned is probably used by many eastern european vehicles with lower degree of regulary checks by law and eastern european drivers with less intensive training to get a driving license. But especially Poland (which is quote close there) made very much progress since they started receiving money by the EU to be able to meet the standards to become EU member which finally happened in 2004.
Before COVID I drove more than 30,000km/year, mostly on the Autobahn. Even if only driving 130km/h where's no speed limit, the biggest problem are bad drivers who don't even try to announce early enough that they want to change to the lane left of them and don't even try to increase their speed early enough to reduces speed differences before changing the lane. That's the core problem. There're even multiple times a year news from our area in the local newspaper that again somebody from the acceleration line immediately changed to the left lane (crossing right and middle lane) and there was an accident because of that, probably because he didn't even drive 130km/h. Lower speedlimits will make such people just more reckless because they're feeling more safe when they're doing such reckless things. E.g. since "more safety for cyclists" is intensively discussed in Germany, I'm also experiencing more reckless cyclist, no matter if I'm driving my car or on my bicycle.
Concerning the CO2 argument: More than the half of cars first time registered in 2022 can drive at least "part time" with electricity from the grid and nearly 1/5 are pure electric (BEV). BEVs are in average driven significantly more km per year than ICE cars. But many studies e.g. by the Umweltbundesamt are still basically using numbers collected the 2010s :-(
And just saying "130km/h because less CO2" is nonsense, because you can use the same argument for 100, 80, 50, 30 and 0km/h. So we'll have that discussion quickly again, just with a more lower speed *facepalm*
Great work putting the density argument right after saying the netherlands is similair to germany. They have a really crowded network, lots of cars, many highways with lots of connections VERY reguarly (just about every 20km two highways connect)
It would be helpful for this discussion if the driving speed was included in accident information (from analysing brake marks, or reading out the car's computer), but that information is left out of the statistics in Germany on purpose.
Most of the time during these discussions, especially with statistics, is that people that are going faster than 130 are considered to be super fast drivers beyond 200 kph. That is bulls***. Most people going faster than 130, are usually somewhere between 130 - 160. But often times, media makes it look like everyone that is going over 130 kph, is going at least 200kph. That is completely divorced from reality.
@@LS-Moto The problem is that the police statistics in Germany leaves out that information. Without actual facts being published all talk about 130km vs 200km accidents is indeed bullshit
@@anthonvanderneut exactly.
@@LS-Moto I am one of those in the middle people that actually wants a 200 or even 180kph speed limit. 180 makes more sense for me, but 200 is an even number.
What im getting at is that going above that is where most drivers are overestimating themselves.
@@anthonvanderneut True. There is nothing wrong with going 160 kph on a staight section of Autobahn without much traffic. But what really worries me is "speed tourism", i. e. drivers that just want to go above 200 kph for their own experience without properly knowing their driving capabilities.
I don't mind a general speed limit on German Autobahn, I just hate the current political debate "should we make it 120 or 130?".. how about starting with 160 or even 200? It's usually the crazy racers that cause accidents, and at those extreme speeds the risk of accidents followed by injury or death is significantly increased (braking distance increases with the square of speed). Statistically, the largest share of Autobahn drivers travel below 170 km/h and so wouldn't even be affected by a limit in that range, but if we could cut the worst and most dangerous racers out of the picture, we would already have gained a lot.
Also helps to consider that many recent cars, especially the electric ones, are limited to ~180 from the factory already, and the increased power consumption at high speeds really cuts into your purse anyways.
What a great idea to get lots of comments :)
I remember driving 370km/h in modded twingo on autobahn. Had time of my life.
There is apsolutely no race track where you can drive at these speeds as german raceways, ones that are left are just bunch of turns where you would be lucky to hit 100km/h
Perfect timing, just yesterday I was doing that one B1 model test with the opinions on speed limit in Teil 4 Lesen 😂
You are awesome! New in Deutschland and love your channel.
While I do see the life saving and fuel saving aspects, I really loved driving fast on the Autobahn as a 17 yr old with my mom in her Golf GTI but that was the A5 between Darmstadt and Frankfurt Airport, which is literally a 5 Lane (per Direction) Highway which has a 10km long straight section, where I truly believe you do not need a speedlimit, but overall, if you look at the facts and stop caring about feelings a speedlimit of 130 km/h would be the thing to do, but I think a nice compromise would be these Digital Signs everywhere, every couple of kilometres that adjust the speedlimit automatically to make it safe based on weather, traffic, terrain, etc. because if there's no traffic and it is a dry night I don't see why you should not be able to go as fast as you'd like
I, as a German, am convinced by now, that the national speed limit of 60-80 is slowly being implemented simply by making more and more never completing stretches of construction sites along the Autobahn. Well, that and increasing numbers of crumbling bridges that will take 10y+ to replace, forcing you through even more congested alternative routes, that also leave residents of (formerly) peaceful and quiet villages rightfully enraged. (And their roads devastated, which then will in turn have to be renovated, which will also take several years. Each.)
We don't need no laws for that. Decades of negligence have already paved the road.
With petrol prices rising and E-cars you have to recharge multiple times (appr. 3-5x) on a 600km journey the faster you drive, a general speed limit is not worth a discussion in my opinion. Some politicians like to discuss it anyways to gain attention or due to the absence of other topics.
Most of the times the majority of the traffic flows something between 110km/h and 160km/h even without a speed limit.
There are people who prefer to drive faster. So why shouldn't they if road and weather conditions aren't against it.
agree 100 You make sense, under certain conditions you drive accordingly.
Why shouldn't they? Because the lives of others matter more than momentary fun.
"rewboss explaines" sounds like the perfect description of every of your comments over at r/Germany...
As a regular driver on the Autobahn, I see no rational reason to go over 140 or 150 km/h. Anything above that is an absolute waste of fuel / energy and poses a bigger danger for anyone driving at a normal speed
As someone who doesn't drive in Germany, I don't know what side I would back personally. On the one hand, it's undeniable that speed limits reduce the fatality rate of accidents and there are also significant environmental gains to be had, but on the other hand I do think the lack of speed limit is a novel and important part of Germany's culture. It's famous worldwide and I sympathise with those who find it fun. Nobody likes the fun police.
Greetings from Germany. I'm not sure if I agree with your point about the "important part of Germany's culture", and the "fun police". Would you apply the same argument to gun control in the US?
@@renerpho Greetings also from Germany! I really won't touch the US gun debate with a ten foot pole. :)
There are so many construction sites on the Autobahn.
120 instead of 80 would really be an improvement.
Speaking from an engineer's point of view: the higher the speed the greater the risk. Our bodies don't deal very well with injuries sustained due to a high speed collision. A good example is the accident happened with Jessi Lang several years ago.
The physics can't be ignored either. The kinetic energy to be dissipated goes to the square of speed. The distance travelled during your reaction time is proportional to speed, and braking distance varies roughly to the square of speed too. So, less time to react, more violent impact and you will generally arrive at the scene having retained a higher proportion of that energy than when travelling slower.
Germany adopted a ban on heating private pools in the winter as one of the measures to combat the energy crisis. At the same time they did not enforce blanket speed limits on the Autobahns to achieve the same goals. I like Germans and Germany, but lets face it, in reality, they're as environmentally "friendly" as the Americans.
I don't see how speed limits can help with the energy crisis or the environment...
@ Please let me help you see: The formula that calculates drag shows that the effect of the speed (velocity) is squared.
Going faster simply requires more energy than going slower over the same distance. At around 80-90 km/h, a road vehicle is about at its most efficient. It's not a coincidence that the USA imposed such low speed limits during and after the oil crisis of 1973 and on.
@@Lenny-kt2th our energy crisis was mainly because a lack of natural gas. we don't have a lack of petrol or Diesel.
Only a small amount of all driven kilometers are fast on the Autobahn, so even on the petrol side, it would be the drop on the hot stone.
@@dr2okevin Yes, in the grand scheme of things, you are right. But by the same argument I would say that heating private pools should have been allowed to continue as IMHO it's an ever smaller drop.
@@Lenny-kt2th I don't know anything about heating private pools. In my opinion everything should be regulated through the prices. If we are short on oil, oil needs to be more expensive until the demand fits to the supply. And everyone can then chose by himself how he saves.
The fuel saving part is a moot point. You don't need to drive 200 km/h.
I am strictly against a general speed limit. I would rather prefer dynamic speed limits based on the current traffic. There is no reason why I shouldn’t be allowed to go 200kph on a empty Autobahn at night.
There are plenty of reasons. One being the waste of producing totally overpowered vehicles, who only can acutally use this power at night on an Autobahn, i.e. less than a few % of the time. The rest (90+%) of the time, precious ressources are wasted by carrying around a way too big and heavy engine. I would HEAVILY tax anything about ~50 KW. Like 1% of income per KW. If there is no income, then I'd take a percentage of net worth.
Speaking as someone who lives in the United States, you can do that, but you just have to be aware of cops.
I remember 5 years ago, where me and my family were driving into the holidays in the south of france. As soon we left Germany the ride was way more comfortable because of the speed limit, and the whole attitude people had while driving. So its not only an objective lesser risk, but also a subjective one, at least for me. So when there is no real reason against the speed limit, why don't we do it like all the other countries in europe.
Well if you have this freedom like forever, the system ist build for it, you are trained for it, the accident rate is lower then other countries..its just prohibiting and have a new law restricting you.
it is even more of a problem if you are driving a slower car. When I'm driving in Germany that's mainly with an RV which has a peak at 130km/h (on a flat road with lots of time 🙂) and which I drive mostly at 90-100km/h. Overtaking even slower cars is not that easy if the small spot behind you might be a car with 300km/h.
@@bavariancarenthusiast2722 You did notice that the video showed stats that the accident rate is *not* lower - it's average.
I feel more comfortable on the Autobahn without speed limit. The limit is always a stress factor for me.
I can absolutely second that. And from my experience, it is not the fact that there is a specific speed limit. What I find sort of "more relaxing" when driving is the fact, that in those countries, France, Italy, ... pick your choice. All cars go about the same speed. But what I find the most tiring is actually that you have to adapt your speed all the time to the traffic. Sure, with a decent equipped car and assisted driving, the car can mostly take care of that. And personally I find it less tiring that way compared to manually adapting the speed all the time. But If you cannot go another 3 km until you are stuck behind someone enjoying the ride at a mere 70 or 80 km/h forcing you to slow down, because you cannot get out behind with everyone else left of you going 150 and more, that is annoying. At least in the past, in other countries I did not nearly experience as many people voluntarily going that slow, I don´t know why. And don´t get me wrong, if someone feels comfortable going just 80 or 90, that should be perfectly fine. Maybe it is indeed, that with everyone keeping within the limit, it is just way easier to overtake the few going slow. My choice of speed usually is 130 when allowed, and I found it sometimes on some sections really taking a toll on my ability to concentrate, if I have to go 100 with no curves, no insane amount of traffic and a 6 or even 8 lane Autobahn or whatever it is. Not sure why, but it almost feels like falling asleep any moment.
Now that you've introduced Rewboss Explains, you have to keep it :D
Tbh, a speed limit of 150 km/h would be a fair value for a trial period. If you have to travel long distances, 130 or less is a real pain.
Same opinion max. speed 150 km/h would be fine, but the proponents of speed limits always go for 100-130 km/h which is a no-no for me. Personally i think digitalisation and having a speedlimit that fits the time of day, weather, maintanance of the road and how many cars are currently on there would be much more benefitiary. Also we need to spent more money on rail to get more trucks away from the Autobahn onto rail again and make a more viable option because for many it isn´t (luckily for me it is).
@@paha4209 Yes, great opinion.
A lot of people who drive to work or longer distances like to argue against spending money on public transport. They don't understand that improving trains and subways will also improve driving for them in better traffic. A lot of the debate is purely "car vs public transport", but it really goes hand in hand. :)
@@Cornyfisch It does. I enjoy driving myself and have no problem with driving on the autobahn at 160-180 km/h (car isn´t fast xD). However i also enjoy good public transport getting to work or getting to relatives. I personally see no reason why the DB can´t be as good as the OBB or train system in Switzerland. I fact i believe that it should be our aspiration to be as good as them.
@@paha4209
No.
It should be everyone's aspiration to have better public transit than everyone else. That way it will improve constantly, world wide.
Same goes for small vehicle (bicycle and similar) infrastructure, and pedestrian infrastructure. Every mode of transit, public or private, should be as good as possible.
(Also, unintuitive but very important point: Better public transit results in a better car driving experience, because less cars are on the roads.)
its irrelevant what you consider fair, but what is considered acceptable in a democratic society. Any speed limit would kick out the party proposing it of parliament. So I think the Greens should go for it, I would not miss them a bit
I like this channel ill stay subscribed.
i would prefer it when Germany everywhere sets up "electric Signs" the Schilder brücke so the speed limit can be regulatet to the current Traffic
Dynamic speed limits are a good idea in general, yes.
We had a blast while stationed in Germany and driving our newly issued Army pickup trucks as fast as they could go. Fascinating how much gas the truck used when going 100 mph.
Quick answer… NO
150 sounds about right
Not to mention the miles and miles of trucks in lane 1 when an accident has occurred....🎉
Should autobahns close for roadworks overnight then? UK always seems to close the motorways overnight or even a full weekend (Fr 9pm to Mo 5am) for such a simple task, although lane closures are also done. Not sure if other european countries follow suit but even then, still less than UK. Does closing roads actually increase safety to workers?
As the world is transitioning towards e-mobility, the carbon footprint of transportation will ultimately decrease. In light of this, there is no need for a speed limit in the long run.
Furthermore, low speeds lead to monotony while driving, reducing drivers alertness and tempting them to engage in distracting activities like using their smartphones. This is probably the biggest issue. This in general a very important thing in safe driving. Humans aren't made for observing tasks. Humans must be held active. It is easy in cities with all the traffic signals and turns. But a wide straight Autobahn is the most monotony thing you can experience while driving.
Moreover, different people have varying comfort levels and experiences when it comes to driving speed, and a one-size-fits-all approach speed limit is impossible, without a limit everyone can choose his own perfect speed.
It is important to note that a speed limit does not guarantee that drivers will adapt their speed to the road conditions. Unadapted speed is one of the major cause of accidents on the Autobahn, and some drivers continue to drive at the same speed regardless of the weather or road conditions. I have seen it myself multiple times that a 120-130 drive keeps his speed unchanged after a sudden weather change with heavy rain. I had it also once that this driver caused an accident costing me hours in a traffic jam. Instead, drivers should learn to be more aware of their surroundings and adjust their driving accordingly. Additionally, maintaining a safe following distance from other vehicles also help prevent accidents on highways, regardless of the speed limit. Unfortunately, safety distance is only rarely enforced.
Finally, most accidents I see in the newspaper occur during rush hour when traffic is at its peak. At such times, driving at high speed is physically impossible due to the high traffic volume. Therefore, there is no need to impose speed limits.
Cars won’t dial completely though. It is important for them to be safety measures
"Freie Fahrt für freie Bürger"
Germany's 2nd Amendment
(I swear, I coomented that before reaching 3:00; I guess it's quite obvious)
Ireland has a lot of car crashes over the years it is getting better but there is still a lot of work to be done
We need a Green limit!
As long as the ADAC and the car industry have a voice there won't be a reasonable discussion. Still a miracle how catalytic converters became a thing with their resistance.
Wir müssen den verkauf von neuwagen so schnell wie möglich verbieten.
Kinder abschieben spart noch mehr co2
Great thumbnail…
In 2015 3,688 people died in driving related accidents. In the same year 12,867 people died by falling. Yeah, I am willing to take the risk.
I do like driving fast. Really. Fastest speed I ever gained was about 230km/h. Anyway, I desire a general speed limit including a dense control of speed enfprcing the limits. Why? Well, after having an expérience of roughly 1million kilometers on the road, I am convinced that a lot of dangerous sotuations arise from different speeds (imagine a 2 lane street, where a heavy truck is cruising at 80km/h and a car switching to the left lane at 120km/h while from behind another car approaches at 200km/h... Fürthermore it helps protect the climate. I will not quantify the effect, because in the current situation we need every bit of reduction of carbon-dioxide. And thirdly it will reduce stress while driving. Go to Austria (speed limit of 130km/h), where the autobahn is as good as in Germany or even better) and give it a try...
Freedom from speed limit keep it that way Germany.
130 is fine for the most part. I don't need more. They could raise the limits for some slower parts though.
There is a stringent reason to discuss speed limits on highways again. Electrical cars which can go at totally unreasonable speeds with 1000 HP, e.g. the Tesla. Almost no combustion car can go 300km/h. An alternative to speed limits on highways is speed limits built into the car, e.g. 180-200 km/h. Just regulate them down. I go slower in Austria and Switzerland than in Germany. This is sort of annoying but on the other hand, the much more uniform speed on highways in the Alps makes for a much more comfortable driving experience. While I have an opinion I'm not militant about it. The comparably high incident rates on Dutch highways are easy to explain. Belgium and Dutch are really bad drivers. This may be a prejudice, a stereotype but a consolidated experience. I am not racist against Dutch and Belgians, they are culturally more or less the closest brethren but I'm a lot more careful when I meet them on the road. They are really erratic. As to fuel consumption, this is clearly not an admissible argument but a social warrior paradigm. You can't force people to use twingos and cinquecentos instead of Mercedeses because you believe they are not allowed to produce more exhaust than what is strictly necessary, just like you can't tell people to eat soya "cheese" instead of steak to avoid methane. You not driving, why do you care at all? Now that I getting older I use the train more often just out of convenience, not because someone tells me. But my choice, which I don't want to impose on others, is just as little as my diet.
If your car/truck makes 1000hp it should be cubed
As to me, I wouldn't mind a speed limit on the Autobahn. My car can do well over 200 km/h, but I rarely drive that fast. 140 is an excellent cruising speed for long distances. I know, opinions on this may vary, and I also have a long history of speeding tickets on country roads, so who am I to preach? However, if you drive your car at maximum speed, there is no room left for an emergency maneuver, and braking isn't always the best thing to do.
Having said this, here's a song for y'all:
ua-cam.com/video/EDuSc0J28ns/v-deo.html
Also, even if you do impose a speed limit, what should it be? 160 km/h?
130. The logical move would be to turn the undeniably very sensible recommendation never to exceed 130 into an obligation.
I am strictly against higher limits. Either 130, or no limit at all. Anything in between is pointless.
@@arthur_p_dent 130 is so boring slow that my brain would search for other things to do, like using the phone which is dangerous.
A 200 limit would be ok for me.
@@dr2okevin if you can't concentrate on driving when doing 130, i suggest consulting your doctor about the problem. best abstain from driving until the problem is fixed.
@@arthur_p_dent you don't understand. If the brain doesn't have much to do, it will search for other things to do. This is normal human behavior. Driving faster gives the brain more signals at the same time so the brain doesn't feel the need to do other things.
Texting while driving is very dangerous, and as slower as people drive, the more they tend to do such dangerous things.
@@dr2okevin speed limits encourage drivers to text?
Well, I would argue that whoever these drivers are, they need their licenses revoked asap. Speed limit or not.
That said, your brain is in fact doing A LOT of work while driving. Most of it it is doing subconsciously (unless you are an absolute beginner), but that doesn't mean it is idling.
Sure, if you go very fast, your body will produce adrenaline, which will increase your attention. But at the same time it will also tire you - which at some point will reduce you attention, and increase your reaction time. And this happens MUCH SOONER THAN YOU THINK. At the same time, you will have MUCH LESS TIME to react to any developing situations.
All this taken together, driving much faster than 130 will increase both your risk to get into an accident and your stress level. At the same time, it won't even save you much time. At any rate, the notion that the absence of a general speed limit makes the German autobahns safer is preposterous.
Well yes Speed limit is a heated discussion right now in Germany - its more religious then rational - but in reality its a mood discussion since we are on the way to all- electric fast. I don´t see this resolution for weapons in the US.
Just wait another 2 generations in the US. When the only people in the US are ones that had to go through active-shooter drills in school, and there is at least one elementary-school shooting massacre per decade, and _nothing_ can be done about it because the Supreme Court keeps citing the last 9 words of this "2nd Amendment" thing … Yeah, I guarantee you that this future generation of Americans is gonna go, "Well if the Supreme Court keeps using the 2nd Amendment to strike down every attempt we make to stop killing small children, then we _must_ get rid of the 2nd Amendment."
That's the direction I see things going. After I'm dead, mind you. I'm Gen-X, so we only had to do fire-drills, not mass-murder-drills in school. That makes mine one of the generations that needs to die off.
I think a general speed limit of about 160 or 180 km/h would be reasonable. I feel that whenever I'm driving at 120 or 130, my mind wanders away because it seems so mundane a speed. When you're used to more, concentration slips at that point, and that's when it get's dangerous. I'm generally not a very quick driver, but having sections where you're able to drive a bit faster (given the conditions, of course!) are good just to raise your awareness. The worst thing for concentration is to lock in the tempomat at 120 and than just cruise along and start thinking about other stuff. It's good to adjust your speed every now and then.
There is no reason for no speed limits. It's totally stupid.
Speed limits definitely make sense in more dangerous areas of the Autobahn but I really dislike the idea of a general speed limit. Clearly German streets already are very safe and most of the time people only drive between 100-150 km/h. There is a reason why German driving licenses are comparably so hard to get. And with fuel prices that high most drivers are trying to safe as much as possible anyways.In 19-15 years Combustion engine cars are going to be mostly outlawed anyways. So no reason for a speed limit for that reason as well
Wir müssen als Gesellschaft akzeptieren, dass das Leben ein einziges Risiko ist. "Es werden weniger Menschen sterben" als Totschlagargument zu benutzen ist sinnlos. Dann könnten wir auch eine Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung auf 5 km/h setzen. Das würde fast alle Verkehrstoten verhindern. Ist es sinnvoll? Natürlich nicht. Wir müssen uns als Gesellschaft nicht die Frage stellen, ob wir diese Tode und Emissionen per se verhindern wollen. Wir müssen darüber diskutieren, ob es uns Wert ist, für diese prognostizierte Reduzierung von Toten und Emissionen unsere Geschwindigkeitsfreiheit mit ihren Vorteilen zu opfern. Wir müssen mehr auf die Verhältnismäßigkeit gucken anstatt auf absolute Zahlen. Das würde sicherlich viele Emotionen aus der Debatte holen und sie wieder sachlicher werden lassen.
Does anyone else find German drivers on the Autobahn just… really bad? I see tailgating all the time, cars swerve between lanes regularly, the fast cars belonging to men with small, er, egos are aggressive and come very close.
I see the opposite in Britain when I return. The drivers there give a good amount of distance and there is rarely a speeder. There are tailgaters and men with small egos, but they are less prominent on the road.
btw also reducung the number of lorries... reduces the deathes.
It reduces deaths, saves energy, and makes everybody poorer and more miserable.
Next topic by Rewboss: Should the U.S.A., Australia and New Zealand be given back to their native populations? You can already leave your comments here.
That's rather difficult with how little is left of the native populations.
@@renerpho How does the number of people makes it difficult? That's nonsense.
@@chrisko6439 There were about 60 million people in the Americas before Europeans arrived there. 90% of them were dead within a few decades, and what remains today of the native population of North America is a fraction of that. Who do you want to give the land back to? And what's that supposed to look like, the decolonization of Africa?
The sad truth is that any such attempt would create an unstable and unsustainable country. Not to mention the problem of what to do with all the other people. When European countries gave up their colonies in Africa in the 20th century, they had always remained a tiny minority in those colonies. That's not true in either the US, Australia, or New Zealand.
If you're talking about giving back a proportional fraction of the land, you're talking about reservations. I don't think that's such a great solution.
@@chrisko6439 You really can't think of a reason why it might be unrealistic and even immoral to disown the vast majority of citizens of a country? 🤣
@@TheSandkastenverbot Lol, do you find any irony in your comment?
Introduction of speed-limit = collapse in numbers of videos about Germany in UA-cam and other social media and in the arrivals of tourists from abroad! 😂
The thing is, when speeding with a certain speed limit is in order, then people would drive at this speed no matter what.
One example not on the autobahn:
If it is snowing, people drive very slowly. But when the snowing is over, even when the road is icy, than they drive at the speed limit. That is, because the people had let others think for them. When the speed limit is 60 km/h and it isn't snowing, then it has to be okay to drive 60 km/h.
What I think is:
If there are absolutely no speed limits (nowhere), then people would have to think on their own, how fast they are driving. The problem is the time from implementing to it being normal.
The opposite thing could be seen with the first navigation systems. When people shut on the navigation, they seem to shut down their brain. I don't have another idea, why else people drove into rivers, when they had navigation on, but not if not.
On the Autobahn without a speed limit, I trust the road to be build in a way, that it would not lead me into situations where the speed is going to launch me off the road. That is not a given on other roads. Sure, if I know a road, I can drive quicker on it, but if I don't know the road, a speed limit is an indicator to me, that at this speed I will not suddenly run into some turn, where I'm too fast for it.
_"If there are absolutely no speed limits (nowhere), then people would have to think on their own, how fast they are driving."_
Do you have any idea just how many people are completely incapable of thinking on their own?!
Not having a speed limit is potentially a good idea, but only combined with specialized road infrastructure that limits what speed people are comfortable with.
In the Netherlands especially, a lot of urban streets are designed to make drivers uncomfortable when driving too fast. The rules are reinforced by the design of streets and roads.
Interesting video - I thought the Dutch speed limit was 130kph, which would make it a higher speed limit than Belgium, Ireland, Spain (120kph) or UK (70mph or approx. 110kph)
It's currently 100 km/h during the day.
@@rewboss thank you - I just looked into it. I wonder if everyone collectively raises their speed at 19:00!
In France there are two limits on all roads, the higher for dry conditions and the lower for when it is raining, which seems eminently sensible. The gendarmerie will be out in force when it is raining to catch all those drivers ignoring the lower speed limit, and there will be plenty!
@@thomasfeild8380 not collectively. A lot of people will just continue at around 100. It's a small country and you don't gain a lot by driving faster.
Does that mean that the Autobahn speed limit is to Germans what marihuana legislation is to us Dutchies? A complicated mess with unclear legal status causing massive disagreements between people and especially politicians?
Also, when looking at the road death statistics, keep in mind that while the Netherlands have the lowest speed limit because we have a very dense, complicated road network and a tiny country. Especially in the west, increasing the top speed isn't going to get you places more quickly, but it will increase the chance of accidents and cause more pollution.
And last but not least: I'm curious what the argument is for a reduced number of accidents, injuries and deaths when the speed limit is lifted. I know which side I'm on, but I've missed things before and I'm curious to learn.
I think a common argument for why no speed limit may be safer is that people focus on what's happening outside, rather than on their speedometer. I'm not sure I find it compelling, but it's an argument that people make.
Another argument that I have seen in this comment section is that going fast on an empty road at night makes you less likely to fall asleep behind the wheel.
So what's the speed limit for cars carrying trailers?
Between 80 - 100kph, depends on the trailer.
@@LS-Moto And they are often confined to the right-hand lane.
I like to call the rules that apply to the Autobahn "Schroedinger's Speed Limit". It is legal and illegal at the same time to drive faster than 130 km/h. It is complicated, but to (nearly over-) simplify it: if you go faster than 130 and nothing happens you cannot be fined for it. Go faster and be involved in an accident - even if you not caused it in the first step - and you will be partially at fault, risk your insurance and if something really bad happend and someone died you could even find yourself in court for vehicular manslaughter. So drive as fast as you like but be aware of the possible consequences. Better off though if the limit existing morally became absolute anyways.
Fazit: besser wäre eine Geschwindigkeitsgrenze, aber viel ändern würde sie auch wieder nicht. Beide Seiten können also bitte ihre vor Zorn gesträubten Nackenhaare wieder einfahren.
Edit: ich weiß, dass mein Appell genau das Gegenteil bewirkt 😁. Wenn dich so eine Kleinigkeit wütend macht, solltest du dringend mehr meditieren 🤣
I live in Spain where the speed limit on motorways is 120 km/h. I am so used to it now, that I just stick to it when I pass France (where I could go at 130) or spend my holidays in Germany. The engine sound just sounds too aggressive to me when I go over 120.
In my experience both Spain and France have the best roads for comfortable, efficient long distance travel and their limits are about right.
Deliberately driving slower than 130 may actually be dangerous on the autobahn, because you become a liability for other drivers.
"When the government imposes a speed limit on a dangerous section of autobahn, it would be foolish to lift it because there are now fewer accidents on that section... right?" There is a difference between correlation and causation. 😊Apart from that, if you sacrifice freedom for perceived safety, you are going to lose both sooner or later. Besides, the government usually doesn't reevaluate the effects of measures taken, so who cares that people have been taken their freedoms away, right? 😏 There are already temporary speed limits on the Autobahn because of perceived danger, so you imply that someone should throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak in spite of that level headed approach if I am not mistaken.🙋♂
The lack of speed limit is a nonsense. Car journeys are highly inefficient and dangerous. Next time you're on the autobahn, or any high way, for an extended period, you'll notice that it's often just the same cycle of cars overtaking each other repeatedly. One speeds up temporarily, one slows down temporarily. And broader inefficient behaviour like accelerating rapidly when a light turns green, just to have to stop in 300m for another set of traffic lights. It's all just a massive waste of fuel and ultimately more dangerous.
Your agrument makes no sense. Do you talk about Autobahns or city traffic? Yes, city traffic is the most inefficient, but the idea that you are overtaking the same cars over and over again on the Autobahn, is bulls***.
@@LS-Moto I clumsily mixed two separate points in my reply, though both are on the topic of inefficient driver behaviour.
I've driven long distances from Austria to West Germany after a holiday. Frequently, people going to the same region are traveling the same Autobahn, at the same time. I have noticed - often - the same cars just overtaking each other repeatedly, or cars who drove at a very high speed just being caught after a few KMs at the next "Stau". Watch this for behaviour if you find yourself making a similar journey. I would bet my life that introducing speed limits would have a completely negligible impact on journey times.
@@dellerbeller I drive a lot of Autobahn and I rarely go beyond 160kph. But I don't overtake the same vehicles again. Massive traffic jams happen during holiday season, but are not a regular thing, where you would be stuck for hours. I could make the same argument for city traffic. Bicycles always catch up to the vehicles again, only to be overtaken again until the next light. Should be now limit the speed of cars to bicycle speed?
@@dellerbeller if you are a driver that drives inefficiently and dangerous youll find a way to do so even with a speed limit.
It's really interesting to see how much Germany has harmed you, how much this disgusting society and the belief in prohibitions, restrictions and limitations have affected you. The good news for you is that it's going to get worse and worse. Someday soon the government will decide what you will eat for dinner and you will love it. ☺
Yea, by that logic lets set the speed limit to zero and bum no car accidents and no fuel consumption at all. Problem solved. Some people, simply dont get a good night sleep when there is something left that is not regulated yet. Freedom of the one ist just the inury of the next, so lets remove it all.
Dont forget to forbid to breathe. Breathing out makes other people sick.
you are acting like speed limits are this radical and outlandish idea, meanwhile 191 of the 193 UN countries have speed limits on the highway.
@@Lunarpenguin-d1s yes they are. I don’t get your Logic. Millions got the flu, must be good then?? Or when we take away the Freedom of a sufficiently large number of people that makes it better then ? Crazy people. Oh i got another one. I dont drive that fast. Speed Limit is ok for me. So take away only those freedoms I dont value myself. Fuck the rights of other people as long as I am not affected?
@@Lunarpenguin-d1s i dont get your point. so take away peoples freedom because others do as well? think of this: i dont have to argue why i want to keep my freedom. you need to have damn good reasons to convince me to give it up. thats how things are working, not the other way around.
I think there shouldn't be an absolute limit. The things you pointed out are true so naturally anybody driving on these sections can drive as slow as they like (as long as they're not disruptive and maintain the minimum speed). If it's about reducing co2 emissions those that want to reduce can slow down. If its about being less likely to die in case of an accident, then those that want to be safer don't need to drive as fast. Not everything has to be a law and regulated to an imagined optimum. Let people have their freedom even if it means sacrificing some other things.
I agree. Apart from that, when it comes to CO2 emissions, there are other things that way more polluting than the few people going fast on the Autobahn. I see no protest against ships going up and down various rivers, not just polluting the air, but also affecting the water quality negatively.
Speed is rarely the main problem with accidents, it's the speed difference. So going slower for your personal safety makes absolutely no sense at all. The whole idea behind a speed limit is to make everyone go at approximately the same speed, at least in the same neighbourhood (e.g. between 80 and 130km/h on the Autobahn).
Driving slower on your own isn't going to help you if someone else crashes into your car with 200 km/h. It _has_ to be regulated for it to have any effect. You can be the best driver in the world, in the end you only control your own car.
@@gymnasiast90 yeah because that happens everyday all over the place, not to mention you only encounter 1 car per several thousands km travelled on the Autobahn, that is actually going 200 kph.
yes, of course they "should", but I don't want them to...
That, my friend, sums up the debate pretty well.
Mehrere Fahrspuren pro Richtung reicht nicht! Sie müssen baulich getrennt sein! Also mindestens zwei Leitplanken oder ein Betonmäuerchen!
§ 3 Abs 2 (c) StVO: "Diese Geschwindigkeitsbeschränkung [...] gilt ferner nicht auf Straßen, die mindestens zwei durch Fahrstreifenbegrenzung (Zeichen 295) oder durch Leitlinien (Zeichen 340) markierte Fahrstreifen für jede Richtung haben."
No
Absolutely Not
A few years ago I was traveling in Austria and driving on the autobahn there. They have a speed limit of 130 km/h. It was such a relaxed ride. You didn't have to be afraid when you overtook a truck that someone would hit your trunk at 250 km/h.
maybe you should start looking before switching lanes then.
Read and think before answering. I wrote it is relaxing not to have to be worry.
If all vehicles were going more or less the same speed there are way fewer traffic jams and lesser stressed drivers. That's a profit for all.
I'm totally with you.
Greetings from Lübeck,
Marcus
@rewboss
In Italy we have the SS (Strada Statale, "State Road") 148 "Pontina", from Rome to Terracina, some 80 km down south on the Tyrrenian coast. The road is almost a long straight, but it's so badly maintained and so full of potholes/blind access ramps that it's almost guaranteed for you to have an accident. So, to both buy time for the repairs to finish and to limit the number of accidents, the speed limit on the whole road was limited from 90 to 60 km/h. *Accidents and deaths doubled and now it's known as "The most dangerous road in Italy".*
"In Italy we have the SS" That sounded weird until I continued reading
In Austria we have a part of the Bundesstraße which was used a lot for traffic to the south (Yougoslavia...) with the normal 100km/h. But there were lots of accidents. They changed it to 70km/h and forbid overtaking for a long stretch and it was much safer. Several years later they went to 80km/h and that also seems to work. By that there is nearly no (legal) reason to overtake in the first place.
Hey you could do the US way. Limit it to 115kph with wide open spaces and people die because they dozed off from the boredom of having to drive that slow for so long.
That may sound like a daft comment, but I agree with it. My ex was Austrian, so we drove to Eastern Austria, via the busy motorways of Belgium and Germany almost every summer. But one year we got an invite to friends in Stuttgart. But going from the French ports to Stuttgart mainly via the empty French toll roads was so dull that I knew we had to be careful for that reason. I have to admire long distance truck drivers.
3:40 You said that the Netherlands has the lowest speed limit on motorways. However, based on googling the general speed limit on motorways in the Netherlands is 130 km/h whereas here in Finland (and probably some other European countries too) the highest speed limit is 120 km/h.
Day-time speed limit in the Netherlands is 100 km/h.
Also: if you go way over 130 on a section without a limit and have an accident, insurance might haggle with you about how much they'll pay at all, since you consciously chose to drive at higher speeds than recommended and willingly put yourself at risk, immediately adding a huge risk that you take part in fault for the accident. This all requires you to be alive in the first place afterwards though.
Let's get speed limit and loosen gun control!
I think once the Ukraine war started the fuel savings alone should have been a reason enough to impose some kind of speed limit on all Autobahns. For comparison, here in Finland there weren't any speed limits on roads outside populated areas before the '70s. Once the '70s oil crisis hit a limit of *80* *km/h* was imposed everywhere without a prior limit in order to save on fuel. Once the crisis dissipated the limits were raised to 120 km/h at a maximum but there was no going to prior situation without limits.
There is no likelihood of car accidents. They're entirely deterministic events. Every car accident either happens or doesn't, and physics only permits one of those outcomes. You could (correctly) say that lower speed limits decrease the RATE of car accidents, if that's true (which I would expect).
Do they need speed limits?
Duuu, There suppose to, before anyone's dare-devil lives will be in danger.
Super channel! Genau über diese Sache habe ich mich aufgeregt, selbst die Polizei war dagegen, aber die Politiker müssen natürlich auch nicht die Opfer aus den Autos herausschneiden, der Vergleich mit den Waffengesetzen in den USA ist auf dem Punkt!
UA-cam keeps removing my comments.
Speed limits has another advantage too. If it makes driving times longer, it makes trains faster in comparison. So more people take public transport. Less cars, less danger around the road and that is better for the environment.
Not German trains though.
German railroad service is legendary unreliable.
😂😂😂 You've obviously never traveled with the Deutsche Bahn 😅
You know what would have a much greater effect on how many people use public transit?
_Improving the quality of service of public transit._
Invest in train infrastructure, make sure there's enough trains for everyone, make them reasonably cheap or perhaps even free. This would also mean less congestion on the Autobahn, less drivers, and safer drives in spite of the lack of a speed limit.
People feel the need to drive because the trains as they are right now are simply _not good enough._
@@theuncalledfor ❤️🚄
Germany has a carbon emission reduction act which was passed in 2019 and which states that each sector has to reduce its emissions year by year. The traffic sector didn’t reach its goal for a second year in a row now (and 2020 it probably only did because of the lockdowns).
I’m 100% sure that the general speed limit will come very soon in order to reduce the emissions. Not because the liberal party (FDP) (which is in charge of the traffic ministry) wants to do it but because they have to do it by law.
No.
Very nice explanation
If I were a politician I would suggest no speed limit at all anyway in any road.
But in the event of a fatality the surviving bad driver would spend his or her life supporting the victims’ family for 3 generations
The best and ideal was to avoid the accident, but how I don’t know 🤷♂️ so many stupid drivers out that, and gut drivers having a bad day. Distracted pedestrians looking at their phones while walking
Discussions are not real (politics is not real). The decisions are made by others. (And what does this fact tell us about the "democracy" idea?? Could it be a theater?)
Look up Thomas Gsella Rasergedicht. It's from an episode of Die Anstalt. The Episode is great but his poem really hit hard.
I am against speed limits.... in the end fuel prices will regulate the speed anyway ... new EV are usually limited to 160 kph anyway ...
PS: Dangerous driving however should be punished harshly ...
Fast driving *is* dangerous!
@@ReinhardHahn-vs2dh Differenzgeschwindigkeit!
Mit 230 LKWs überholen ist gefährlich. Aber wenn frei ist?
No. for one simple reason. There must be a country that has unlimited speed limits in order to be the control for speed limits all over the world.
I am very much for a speed limit. A LOWER limit to your speed in the left lane, in fact. If you're not doing at least 160, stay the heck out of it.
I have an opinion. Hehe