5:10 I'm studying traffic engineering and according to a class I took a year ago the statistic for deaths per million km in 2019 were as follows: Overall: 4.0 Autobahn: 1.4 Bundesstraßen (outside of towns): 5.9 The source given is the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt), but I was not able to find this statistic on my own.
The per km statistics is only telling half the story. Let's look at the data from the year 2022 BASt: Sure, car deaths are higher within cities compared to autobahn: Autobahn: 314 Within City: 881 Out-of-town (no autobahn): 1593 Total car deaths: 2788 HOWEVER compare that to the number of accidents: Autobahn: 164533 Within City: 1949115 Out-of-town (no autobahn): 550505 Total: 2664153 So while the inner city has about 12 times as many accidents as the autobahn, it has only 2.5 as many deaths. Same with Out-of Town (4 times as many accidents yet only half as many deaths) And Out-of-town has roughly a quarter of the accidents of a city, yet has twice as many deaths. It's because people drive a lot more around in the inner city (driving to work every day) compared to Autobahn. If we go by deaths per [edit] 1000 crashes, we have: Autobahn: 24 Bundesstraßen: 17 Landesstraßen: 8 Kreis-straßen: 5 Meaning that you are way more likely to get into an accident within a city. But if you have a crash on an Autobahn it is far more likely to be deadly. Kinda makes sense, right? The best way to reduce the deadliness of a crash is reducing speed (reason why inner city is so tame). If you travel at 120 compared to 160 before your crash, the difference isn't between crash or no crash. It is also about how much speed do you still have at the moment of impact. The difference between slamming into the obstacle with 40 or 80 is HUGE. Even if you don't die in both cases, you might avoid chronic health issues for the parties involved if you crash slower. And LASTLY you have to look at the economics of safety: If you can cut the inner city deaths in half that would be more desirably than cutting autobahn deaths in half. But the question is how much do you have to do in order to cut them in half? The Speed limit has a very marginal impact compared to a lot of other things we might do. And it is also not the end all be all of street safety: We introduced begleitetes Fahren because it greatly reduces accidents a few years back for example. Car safety technology is also constantly improved and being implemented. One thing that I am greatly in favor of is that you should have to retake your Führerschein from a certain age onwards. Just my two Pfennige :)
Of course motorways are far safer than other roads outside of towns. No left turns, no worrying about oncoming traffic when overtaking, no sharp curves, etc. If we want to find out how much a speed limit will be worth, the only way to actually do it would be - make a test. Limit the speed on a select Autobahn section for say 12 months and see where the accident rates go.
Really, per million? So somebody commuting to work every day for a couple of decades not using the Autobahn will cause an average of 1 death per ~170,000 km (entirely realistic in terms of distance)? That seems like a lot. Particularly since the unit referred to in the video is per billion km.
There IS a speed limit on the Autobahn: just shy of 300000km/s. If you drive faster, a physicist will have a word with you! On the other hand: They did reroute the Kaiserleikreisel in Offenbach, so - naturally, the incidence rate in Germany dropped significantly.
fun fact: if you drive towards a red traffic light with about 55,000 km/s, it will appear green due to the Doppler Effect 😆 So next time you get caught rushing a red light, use that as an excuse, maybe the speeding ticket will be cheaper than the red light one.
As Luxembourger, where I have both experienced our own 130 limit and German Autobahns, I find the intensity of this debate confusing. The big joke normally is that you cant reach over that speed on most autobahn anyway, due to either congestion or construction based temporary limits. On a lighter note, theres a joke about why Luxembourg has a limit when Germany doesnt. The joke goes that the reason for the limit is that if speeds werent restricted, people would accidentally drive through the entire country before they could hit the brakes!
And they're also often discussed very emotionally. That's another similarity. There's also one side that's thinking about what's necessary for the greater good and the community at large and the other side is concerned with what they personally want/don't want to give up and are downplaying the problem. Another similarity. Young people favour one side without much support from "the powers to be", older people (esp. older men) argue for the other side and are supported by a large and influential lobby of corporations with a financial interest in keeping things as they are.
@@e.458True, but... In only one of the countries is violence (by some, not all) threatened when serious talk about limiting said right enters the mainstream. Put another way, the attempted coups in the past few years were closer to success in one of these countries than the other.
@@Shadowguy456234 I've always found it ironic that the people in the US who proclaim the loudest that they need their guns to be able to resist a totalitarian government are typically on the side most likely to create such a government. I don't think there's an analog to that on the other side of the Atlantic.
Well no @schlman605. The Problem is that there is a comparison used which is based in the US more than 200 years old law in times when these law had a meaning. nowadays there is no wild west anymore. The Autobahn is existing for not even 100 years, back in the days when the first parts were first built the cars/trucks, weren't even able to go this fast as they can today. Guns shot back then and shot now, but the purpose of shooting has changed. So I would consider this comparison one of apples and oranges. I'm myelf a car driver and a german, I absolutely see no reason at all to go faster than maybe 140 (but the actual general speed limit I would leave open for a debate in the Bundestag). I tried myself when I was around 20 -25 (I was a weekend commuter at this time) to drive a 300 Km distance as fast as my old 1.8 liter (115 HP) Ford Escord could, always max 20 Km/h above the speed limit on the Autobahn - when there was no speed limit I was going by 200 - 220 (max speed of what my car was able to do). It actually gave me an effective difference of 15 - 30 minutes to reach my goal compared to when I was driving for an aimed speed of 140Km/h. The only big difference it made for me was just that the fuel tank was nearly empty when I went full throttle compared to around half empty when I was aiming for 140. I surely forgot the environment and the waste of sacres resources of our planet. But thats surely not interessting for the most who can affort the gasoline for driving this fast or even faster. So I came to the conclusion, that It makes not sense to go this fast for my pocket and as well for the environment and for fun there are race tracks in Germany where you can go as fast as you want on tourist events who want to drive e.g. over the Nordschleife (called "Touristenfahrten"). Here is a funny video of these for those who are interessted: ua-cam.com/video/sDtKTl1CRiU/v-deo.html The same counts for the people who start a fight on purpose in a disco if they drank a little to much - there are sport facilities where you can indulge your "hobby".
The only objection I have against the comparison of speed limit vs. gun control is, that (as far as I know) there actually is a majority in Germany that is pro speed limit. It's only a loud minority (and politicians that prefer listening to the loud instead of the many) that prevents us from doing the sensible thing. The only reason I didn't comment that on the original video was, that I'm not sure if this is not also the case with gun control in the US: A silent majority pro gun control and a loud lobbying group that is willing to sacrifice a dozen pupil or two every year for what they call "freedom".
I'm not sure if this happens where speed limits are already in force in Germany, but here in the UK it is a bugbear of mine that many motorists seem to get very impatient, and sometimes even aggressive, when they encounter somebody driving slower than the posted speed limit. The one benefit of not specifying a specific limit is that morons can't mistake the limit for an expectation. On the other hand there is a strong case against letting people drive at 90 or 100mph on a motorway. It's not just that people's tyres may not be rated to run at that speed and people's cars won't have been designed to pass crash tests based on the kinds of impact you get when cars travelling that fast crash. It's also about the balance of speed against energy efficiency. Cars are a very inefficient mode in any case, especially on long journeys when compared to coaches and, most particularly, trains. That's even more so when they're being driven fast. The additional fuel burned per minute for each additional mile per hour over, to pick an arbitrary figure, 60mph is quite a lot and it increases quite quickly the faster you go. At 100mph you need to push the engine really rather hard just to maintain that speed given the amount of wind resistance and friction you encounter, and you burn about three times as much fuel per mile travelled as you would at 60mph. Perhaps at one time this would have been regarded as the motorist's own problem if they want to waste petrol, but I wonder whether we may have reached the stage where that is a view one cannot, in general, afford to take?
Thanks a million for addressing my argument made in your short (schools at the Autobahn ;-)). While we might not entirely be aligned in this matter, I really appreciate your arguments and insights. I am a happy subscriber of your channel, exactly for this.
The fact is Germans are actually trained to drive to obtain a driving license, here in Mississippi your lucky if you get a two-week driver's course, which one week in a classroom, and one week actually driving and of course you are sharing that driving experience with three other people. At least, Mississippi has raised the age to obtain a license to drive to 16 years of age. In the 1980's I obtain my drivers permit at fourteen and my driver's license at fifteen. If I had lived on a farm, I could obtain a driver's permit at thirteen and a driver's license at Fourteen. Gone are the days.
I think there were and are some exceptions to the minmum age of 16 for people in very rural areas to be able to get to school and such things. This sounds to me like what you refer too. Even here in Germany there are very few and complicated exceptions for such situations. But it seems to apply for that you have to live like in the bavarian apls half the way up the Zugspitze, a 3 hour walk to the next street. But I heard such things from several Americans. While some jokingly said the theoretical training you have to do here in Germany qould qualify you as a car mechanic or engineer already (No of course it is not that simple, although around here for certain trades you indeed have to be a journeyman or at the very least a supervised apprentice. And even then you need additional qualifications for electric vehicles, HVAC systems, Airbags,... although those usually are obtained during aprenticeship. And I know at least in some states in the US there are to some extents comparable regulations at least for parts of that stuff as well.) Comparing it to obtaining a drivers license in the US, from what I was told it vastly differs from state to state. While in some states it seems to be like a regular high school class, in others it at first glance having to pass a simple multiple choice test for theory after some short afternoon class and for the practical exam you have to drive around for half an hour without anyone getting killed.
@@alexanderkupke920 it's not that good, you train once a week or something and during the exam you barely know anything and are just stressed. A majority fails the exam because of this awful concept. It would be better to do a theoretical exam and then have the applicant drive around with a large L for learner and then after say 6 months take an exam.
@@Reichsritter No. You don't understand. The U.S. is 50 different states and fifty different laws on a driver's license. Mississippi is VERY lax in is laws while for instance California is more strict in its' driver license requirements. Basically, as long as you can read you can get a license in Mississippi. THERE is no requirement for driver's school in Mississippi. And I will make one more observation about you Germans, you complain about everything, not realizing how good YOU actually have it. For instance, Germans complain about their train service, even though it's one of the best in the world. As opposed to having no train service at all in the U.S. You see if Mississippi had no speed limits on the Interstate's we would have 150 car pile ups EVERY day! Why you ask? Because, Mississippians would not follow the basic law of slower traffic stays in the right lane. Which by the way is now a law here in Mississippi with gigantic signs telling slower traffic to stay in the right lane. I saw a video of the Autobahn in which traffic parted in the middle to allow an ambulance get through to an accident, THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN ANYWHERE IN THE U.S., EVEN IN CALIFORNIA! Yes, in comparison to the U.S. German drivers are better trained then U.S drivers!
If you hit something above the speed of 50 km/h, generally, you're dead. - The speed at you react may be much higher, and you may have hit the breaks to slow down. It's the speed at impact. For a pedestrian or cyclist, that is max 30 km/h, which, many bicycles are capable of doing and they are doing that speed. Autobahn, with all "other" limitations it enforces, is a much safer place for travel than all other roads. - By the way, hitting the barriers at 130 km/h won't save a person. That person will most probably die of internal bleeding, suffering. Hitting the same barriers at 250 km/h would make sure an instant death is guaranteed. - At least the time of suffering is much shorter.
I'm from Italy: here we have a 130 km/h limit on most motorways, however it's normal to witness cars driving way faster than that, sometimes reaching 200 km/h. I'm not sure how they can get away with that, as many section of motorways here have devices that can detect your average speed on a stretch of road, as well as some fixed speed cameras. They could be aware of where it's possible to speed up without consequences, or they're so wealthy that they consider the fines as a part of the road toll. Anyway, nobody seems to be too concerned about this fact, and many Italian motorways, especially in the north, are straight and well designed enough to allow for similar speeds in the same way as the German ones make them possible. I think that if Germany decided to impose a similar speed limit, but didn't invest massively on speeding deterrence devices, the situation could become really similar: it could be a political decision without a big effect in the real world. Even now most people on German autobahns don't drive that fast. Also, a considerable part of the cars driving at crazy speeds on the motorways of northern Italy have Swiss or German number plates.
Those systems already exist on vast stretches of the Autobahn (e.g. rise with speed limits), but increasing it will probably be necessary. We already have speed traps on some parts of the Autobahn with temporary speed limits (digital signs that can be changed quickly if necessary).
I don't think they do get away with it. But depending on how you handle reckless driving charges, the following could apply: "If the punishment for breaking a law is a fine, it only applies to poor people."
@Heresor Possibly, but then how many "poor people" own a high-end sports car capable of 200kph plus? 🤔 Auto-generated (via surveillance cameras) speeding fines might just be 1 more efficient way of taxing the "non-poor people" than trying to squeeze their legitimate tax-share around their high-power layers and accountants! After all, you can just keep jacking up the fines until the national budget balances - or the fools start getting some brains. 🙄😁 There are now cameras being rolled out here in Oz to auto-detect and issue fines for mugs using their mobile phones while driving. The authorities expect it to be a big winner! 😉
I got what you were aiming at, and that‘s why I thought your short was spot on! 😅 Maybe I am a bit more relaxed with respect to the topic as I live (and mostly drive Autobahn) in the Rhein-Ruhr area. Where „drive“ is a relativistic attribution. To put it bluntly: We here oftentimes are happy if we are, indeed, driving - and rejoicing if this happens at 60 km/h or - beware -even faster. A speed limit (as well as the necessity of one) in this context occurs to me like a legend of old times, when one still could see there was a road underneath all those cars… at times at least.
So, basically, you're very experienced at driving at high speeds, and are therefore not likely to lose control of your vehicle. There's something like 25% more accidents on the sections of autobahn that have no speed limits versus the sections that do. This does not seem very satisfactory or efficient. (sorry, I had to 🤣)
@@peterclarke7240 "So, basically, you're very experienced at driving at high speeds, and are therefore not likely to lose control of your vehicle." - I was actually stating the absolute opposite, therefore I am somewhat confused about your answer. 😅 Fact is: In the Rhine-Ruhr-area normal daytime drivers are not used to driving at high velocities _at all_ , as "driving" means more a "diffusing from traffic jam to traffic jam"... (It's probably a bit like greater London with respect to that.) In other words... we don't actually need a speed limit here (even if most autobahns in the area actually have one), and we don't actually MIND a speed limit, as there is not speed to speak of... 🤣 Or in other words: Locals are grateful as long as their cars are rolling and not standing.
@@marge2548 We can be grateful for all the traffic jams! If they didn't exist and we could drive freely, all the cars would break apart at 80 km/h anyway because the road surfaces are so lousy.
look... as a german... (who will never drive because of a mental condition) I agree with you that the defense of the autobahn is very pridefilled. But comparing the autobahn with guncontrol is seriously lacking in substance. While superficially looking similar (national pride filled detriment to society) one is respinsible for thousands of deaths every day, while the other is responsible for 8... while also disregarding that the autobahn causes less deaths than normal streets. We can argue all day about environmental impacts. But to compare thousands of dead per day to a ~1% increase in CO2 emissions... is a bit far-fetched, don't you think? Not that it is not a discussion to be had... but those two issues are not comparable. One is factually insane, while the other one is a concern that has pros and cons, probably siding a bit on the con side!
Stereotypes implies negativity, there is nothing negative about America's internal logical consistency that having the right to defend yourself naturally comes with the right to the appropriate means to defend yourself. Gun control is just mandating pacifism by proxy. When you accept "you cannot have a gun, even to defend yourself" you are just saying that you have no right to defend yourself. Why? Because it accepts the right just doesn't apply to the most suitable implement to defend yourself. What would be suitable? Anti-gun activists do not advocate for how effective something like a bow and arrow is at defending yourself, their entire argument depends on ridiculing any non-pacifist means of defending yourself. Their only alternatives are entirely passive like ruinously expensive panic rooms which are only practical for the super-rich. Or running away. Or they insist "don't worry about it, statistically it simply is never going to happen". The UK is now enacting stricter and stricter legislation about knives. Knives. Gun rights are the canary in the coal mine to fundamental attacks on the right to defend yourself. The UK now specifically bans taking ANY preemptive measures to actively defend yourself, by any means. Sure, you can lie, but a legal protection that depends on dishonesty will only protect the dishonest.
It isn't just the roads. All those SUVs and pickups are very dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists. It isn't just a coincidence that it is called a "Ram".
@@danielcarroll3358 That and the low standard in the US for drivers licenses. But there's another factor: people in the US drive a lot more, which ofc gives them more opportunities to get involved in accidents.
@@faultier1158 Contributing factor to that is the lack of feasible alternatives to driving (mass transit, bicycle networks, pedestrian streets, etc.). So people who don't want or shouldn't drive (DUI offenders) are forced to drive, yet are more likely to be distracted (phones, books, etc.).
My car can go 240kmh and i will use this to get home quicker. Time on the road is time wasted. The Party that actually makes this law will loose 80% of their voters.
As a French living in Germany since several years, I do not think the lack of speed limit is actually much of a problem. I am part of the people who drives fast on the Autobahn. However, I do adapt my speed to traffic, and, above all, I usually drive around 200km/h with low traffic and I am almost never overtaken. Most Germans, in my experience, drive at most 160 and often 150 or less. So, I don't really know if a speed limit would change much. I would however comply to a speed limit. Also, French Highways are of much higher quality (even though a lot more expensive) compared to German ones, but I think the last time I checked, there were more accidents on French ones. Now, outside of the Autobahn, if we compare to France, where the speed limit on the most common type of road was reduced from 90 to 80 (100 here in Germany), as it should have reduced the number of accident, the pollution and traffic jams, well, it did none of this and, similarly to other countries which reduced their speed limits, it actually did not really reduce the speed at which people drove. I am all for safety, especially because I also mostly drive a motorcycle, but most studies on the impact of speed on the reduction of deaths disregard other factors, especially the technological improvements of cars. What I am for on the Autobahn, however, is adaptive speed limits in more places, because that is most definitely useful.
You are comparing way different things. From 90 down to 80 is a small difference and something I have never heard of being even proposed (and also there is no context given). Reducing it from insane speeds like 160 or 200 down to (probably) 130 is a much bigger change and deaths are ofcourse not the only relevant point.
@@xraselver7634 That is exactly why I stated "outside of Autobahn" for this part of my comment. Not all of my comment was about that. Yes, it's not the same, but some of the arguments against unrestricted Autobahn are pollution, more damage to the road and reduction in traffic jams. Pollution has little to do with speed, but rather with torque/RPMs (and weight), which from 160 to 130 in highest gear will be a limited impact. That's similar for road damage, and weight is also a factor there. Traffic jams are more complex, hence why I would be for adaptive speed limits in more places. 160 is not an insane speed (23% differential, which in this case is less than the advised differential for overtaking), especially given how cars are made today, and as I wrote, from experience, which is of course not an overall truth, but I've discuss with many Germans and they agree, most people don't drive faster than that. 200 is fast, yes, hence why you adapt your speed to traffic and don't do it in heavy traffic. Do all people adapt their speed ? No, but are the people who don't going to change that with a speed limit ? I don't know, but I doubt it. As I also wrote, I would comply with a speed limit, but there are perverse effect for having a speed limit as well. One that comes to my mind is highway hypnosis/being less focused on driving. When you drive faster, you have to stay focused. That's not even about a speed limit, but about what feels right for most people (not just me, but generally). That point is valid for any speed limit reduction. Overall, there are points against and for unrestricted Autobahns. I do personally think it won't change much overall, if anything, for safety and some other points listed above. If it does, why even stop at 130, why not 50 ? 130 was chosen decades ago, when safety features on cars were not what they are today. Again, that doesn't mean there is no point to it, but I don't think it's a simple "yes, we need speed limits".
Reducing the speed limit isn't so much about reducing the number of accidents, but reducing the severity of accidents. And you're right on your point that most Germans drive in the 150-160km/h range while only minority goes over 200. But some people driving much faster than the general traffic around them is an inherent security risk, so reducing the speed limit to something like 150km/h would already help a bit at least.
@@faultier1158 You are right about that, even roughly quadratically proportional to the speed difference. It's however not the only way to reduce the severity of accidents and the argument will later come to reduce it further (as some other countries are currently discussing going from 130 to 110), even though only the difference in speed is what matters. Again, I am not saying it is necessarily a non-sense to have a speed limit, and 150-160km/h may be a good place, but I don't think it's the miracle solution to the points which promote a speed limit, and is even inherently wrong for some of them (not yours though).
You're happy with the fact that, statistically, those sections of the autobahn that has no speed limits have 25% more accidents than sections with speed limits, and that, because of this, German motorways are twice as dangerous as those in the UK, Denmark or the Netherlands? Interesting.
If you show me proof that you even broke the speed of sound (which is comparatively a low bar) on the Autobahn, I'll support it and even buy you a beer. Just promise not to drive after drinking it, okay? 🤣
@peterclarke7240 I'd say "happy" is the wrong word. I'm "alright" with that statistic. It's the classic freedom vs security question. Are you happy that, statistically, China has a lower crime rate than Germany because of mass surveillance and a more homogeneous society?
@InfiniteSilver97 It's just a speculation based on "there could be a correlation in this country". Just like the speed limit issue. I assume you don't have any data on how a general speed limit in germany reduces accidents
It’s been said in ever comments before but still: I think you miss the (second) most important argument (besides safety) which is the huge reduction in greenhouse gas emission that we could get FOR FREE by just having everybody drive at reduced speed (reduced from full throttle that is; 130kph is still plenty fast to kill yourself)
While you discussed arguments that were made based on statistics for not introducing a speed limit, one additional factor these days got out of sight this way that would absolutely justify a speed limit. Fuel savings. While modern cars are already highly efficient compared to cars of the past (well, at least if you can afford the more expensive better equipped versions), it is no secret and we cannot hide the fact, that going 130 or 120 (or even lower) on the autobahn is way more fuel efficient than going for example 150 or above. For my car, the step from 130 to 150 already makes about a 2 l / 100 km difference. going even faster that discrepancy does rise even further, and as it seems not quite linear. Personally I think a speed limit of 130 would be absolutely ok for both reasons, fuel savings and safety. For even lower limits as some claim we need, I see the issue that speed limits even today only can be enforced to a very limited degree. It would also be easy to memorize, as it would be the same as the current recommended speed. (And around where I live, on about 95 % of the Autobahn I would love to even be able to go that fast at all). Without convincing people of the need, the lower the limit, the lower the acceptance.
Autobahn crashes and deaths could be massively reduced if truck drivers wouldn't drive until they fall asleep, jerk off while driving (oh the things you see if you take a bus tour...) or be plain old drunk to boot. A few years ago I saw a truck hit a construction vehicle. There where signs, a speed limit, cones, about 1km of free sight... Nooo, he had to crash into this thing. Basically on every commute I see trucks keeping a "safety" distance I couldn't fit my car in. At fucking 90+ km/h (thanks to tweaked limiters). Remove this problem source and accidents are cut in half, minimum.
Globalisation and the rise of online purchases have meant an increase in the number of trucks on the road, with employers sourcing the cheapest labour possible and placing unrealistic or illegal demands on their drivers. Germany is, among other things, a transit country, and there are a lot of truck drivers out there who don't know or care about German road traffic regulations and work for people who don't care about them.
@@rewboss Watching the road and not having a blood alcohol level like you've just left the village fair has nothing to do with road regulations. Same goes for not driving a rust bucket with slicks for tires and breaks at 30% power. That is basic self preservation. And don't say "these poor people can't work anything else": They could work at construction sites or as waiters. Similar pay, but no option to admire Miss Centerfold while "working".
There is no right to individual gun ownership in America, despite idiots believing to the contrary. There is a right for "the people" (collectively) to "bear" (not own) "arms" (not guns) as part of a well-regulated (state) MILITIA (again, not individually).
And in my personal opinion ( and I am not a Constitutional lawyer) these well regulated state militias are already existing. The National Guards....but, that's my opinion.
Well, it might be that that was the intention of the Constitution, but it is certainly not how it is interpreted. Your view would mean that the people in the national guards are allowed to carry guns, and no one else.
@@weksauce It does not say well regulated state militia" it says "well regulated militia". At the time of writing "well regulated" was a phrase used to describe things being in working order, militia being a group of citizens banding together. None of that matters, as that is only a justification for the second clause, "The right of the people to KEEP and bear arms" which clearly demonstrates that the purpose is for the average person to be able to have and use firearms. Adding and leaving out words to justify your poor interpretation is very dishonest.
For me, i feel the core issue with the speed limit debate isn't the logically of it. We're at a time where we collectively feel like getting pitted against each other all the time, hence i think brute forcing side issues like these just adds more fuel to the already burning fires. A lot of People feel patronized, and this debate just plays right into the Hands of Radical Groups. (Climate, Language, Gender, War, Refuges just to name some of the most heated issues right now). Imo it's a pick your Battles situation, and this is not a Hill i think we should die fighting on. There's also the Question of how feasible it really is, when it comes to speed limits they are more often than not ignored to start with unless there's a Radar Trap - and once you add those you get the whole Argument of it being just a speed tax.
And this is where I have to massively disagree. "This isn't the hill to die on" is what we call a salami tactic. You get people to give up small fights all the time, because you personally don't think this slice is important. But what happens is that more and more slices of the salami get cut off over time. To me, this is absolutely the hill to die on. The counter arguments I have are that for one, most travelers already don't drive faster than 140 km/h most of the time (and let's be honest, even with a speed limit, this would be the speed most people would be driving), and for two: It will never get reverted. If the limit is ever implemented, it will never be revoked. Even if proved completely ineffectual by actual evidence. We have seen this with the 1000 hour rule in America, and we keep seeing it everywhere. No politician wants to be the one who made road safety worse. And so I keep fighting, for if I loose, I loose forever.
@@nullplan01 ah, i think you got it slightly backwards what side I'm on. I'm all for not adding a speed limit and pushing us all apart further. As much as the Speed limit is the logical choice, pushing people right now isn't. And while i agree that "pick your battles" can lead to salami tactics, change in and off itself is better digested through these salami tactics, rather than all at once. It's how our brain works, we can only deal with so much change before we shut down. (and just to mention the statistic from someone else's comments: i think it would be way better and more sensible if people actually bothered to not drive 130 kmh on country roads which already have a speed limit of 100 kmh. Seeing that's where most the deaths and accidents are. I don't think a limit would actually do anything right now.)
sorry if I am splitting hairs, but it always triggers me. Just like "lay" and "lie" getting confused, so it is with "lose" and "loose". The first is a verb, the second is an ajdective meaning "not very tight" or "undone". So, you "lose a right to do something", but your shoe's "laces have come loose". @@nullplan01
The DIN that specifies road furniture on the Autobahnen is hopelessly out of date. Take the Leitpfosten for example. they may indicate the edges on secondary roads but placed at the side of the Standspur ( emergency parking lane??) are completely useless other than to indicate where the nearest emergency telephone is. Secondly, hardly any of the Autobahn are lit at night including intersections. Compare that to those in France, Belgium, Holland or Czech republic. Thirdly, the absence of any cats eyes either to mark the lanes or more importantly the edge of the overtaking lane where it meets the central reservation is darnright dangerous. You would think that the previously mentioned Leitpfosten may be used but no, In roadworks, temporary yellow lines are used which have priority over the permanent white lines. This is of course fine except at night when it is raining, it is very difficult to distinguish between the two! On the subject of traffic lines, there is so much inconsistency on what is laid out. You may see, for example, a sign for "no overtaking" but the lines in the middle of the road may or may not be laid out to reflect this. German contribution to road safety is to put a sign up. The latest usage is for 30kmh speed limit outside Kindergarten. This is fine of course but you must not only be aware what day of the week it is (Mon-Fri) but also the time of day when the speed restriction applies (07:00 to 16:30). In my cynisism, I maintain this is not for road safety but for the lawyers. If you do, heaven forbid, have an accident with a child involved, the law can crucify you 'cos there is a sign. I have seen in France or Holland for example, flashing lights to warn you to be careful. Germany? flashing lights are far too expensive, put up a sign and in the first few days a mobile radar trap behind the sign which will finance it.
I would like to add that improving roads is important, as is improving drivers. But there is one factor that also must be considered. If the number of road deaths in Germany has been dropping consistently since the 1970s, you are doing something that the Americans can't achieve. In the USA, road deaths have been increasing recently, after a steady decline for many years. Everything I read blames this on people replacing their (already big) cars by SUVs. So maybe the best thing Germany can do is to ban big SUVs, or at least stop the number increasing. Another American trend that the world does not need to copy.
The true reason for the fact that the number of deaths in traffic accidents has been decreasing for 50 years, are the advances that have occurred in the field of trauma surgery and medicine in general during the same period. Another decisive factor was the adoption of the security standards established for the US export control system by the (West) German car manufacturers. People who would have been killed a generation ago, now survive, but crippled.
There is also a statistical component: if the victim dies 30 days after entering the hospital, it is no longer counted as victim of a traffic accident.
I do like guns and driving fast but I also am for more strict gun laws and a general speed limit on the Autobahn. Neither having 25 assault rifles and 10k rounds nor blasting down the A31 at 260kph makes any sense, at all. Be reasonable. If you want to shoot assault rifles join the army. If you want to drive cars very fast do it at a trackday.
Logical argument, most people in America have guns. Also a fact, most Americans are not in prison for murdering someone with their guns, also a fact. If this is the case then we can conclude there either they are and hide it well which is doubtful as it takes less time to kill someone with a gun therefore this place should look like a war zone OR this means that most Americans are not killing each other with these guns and that the ones that are, are people who are willing to break the law in general wether it be guns or not. Case closed. Now....let's get to an argument that's not logical, the fact that people are even complaining about having speed limit signs in general! How are you guys not all dead over there!? If you guys drive even remotely like us here in America, I wish your numbers regarding fatalities for the future well!
I think that improvements in car design is massively influential in the reduction in road collision deaths and injuries; seat belts, crash structures, ABS, DSC all help. Road design too has improved greatly.
Speed limit on highways in most countries is stupid. 130km/h, really? Or even 110km/h in some countries? What are you driving on? Swiss cheese? Seriously. People are speeding on highways like it's nobody's bussiness and it's still safer than on a parking lot! I can agree that depending of circumstances a speed limit is wise. But also, after experiencing autobahns in Germany, people just aren't willing to drive that fast. With the technology that is common in last at least 20 years, speed limit of 200km/h on highways should be much more common across the Europe!
I'm a German with a car that needs to use one of our most used Autobahns frequently for his job, ~1h each way. I love cutting that "lost" time down as much as I can, so I experimented a little: - Going right lane (~80km/h) with the trucks, unless they're stuck in their own jam (due to not being allowed to overtake) resulted in overall worst times - Aiming for an average of 130mh/h is decent, as long as I'm able to overtake "convoys" of 100km/h drivers in the middle lane quickly - Pedal to the metal whenever possible gains almost nothing in time compared to the 2nd option, but drains my gas considerably more All things considered, times spent in traffic on Bundesstraßen and/or red lights anywhere are THE dominant factors, very closely followed by construction, no matter on which type of road. During that 1h commute, I get to exceed 130km/h for maybe 10m in total (A1/A2/A40/A42, depending on traffic, from Hamm to Bottrop/Essen). The times I DO get to go this fast, I use it to overtake "the sludge" on the next two lanes on my right. And I LOVE being able to do that as quickly as possible. (Which often goes as low as 90km/h on the leftmost lane thanks to some really "optimistic" people.) Result: I rarely even get to drive over 130. But when I do, it matters considerably. I do not think, that limiting anyone's possibility to use like 15% of the time they spend on the Autobahn to go over 130 will do ANYTHING to safety or environmental gains of anyone. Especially since this doesn't mean going 300km/h, but more realistically 160-170 tops, with the VERY rare opportunitly to push 200 for a few seconds. This is purely a political discussion on both sides, that simply doesn't matter AT ALL. Maybe, in 100 years, when all other options with a greater impact on both issues have been exhausted, we could come back to this. For the moment, this is literally energy spent badly, but not in the way the public discussion makes it out to be.
Well my experience was different. When you have a car that can only go 140 km/h and you try to overtake the lane with the 90s crowed, you will be astonished how often a rocket passes you by if you try to get on the left or suddenly is almost in your backside. Although i should mention, im living near the swiss border.....
The reason the UK has a motorway speed limit was one of the 1970s oil crises. A national speed limit was introduced as a fuel saving measure during the crisis. It wasn't introduced as a road safety measure. Prior to that UK motorways operated a regime similar to the Autobahns with no overall limit, but sometimes local ones. As happens with any 'emergency' restriction on the public, it was never totally reversed and now we have a permanent national speed limit of 70 mph.
I'm a car guy. I like cars. I like how they look, how they sound all that. Yeah I even like fast cars. however, I'm pro "Tempolimit" on Autobahn. The Autobahn is just not a racetrack, it's for commuting which is the safest on certain speeds
@@meckerhesseausfrankfurt4019 Just because it can do 450, doesn't mean you have to on public roads. Drive on a race track. My stereo system can deliver ungodly sound volume, but it's perfectly fine that I'm not allowed to do that in the middle of the night. But if you prefer, yes we can ban everything going faster than 130.
I don't think that the Autobahn is for commuting. At least that wasn't the original intention to build them. They should allow travelling long distance quicker than on other roads. Unfortunately that purpose has been neglected and now commuter traffic and freight traffic are clogging the autobahn network more and more. (typo)
@@michaelburggraf2822 The point was actually military use, just as with the US Interstate system. Both were meant to enable *the military* to move their forces around at speed.
The most important statistic to me would be what portion of fatalities falls upon the passively involved party, e.g. getting hit by a car that's going 250km/h. I genuinely don't care about people speeding and dying themselves as a result.
I agree that people who speed and then as a result end up in an accident that harms only themselves have simply *Fucked Around* and then subsequently *Found Out* and have no-one to blame but themselves, but it is definitely important to not forget the passengers they may have hurt in the process!
You don't care. A responsible government has to, that's what they are paid for. It is not the primary task of government to impose justice, whatever this is, but well-being. I hope you are not a politician, judge, teacher or anything else requiring responsibility beyond yourselves.
Passengers, especially those without control over the vehicle's speed, deserve maximum protection. Consider the implications of having your children in a car speeding at 200 km/hr. Is their safety not paramount?
6:04 This argument is in my perspective mostly irrelevant. When you drive fast, YOU consciously expose YOURSELF to danger, which is ok. On the other hand, I find the argument that CO2 emissions could be saved in this way to be much more important
No no limits, we'll reach for the sky No valley too deep, no mountain too high No no limits, won't give up the fight We do what we want and we do it with pride No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no there's no limit No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no there's no limit -2 Unlimited 🚗☁☁☁
I have guns and am for strong regulation - to the point that I would register them and allow law enforcement checking on them regularly that I keep them safe and that I in the meantime did not become a non-trustworthy menace to society by committing violent crimes, stalking or harassment - the typical precursors to gun violence. And when I lived in Germany, I did drive fast. A lot. But my car was also meticulously inspected. In Texas, where I live now, I drive to a place that drivers the car 10 yards forward, brakes, turns on the lights, honks the horn, and I get a pass. That's not even close to a check - it can be fully rotted out beneath, have only 2 brakes working, it would still pass. That's why Texas has way more deadly accidents than Germany with not even half the population.
@@Thoringer why should you have to prove that you are not a menace? Do you think of yourself as a menace? Do you really need the state to keep you from murdering somebody that badly?
It's actually quite simple: weapons are expendable for most citizens, motor vehicles are not (yet). Both don't need prohibition, but regulation so as not to pose a possible danger. But the level of regulation required is just not comparable. Apples and oranges.
Not sure if I gave an argument on your short, or if so, if it was this one: With more traffic, you are less able to drive fast. And with traffic around, it becomes illegal to drive too fast. What exactly "too fast" is, no one really knows, but you are obliged to be able to safely drive your car, without hindering and endangering others. Looking at the somewhat recent Czech Bugatti, it was a completely safe and legal thing to do. The driver was capable, so was the car. There were spotters around, to check for traffic. The only thing I would deem not really legal, is considering the law about uselessly driving around. Which by extend the driver, as well as all the spotters were doing. My point is this: You can't drive too fast in traffic, as you have to consider what the traffic is doing. In fact, with more people driving on the Autobahn, you'd reduce the ability to drive fast. Honestly, 200km/h sounds like a fair general speed limit, but everyone in favour of speed limits seems to want to go extreme, sparking an endless debate. If the debate continues like it is, I think we will have a speed limit, and it will be extreme for no reason other than being extreme to make a point.
There are so many good proposals to support alternative modes, and to make ecological improvements for the traffic sector. Here Just a few: 1. Giving local communities more control and possibilities to enforce traffic calming measures. 2. Investing broadly Into public transport. 3. Breaking Up the car privileges in favor of pedestrians and bikes. 4. Car free Zones in the inner cities. 5. Actual realistic CO-taxes on Cars and special fees for unnecessary heavy vehicles. 6. A temporary Stop and reevaluation of all new Autobahn and bigger street projects in favor of investigating more eco-firendly alternatives. 7. Cheaper Public Transport for everyone... We almost got nothing of that... Instead of that, we get a stupid backlash on the vague Idea of a tempo limit. We could implement IT with almost no costs, and it would bring a lot of additional benefits, but we don't even get this minimal improvement. So...I personally need the tempolimit to gain back just a small amount of Hope for improvements in this sector.
I think safety requirments on cars could improve as there seems to be alot of tech that is used by only the likes of Volvo, this would be helpful for reducing fatalities across all road types.
Graduating license restrictions. Works a treat in Australia. That and really solid road safety infrastructure, such as you find in the UK and all the countries in the top 5 safest countries to drive in. Car safety features are nice to have, but they're pointless if your country's drivers aren't competent or experienced enough to be driving at speed (there's a reason young male drivers are considered the worst insurance risk), and your country's road infrastructure isn't safe to begin with.
I love improvements. when it comes to autobahn I especially love the dynamic speed limits in some places. that is by far the superior solution, because sometimes even a strict general speedlimit of 100km/h is dangerous and sometimes there is no need for any limit on the same road. the problem I see with a general speedlimit is that alot of germans (normal and sane people) have a strong desire to drive fast sometimes. But when they are never allowed to do it, theyll do it whenever they want to and not when a traffic expert correctly evaluated when it's safe to do so. that problem is solved with the dynamic limits
Everytime in the discussion about a Speed Limit on the Autobahn people in favor tend to say it would improve on safety, I don´t think by much if even. Because most people drive responsibly fast and the deaths on the Autobahn which are caused by Lorries or in already limited sections would not be affected. I oppose the idea of increasing and arguably unnecessary regulation in all life matters in the name of safety without a definitive and reasonable idea of what is safe enough and why the need of additional regulation occured. Because then Speed Limits will just drop further despite improving vehicles and falling death numbers, like it is demanded by some in the case of the general Speed Limit or the sometimes proposed 80 kph on rural roads and 30kph in urban areas. And zero deaths or injuries are neither reasonable nor obtainable in my opinion. Life is inherently risky and deadly. In addition I do think a Speed Limit can be to low.People need to be challenged in the right amount to be optimal focused and concentrated, and neither be bored nor overwhelmed . That is the beauty of the Autobahn in its current state everyone can at times chose the speed which feels comfortable to them and is appropriate in the given situation.
I never drive or drove more than 130 km/h. Just because I'm not comfortable with more. A limit in this ballpark would be acceptable, -- to me. Would it save a lot of lives? Probably not. Definitely less than people dying from alcohol, cigarettes and the like. A marginal improvement (only 700 people die on the autobahn a year) cannot justify legal limitations. Reducing the speed limit there would probably save 50 lives a year at most. A lot if you are among them, probably not enough to justify a legal change which Germans would consider drastic. Other things as apparently innocuous as sugar are not forbidden. Germany suffers from a lot of overregulation, this might just be a relatively harmless security valve to release the mental pressure. The comparison to the gun laws may be more or less funny, but probably not really valid under many perspectives. You are the judge of your own style. No complaints from my side. Last but not least, that driving as fast as you want is not a constitutional right in Germany. A lot of the speed limit discussion is really ideological recently. More about C02 levels than safety. This fashion will pass with the next elections, both in Germany and in my native Austria. And that truly is a good thing. The population is not idefinitely ready to accept deindustrialisation and impoverishment. In just two to four years the government were incredibly effective in this regard.
I really love all of your profound contributions. They help us to better understand the world as it is and not to take ourselves too seriously :-). Keep up the good work 👍
Hmm, interesting point! Regarding your argument - I'd like to counter or append/correct it a bit to open it up for interpretation: "The faster you are traveling, the more likely it is to be involved in an accident" may be statistically true, meaning these two factors correlate, but the causation is different. The causation is not about "Higher speeds -> higher accident rates" but rather "the more inappropriate the speed -> higher accident rates". Simple prospect: Are you more likely to crash your car in rainy foggy weather going 80 on a country road or going 150 on a clear sunny day, without traffic, on the autobahn? Of course you are more likely to have an accident in the first condition. The conditions matter way more then anything else. The lethality portion is completely true and there is little you can do to argue against that, it's simple physics. I still stand by the idea of not regulating speed limits for two reasons: Firstly, our current approach is, in my oppinion, how most things government related should be handled. To me, it appears as "We trust you to make good decisions as a responsible adult and your ability to evaluate the situation you find yourself in". This attitude also warrents the extensive and expensive driver training we do, as it ensures everyone who passes it has the ability to judge situations and act accordingly. It warrants the expensive TÜV controls on cars every two years. It's something of a balance - we trust you to operate your machine within the limits of every situation, and we eliminated outside influences like "Bad drivers" and "badly maintained vehicles" as good as possible to make sure your assesment doesn't have to include these factors. Putting up speedlimits feels like breaking that informal contract and will call into question all these expensive and tedious processes. The second reason is that I don't trust the government on implementing anything in a competent fashion. I simply object change because I'm 100% sure they will fuck it up. I have no trust in the abilities of any elected official because they are all incompetent and corrupt idiots who couldn't make it anywhere but in politics. Therefor I'd like them to change as little as possible because that limits the damage they can do. I know, both of those points are attackable, people on here will counter them, call me stupid or find them offensive or whatever, but to me those make perfect sense. And if anyone is deathly afraid of going faster then 130 km/h on the autobahn, the good news is they don't have to. I'm full on board with improving Deutsche Bahn to the point that it becomes the superior mode of transport. Just leave the autobahn as is and make the trains better.
This discussion might benefit from the framework of the philosophy of technology: the central question of "what is a weapon?" This particularly in the area of automation in weapons as well as vehicles.
I tend to be on the side which is against a general speed limit on Autobahns. That being said, it is not unreasonable to demand one. It can prevent carbon emissions and unnecessary deaths without costing money directly. Sounds great, doesn’t it. Well, yes. But there is a tiny thing I want to mention: Banning alcohol completely would prevent more carbon emissions and way more deaths, also without costing money directly. So, if the arguments are valid to impose a speed limit, which they might, they are only more valid for a ban on alcohol. And yes, I do not really drink alcohol often and I sometimes go fast on the Autobahn, but I do consume alcohol more frequently than driving faster than 130 kph. This year I have had only one trip on the Autobahn were I really went fast - well, sort of at least. I had forgotten to remove the speed limiter for winter tyres and so my car stopped accelerating when I reached 210 kph, which was a bit annoying. Alcoholic beverages I have consumed three times this year - and I have never been drunk in my life and do not think I ever will be, nor have I caused a crash at high speed or on the Autobahn.
some things that are arguably more dangerous than speed: - people who tailgate - people switching lanes without looking and or not accelerating to match the speeds of the lane they are merging into - Elefantenrennen (aka a truck trying to over take another truck and since they are so slow block and entire lane) - people not matching the speed of cars in their own lane - people looking at their phones while driving people going fast on the autobahn isn't inherently dangerous as long as they do it responsibly, if nobody is around for miles then why not allow someone to go as fast as their car allows it?
You'd have a good point, if most of these were legal. Driving 200+km/h is dangerous and legal, we aim to make it dangerous and illegal, like your points currently are. Except trucks blocking 2 lanes, I am unsure if its illegal or just annoying.
From a viewer in the US, I cannot speak to the Autobahn, but people are almost always on their phones. I would say I see 25% of drivers looking at their phone or glancing at it at some point. I am really good about not doing this and actually get people annoyed when I do not answer texts when I am driving. It seems like it is a given that people just do it and it is fine. I would almost venture to think that the slower the speed limit, the more likely someone will look at their phone. Additionally, the more they look at their phone, the more likely they will be in an accident due to traffic passing through their lane (or stopping) because that is more common on lower speed limit streets. Only a guess on my part though from my experience.
@Tudsamfa Driving 200km/h+ is not inherently dangerous. Driving at dangerous speeds however is illegal in germany. It doesn't matter if those things are legal, people do them anyway. If anything, you're proving the point that making things illegal doesn't stop people from doing them.
Yes - fun fact: Most accidents on the Autobahn don't happen at very high speeds but at the end of traffic jams and in construction sites. Deadly high speed accidents on parts with no speed limit are actually rather rare. At the end studies found only very few such accidents on unrestricted Autobahns. And then to stay in the comparison to guns - we are talking about aorund 10-15 deaths per year that might be (emphasis on might) related to this (with a total of just over 300 death in total on the Autobahn in total) - compared to around 50.000 gun related deaths in the US. I mean the sheer number should show how dumb the comparison gun law vs. no speed limit on Autobahns is. The only "valid" argument for a speed limit could be a reduction in CO2 emissions by like 0,3% on the total amount of CO2 from Germany with its total of 1,8% ot the worlds CO2 emissions - or in other word - shutting down any one coal driven power plant in Germany will bring several time the amount of savings in CO2 emissions.
Full disclosure I am for a speed limit generally, so keep that in mind while reading my comment. Nonetheless I think the biggest issue with the speed limit is the political gravitas we prescribe to it. I (anecdotally) know a number of people who in most other fields of policy hold a generally center left position, however they are massively against a speed limit, and they start focusing so much on that point that they ultimately vote for parties that have less in common with their other believes just to not have to drive 130km/h on the Autobahn. ( I doubt that the other way round exists and if so in much lower numbers but maybe they do) Long story short, I think that the speed limit issue is ridiculously minute in any case and it’s ultimately terrible for our civic discourse that it has this high importance for people either way round. We should vote because of economic policies, foreign policies and judicial policies. Not this crap imo 🤷
Speed limit and gun control only would be beneficial for the masses of citizens. And speed limit regulation, would nearly not cost anything, as you only would have to change the law, and replace the signs at the borders. Less traffic jams, faster average speed, less heavy accidents, less polution, less use of fuel. But at the same time, the main argument is always "There will be no freedom anymore, if this wouldn't be available!" You know, unlimited speed or free guns are the only differences, that are the difference to the limited "freedom" in countries like North Korea. No one talks about the real one and only argument: "The manufacturers will sell less!" They would sell less guns or why would you buy a Porsche, if you could only drive top speed on the Nürburgring?
It’s an interesting discussion - I’ve only driven once on an autobahn in Germany - in a hire Opel Meriva about 15 years ago. It’s a different way of driving but it didn’t feel unsafe. With the improvements to car safety as well as the adaptive cruise controls / car radar etc, these may be sufficient to mitigate against some / most severe accidents on the autobahns?
And the higher you exceed 130 on the Autobahn the higher your share in partial fault and the lower your insurance coverage. Schroedinger's speed limit so to say.
5:00 But in other countries the relation of highway driving to all driving must be very similar. So if we're talking about AUTOBAHN speed limits specifically, this is irrelevant.
Not at all. Some countries have a very dense network of express highways (the Netherlands, for example), and others have very few express highways (e.g. Romania), so the proportions are going to be very different. If you look at the figures per kilometre of highway, Germany actually performs slightly worse than average. There are many different ways of measuring accident rates, and each way gives you slightly different results.
Having just gone to Finland... I was thankful that the speed limit on the icy and snowy roads up in northerly Finland are just 60 or 80 km... can be quite treacherous with moose venturing about and the visibility is so low. But Germany and winter weather? 😅😮
Reason why motorways are the safest is not (necessarily) because of speed but there are barriers that should stop cars from having a head on collision or other danger spots and the fact that pedestrians and cyclists are normally not allowed on it. Left turns (or right turns for UK, Ireland, Japan and left drive lands) and U turns cannot be done and the fact that you only join a motorway via a slip road so you will try to match the speed of the road instead of going from 0 to 100/60. There are also usually safe places if you break down (hard shoulder) and not gat in the way of traffic.
@@Mishima505 From my own observation that is not true, at least not in the west of the country (where I drive). Most drive between 100 and 115, yes too fast, but far less than 130.
Well, the US has gun control (there are guns legally available in the EU which are illegal on the other side of the Atlantic), they just do it very badly and they don't know how to target guns already in the hands of criminals, which is a thing European police forces are usually able to do. Another thing to consider is going on the autobahn is usually a choice, so you know you are going on a road with people running fast, and the fact favouring every time safety over freedom is not a good thing (and if we reason as the average "why don't America just ban guns" we should go back to the times of horses to stop road deaths).
I don't care for a speed limit. However, I wish there was a better way to punish pushy drivers. I tend to drive a little slower (because I'm new to driving). If I drive 85 km/h on a Bundesstraße, there should be a device that measures the distance to the car behind me because people often drive 1.5m behind me, so there is no way of avoiding an accident if I need to stop suddenly. (Besides that, it makes the driver in front (me) nervous and more likely to drive faster than they are actually capable of)
If you just got your license you should know that driving to slow is also illigal. And 15km/h below the speed limit is to slow. If you don't want to speed up I suggest you stick behind a truck (take care to leave a big enough gap so you retain awarness) and drive behind it at its usual speed of 80-90km/h people will suddenly care much less, just drive a bit more to the right once they are behind you so they know you do not want to overtake the truck.
@@AlphaHorst you should know that not everywhere is 100km allowed or reasonable. I drive slowly if the road is curvy af and many others do to. But there is always that guy that feels like he needs to drive the maximum possible speed regardless of the road.
@pinkmuffin9842 with that I agree. But limiting possibility for all to punish the few is stupid. The one who go 140km/h on a serpentine will also go 140km/h on it even if the speedll limit was set at 60 or 80. Removal of insurance coverage past 130 is already the biggest reason to slow down, far more so than speed limits or speed cams. And people who forfeit their insurance (which for such an accident would be between 10k and millions of euros) by driving recklessly would do the same even with speed limits and speed cams. The vast majority drives with open eyes and chastises bad and or dangerous driving with the harshest words. And comparing the issue with guncontrol in the US is just blind to reality. To make the two comparable we would need to get rid of 90% of traffic laws as well as the entire process of training drivers as well as the process of obtaining a licence. I am however an advocate of a law which would require you to repeat part of your drivers training every 10 or 20 years. (The biggest issue with that is the costs. Those should be 0 for such a repeat test) I am of the opinion that teaching is better than punishment. But the latter ofcourse needs to exist. All of that I say as someone who does not own a car and only drives 4 to 5 times a year mostly long distance (300km or more)
Just because you quote a number doesn't mean you've proven your point. You need to make sure that the statistics you've chosen _are answering the question you're asking._ This is what Rewboss is pointing out here at 5:22 - "total number of accidents" isn't very useful, as it scrambles in different kinds of roads, population density in the region travelled, severity of accidents, number of drivers a country has, skill level of each of those drivers … makes it difficult to compare between countries. This is why he's talking about "accidents/miles_driven". That number will _still_ scramble together a bunch-o-stuff, but it _is_ eliminating the difference between number of drivers a country has as well as the population density in the region travelled. Be careful with numbers, you can trick yourself into thinking you're right, when all you've really done is shout, "Purple," in response to a question. 😉
I'm disappointed that you didn't use the German word for "speed limit" or use my favourite German phrase, which uses the two German words that are, apparently, the most difficult to say: _Mein Eichhörnchen hat eine Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung_
I think the comparison works to a point but considering the potential number of saved lives differ a lot between the issue, one should not take it too far IMO. That being said, the savings in road maintenance alone probably justify a speed limit.
As a german, not having speed limits leads to statistically more traffic deaths, higher co2 emissions, higher fuel costs and less freely flowing traffic (because a more homogenous travel speed leads to more smoothly flowing traffic, that leads to less traffic jams and therefore shorter travel times), so we should ditch this practice, reaping all those benefits that come with speed limitations is basically for free and we are idiotic for not taking it.
My personal experience is, people with a fast car provided by the company they work for, with free unlimited gas, are against a speed limit, while everyone having to pay that by themself is basically not driving that fast anyway but annoyed by the first group and therefore pro speed limit, just to get rid of the suddenly appearing cars with flashing lights in their back-mirror.
Thanks for this video. I did not comment, but I disliked the video where you compared the gun laws in the US to the speed limit laws in Germany. The reason I felt that way is because I think that other countries, especially those in Europe, do not understand WHY we have the right to bear arms and why it is important. I think that this is why it is not equivalent and, in my opinion, shows ignorance on the part of anyone who would make such a comparison. If anyone wishes to disagree, I invite them to state their point in a comment to mine but please keep it civil as I will have an open mind. I had to give this video a like though. It was a big boy move to admit this in a video and state your ignorance to gun laws as to why you felt such a comparison is valid. Not enough people admit this these days and I respect you more for it, even if we don't always agree. I guess now I won't be unsubscribing after all. A quick point about speed limits though: I think a bigger issue is that at slower speeds, people feel more inclined to pull out their phone. I doubt many folks are buzzing along on the Autobahn scrolling TikTok while travelling near their max speed. Though I live in the US, I do drive a manual and like that it gives me a good excuse and something to do when, and I swear this happens all the time, someone asks why I did not answer their message or something while I was driving! Like it is a totally normal thing people expect you to do while driving...
I just read that the Consitutions was meant to let civilians bear arms only in militia that are well organised (posses or national guard) and that the current interpretation of the freedom to bear arms is a misinterpretation. I am not American, so I am a bit confused about that. As far as the European point of view, the state has the monopoly on violence. It may do everything to keep that monopoly. However, it is not forbidden to have arms for sport or recration. But the state will check your criminal record, your private situation, your mental state and your intentions and watch you as a hawk seeing a mouse.
@@ronaldderooij1774 The constitution of the United States says "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." This reads to me as the purpose of the to bear arms is to participate in a well regulated militia. It does not state that being in a militia is the reason to bear arms, but a primary reason. Aside from governmental tyranny, I think the culture here in the US is more so that of self reliance. We don't want to depend on the government, nor do we trust the government, to take care of our safety. The saying "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" applies as well. It was also ruled in court, after the police were sued for not taking more action in a school shooting, that the police have no requirement to put themselves in harms way to protect other citizens. This proves to many of us here in the US that we are the ones required to shoulder the responsibility of our own safety. People think that banning what they consider "assault weapons" makes sense because nobody should ever need one and due to some mass shooting that occurred with one. Those who believe in gun rights know that only the law abiding citizens who follow such laws of banning guns would therefore be the only ones left with less defense. We would instead say something like "Look at those bad guys with those scary assault weapons. To be the most effective in defending myself and my community, I should consider getting one too."
I don't really care how fast people drive on motorways etc. they're designed for high speeds, and there are no other users. I do think the EU needs to do more to distinguish between streets and roads though, and in built up areas there should be a 30km/h limit on streets. It's not a number I plucked from the air, at 30 there's a 90-95% chance of surviving after being hit by a car or a truck. It drops to 50% at 50km and then off a cliff. I don't think putting the convenience of drivers ahead of safety for pedestrians and cyclists is morally justified. This is actually being implemented in a few cities like London, and it's deeply unpopular... and I actually blame the green movement for this, they plugged it as an environmental issue when it's a safety issue. That just irked people, especially as more and more people drive electric cars and think that this law is just to inconvenience them (which it is, I guess, but not because of some nefarious globalist elite).
I've learned that with the way people are today, you cannot compare to _CONCEPTS_ . You have to take into account each and every single detail that anyone who could possibly oppose you could think of, and tailor your statements to that. Even if the color of the sky doesn't matter, you're *wrong* for not including it. You'll get absolutely nowhere with these people, and these people will get in the way of the others who are able to actually make such simple connections between _concepts_ . I think some of it comes down to everyone _needing_ to be in some position of correctness, so they _must_ include details which turn the argument in their favor. There can never be generic any longer. It has to be biased one way or the other from the very start.
It's importand to say: The debate is not only about safty but also about contribute limiting the effects of the climate catasrophy. And about getting treffic smoother, as a speed limit gernally helps, when DeltaV is smaller the number of traffic jams is gernally smaller. (While contruction sides, intersections etc have a negative impact)
Statistics about deaths on highways per billion vehicle kilometers in different countries can be found by searching motorway_deaths_per_billion_vehicle_kilometers
The problem with limiting speeds in Autobahnen is the same as prohibiting people from drinking alcohol. They'll find a way, sometimes even more riskier, to get what they want. With firearms and tobacco, it's more likely to kill yourself than killing others, most of the time. The ban on cigarettes in New Zealand is bound to fail, even NZ being an island. Because, people.
The argument that cars, unlike guns, are not designed to kill is pretty laughable in my opinion when you consider that, even in the USA, not even half as many people die from car accidents than due to murder with guns. Knives, drugs, fire and explosives are not designed to kill people either, but overall they do it much more frequently than any gun. Not even most poisons were designed to kill humans, not to mention nuclear energy or greenhouse gases. Keep in mind, both (car related and gun related deaths in the united states) are about 40 to 50 thousand a year, but over 50% of gun related deaths are suicides that could not be prevented with weapon bans since the suicide rate in the USA is actually lower than in most western countries like germany which simply chose different alternatives. No, im not saying that 20 thousand murder victims are not worth restrictions of firearms. Thats a whole different argument and much more valid than the car one, yet a great argument to slow down cars as long as people die because of it aswell. By the way; most people saying to slow down traffic rightfully argue with the limitation of CO2 which is a demand of scientists, and not advocates for road safety.
This sort of debate always gets people resorting to emotional responses based around their beliefs, rather than the facts or statistics, which is probably why people end up resorting to what I will diplomatically refer to as "stupid, selfish excuses." 🤣 Personally, I have no particular issue with guns or autobahn, but I believe sensible moderation is key. The lack of speed limits on autobahn, and higher speed limits in general, means car manufacturers have little reason to not produce cars capable of speeds that are completely unnecessary unless you're in a race, in much the same way the lack of gun ownership restrictions encourage the gun industry to flood the market with weapons that are completely unnecessary unless you're fighting a war. And, unfortunately, the easier you make it for people to kill themselves or others, the more frequently this will occur, despite the gun or car nuts loudly saying "but *I've* never killed anyone!" as though that somehow changes the figures. I feel like people might want to reflect on the *fact* that the leading cause of death for children under 14 in the US is gunshot wounds, and that's even during a global pandemic, as well as the *fact* that British roads are much safer than German roads. For SHAME, Germany! 🤣
I think the gun comparison makes sense. Not that guns and cars are comparable, but clinging to some outdated regulation - or lack thereof - because of some sort of weird notion of "freedom" is comparable.
Very good video! In Hamburg, there are a lot of people driving terribly bad or superfast. This can be because of existence of autobahns, as drivers get used to drive crazy. Worth saying, that cars in general are killing a lot of people indirectly because of the pollution they create and because of lack of pedestrian infrastructure, public transport, and bike lanes (all these potential places are replaces by car roads). In the latter case, a person using a bike would live longer just because of regular exercises (see how healthy is the Dutch or the Danish population), while sitting in a car and breathing smoke makes life shorter.
True. But then the country would have an even greater preponderance of the elderly as a drain on the economy. Far better surely to have all those chimneys pumping out the smoke and reducing the drain on resources? 🤔
Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass eben Leidenschaft für dieses Thema, aber auch jedes anderes, das mit Risiken verbunden ist, von den jeweiligen Fan-Gruppen verteidigt wird. Dies ziehen sehr viel positives aus dem Thema. Und ich hätte ein Riesenproblem damit wenn mein Lieblingsthema gesellschaftlich ein Problem darstellt. Und hier gibt es halt den Spruch die Freiheit geht zur Freiheit des nächsten, halte ich für wichtig. In beiden Richtungen. Und ich glaube, das Mann prüfen muß, wem nützt eine Regel am meisten, wo können wir die meiste Freiheit schaffen. Es gibt z.b. auch die Argumentation das der Verkehr besser fließen würde. Wenn dies stimmt, wäre ich für ein Tempolimit. Aber müsste man schauen. Den Vergleich mit den Waffengesetzen fand ich aber auch unpassend. Hier ist die Waage sehr eindeutig. Z.b. wenn Schulen wie Gefängnisse aussehen.
Das mit Schulen-wie-Gefängnisse hat mehr als nur die Waffenprobleme. Da ist zB die Idee bei vielen Lehrern (und auch bei vielen Eltern), dass die Schüler da Disziplin haben müssen, dass der Lehrer recht hat, auch wenn er Unrecht hat, und nicht in Frage gestellt werden darf, da ist der Fahneneid, und eine Menge ähnlicher Ideen, die in unseren Schulen nahezu undenkbar wären.
Speed limits are wrong. As are ALL arbitrary "risk" based prohibitions. The only non-arbitrary way to prohibit driving beyond certain speeds, driving beyond certain BACs, etc is to, government-wide, declare the acceptable risk level, in some kind of units. Then, find out the best-predictive function for risk level of EVERYTHING, and prohibit EVERYTHING where the predicted risk level exceeds the acceptable risk level, and allow EVERYTHING where the predicted risk level is below the acceptable risk level.
I agree. Problem is, that risk is not only a mathematical figure, but also a human perception (equally valid, and thus political). Besides that, it would take a never seen before bureaucracy and amount of control to get the data from all the risks in life. Finally setting a limit on risk is also inherently political.
@@ronaldderooij1774 Risk is entirely an agent's perception. Risk isn't mathematical. Risk isn't real. That's why I wrote it in quotes. Probability, risk, expectation all exist in agents' minds, not in reality. The universe is deterministic, not probabilistic. "get the data from all the risks in life" This is nonsense. There is no data. There are no risks in life. Everything is certain. Uncertainty only exists in finite agents' minds. You're either going to get hurt, die, collide, or you're not, and it's all determined by physical causes and effects. It would take a tiny sliver of the existing bureaucracy to quantify the risks as best we can for the existing stuff we "want" to prohibit, like: drunk driving, "too fast" driving, "too young" fucking, "too young" driving, "too young" smoking, "too young" drinking, "too young" voting, etc. "Finally setting a limit on risk is also inherently political." No, it is not, but it would be set politically. And, at least then, it wouldn't be arbitrary. The problem with existing laws is that they're unjust because they're arbitrary. At least if a behavior or choice was quantifiably above some threshold of risk, the prohibition against it wouldn't be arbitrary. I much rather have it be prohibited because it's "too risky" according to our best estimates and the arbitrary process of democracy setting the threshold that determines what's "too risky" than be told I can't drive over a specific-but-arbitrary BAC, a specific-but-arbitrary speed, vote under a specific-but-arbitrary age, all of which AREN'T democratically (politically) determined.
If we there are convincing data pro speed limit and convincing data against it, then we should just try for two years a general speed limit if, let's say 130 km/h and see how it turns out. When the number of accidents significantly drops, then we'll keep it. If not then let the speed limit go away.
But then there's still the fact that a speed limit can seriously help with reducing CO2 emissions, which we need to do fast if we don't want to destroy our own habitats. High speeds also destroy road surfaces more quickly (as do unnecessarily heavy vehicles - I'm looking at you, SUV drivers) which means more annoying construction sites, more taxpayer money being wasted that could be invested in improving public transport, plus (road) construction itself means another increase in CO2 emissions.
@@sebastiangeorge7714 The areas where it had to be removed show the stupidity of our current regulations. There were sections with a speed limit because of a high number of accidents, and when the accidents disappeared as a speed limit was imposed, the speed limit had to be lifted again. This is insanity.
I live in Germany since 2011, got my driver license in 2017 and I drive every day to work using Autobahn and I share the same sentiment as yours. The limitless portions of the Autobahn are really scary to drive on especially when you are sharing the road with sport car drivers who would like to show us through dangerously high speed and loud revving that we (peasants) made a horrible choice in our lives by driving normal cars. It becomes even worse with cars that hold non German number plates (Autobahn-tourists..... I believe they are called that) who want to experience freedom of extreme speed.
There's a study commissioned by a pro speed limit activists which estimated a general speed limit on the Autobahn could save about 80 lives per year. That's similar to half a year of our average decline of traffic related deaths over the past two decades. I'd much rather like to see some more intersections replaced with roundabouts and rely on better safety engineering than to miss the freie Fahrt für freie Bürger.
But this is exactly the kind of argument I was critiquing in my original Short: you acknowledge that lives can be saved by imposing a general speed limit, but still oppose a general speed limit purely on the grounds that you personally want to be allowed to drive fast.
@@rewboss Life is inherently dangerous and it gets dull and boring if you attempt to minimize risk of death by all means necessary everywhere. It's a balancing act to decide where you want to take risks in your life and it's up to society to restrict your decision space. I caution against the latter here though. I understand the freedom of being allowed to drive fast isn't valuable to you, but it is to me and many others. There's no shortage of potentially deadly activities and I consider many of them silly, while others enjoy them. I think in general we're better off to tolerate each others behavior, even if we consider it to be irresponsible ourselves, unless they really fall out of line. I don't think that's the case for a driving fast on the Autobahn though. As far as I'm concerned Tempolimit is an emotionally charged topic, which gets far more attention than it deserves. 33,000 deadly accidents happen in Germany each year. Engineers, lawyers, civil servants and many more continuously work on reducing the number of accident with great success and without infringing on the right of their fellow men. I guess it's hard to get passionate about the friction coefficients of bathtubs and safety/transport engineering though. Leben und leben lassen!
I find that drivers are nicer and behave better on unrestricted sections of the autobahn than on restricted sections. And mostly for that reason I'd be kind of sad if they were all restricted. To me (a Brit), it's one of Germany's distinctive features that makes it stand out from other countries. However, although I don't find the safety argument particularly compelling, I find it hard to reject the environmental case for limits.
The reason we need a general speed limit in Germany is related to the environment and has nothing to do with road safety. Road safety has nothing to do with anything in Germany, witness the refusal to separate the green cycles of cars and all other traffic at junctions. The car is sacred, we spend gazillions of euros in making roads and bridges for cars, we accept that a bit of metal can block half a street where instead children could be playing or (if you add it all up) people could be living in affordable houses. (Just for funsies, check how much room is wasted in Munich for car parking, both in open areas, car parks and on the streets, and then consider how much housing you could build there instead.) Anyway, I digress; TLDR: Nobody really cares about road safety.
Yet the thing is, there's more CO2 and other pollutants to save in different sectors, like power production. Autobahn travel is a miniscule part of the overall car usage in Germany, even less of it is in parts without a speed limit and even fewer actually drive faster than 140km/h. While I am kinda on both sides here (for and against a limit), I don't think that it's an effective way to reduce our CO2 output. Oh, and about my opinion on the speedlimits: I'm of the opinion that speed shouldn't be just a set ammount with dumb road signs, but the Autobahn should be divided into more segments with more signal bridges that regulate the speed limit constantly and more flexible depending on traffic, weather and possible accidents. I see no reason in driving 80km/h at night in a construction site without anyone working there, 100 should be ok depending on the remaining track width. There are already semi-smart signs that tell you ti drive a certain speed during certain hours or in rain, but either the people are too dumb to read signs correctly or it's just too confusing for many, a simple, changing limit without any modifyers underneath should be more clearly.
But that's exactly why we don't need a speed limit. Most electric cars already come with much lower maximum speeds. VW limits cars to, I believe, 160 km/h. Even Tesla went down to 200 km/h. Sooner or later, we'll all be driving electric cars with green energy from solar or wind. There's no advantage with or without the speed limit for the environment. You talk about Munich. Yes, I can see there's a problem with cars in big cities. That's something these cities need to figure out an appropriate solution for. Outside of these big cities, having a car is a necessity, and driving reasonably fast is our way of getting around as fast as you would in Munich with public transport. A real solution where everyone would benefit would be to set a maximum speed for diesel and gasoline cars. But keep the unlimited speed for electric cars. This would force even the fiercest petrolhead to switch to an electric car.
If we know that the Autobahn is 4 times safer* than Bundesstraßen (federal out-of town roads), then getting people to use Autobahn routes instead of Bundesstraßen could be a benefit in itself. Any kilometer saved on out-of-town roads is well compensated for by going 4 extra kilometers or less on the Autobahn. How do we get more people to switch to Autobahn routes? Higher speed limits on the Autobahn is one way. Conversely, lowering the speed limit on the Autobahn could even lead to an overall increase in road deaths. Lower speed limits on Bundesstraßen (and inner city roads) would be another way, and it would have the added benefit of also _directly_ lowering the deaths occurring there. Mathematically, it would be ideal (purely death-wise) if 4km on the Autobahn would take the same time as going 1km on a Bundesstraße. That would be a speed limit of 400km/h on the Autobahn (effectively unlimited), or 120km/h on Autobahn and 30km/h on Bundesstraßen. Of course, we won't have to limit Bundesstraßen all the way to 30km/h, because any decrease in speed also leads to an imporovement in the safety statistics that these calculations are based on. In my opinion, most of the Bundesstraßen that you are allowed to drive 100km/h on are _much_ scarier at that speed than the Autobahn is at 150km/h. So why not reduce the Bundesstraßen to 80km/h too? Also, I wonder how many of the people that hang in behind a truck and drive 80km/h on the Autobahn (we all have seen them) avoid Bundesstraßen, because they would feel pressured to actually drive FASTER on them than they do on the Autobahn? Talk about perverted incentives. Cutting autobahn speeds from 150km/h to 120km/h would reduce emissions by roughly 50%, and if we decreased Bundesstraßen from 100km/h to 80km/h we would cut 40% of the emissions generated on them. Maybe decreasing Autobahn speeds to 140km/h and Bundesstraßen to 90km/h (except those section that are explicitly deemed safe enough to have a 100km/h or 120km/h sign) would be a more balanced way to go about things. *see pinned comment by felixw19.
There is barely any time gained by increasing speed. Even the contrary, as with higher speed, the capacity of the Autobahn decreases rapidly (more congestion). If you think about that, it is logical. With increased speed, the reaction and braking distances increase exponentially, so every car needs a lot more road space. The optimum lies around 70 km/h.
I'm a traffic engineer. Of course we should have a speed limit on autobahns. But it is even more crazy you're allowed to drive 100km/h on country roads.
Yes, agreed. And it especially drives me crazy, if it's only for short stretches of road. Where I live (Cologne area), there aren't very many long stretches of road, where you can drive undisturbed. Between roundabouts, construction sites, villages and narrow bends in the road, there's really no point in ever accelerating to 100km/h. But it's allowed for short stretches of sometimes less than 1km all the time and people get batshit crazy, if you just keep driving at 70km/h. I mean, I'm sorry, but I'm not wasting fuel by pushing my vehicle to that speed, just to decelerate to 30km/h for a roundabout, that I know is coming in a minute or two.
I'm fully for a Speed limit, but I'm also one of the few Germans who dont consider the car as an extension of themselves. I know car culture is an international problem, but it is the reason why speed limits on the autobahn feels like a personal attack for most people.
Well, describing some else's hobby as an international problem is a bit antagonistic. Makes one wonder why others might consider your line of reasoning a personal attack ;)? But let me tell you a little-known secret: You DON'T HAVE TO drive fast.
@@meckerhesseausfrankfurt4019 Do you know what car culture is? Here's one definition: "a society built around private modes of transportation, but with massive public investment in the infrastructure that allows those private uses" It is not (just) your hobby, I am criticizing our public subsidies to car owners, which are better spend on public transportation.
@@Tudsamfa Which doesn't really apply to Germany. The German state takes in 30 billion in gas taxes, but spends 12 billion on roads. If anything at all German car drivers are paying for what they use. Which is fine. I'm all for adequately high gas prices. Which do WAY more for the environment than speed limits, which have negligable effect. But nice try, conflating American car culture with a different reality in Germany. So when you are both antagonistic and ill-informed and talking in generalities that don't apply to your conversation partner, you should not complain that others might consider it a personal attack.
"The faster you are travelling the more likely it is that you will be involved in a road traffic accident." Is that per km or per minute? (Just being devil's advocate here 🙂)
You forgot one important aspect: climate change. CO₂ emissions rise exponentially with speed. Germany could save tons of CO₂ emissions by imposing a national speed limit. With car traffic being one of the worst climate offenders and all traffic sector measures being woefully insufficient to reach Germany’s climate treaty obligations, a national speed limit - which would yield significant CO₂ savings at essentially zero cost - should be a no-brainer. Furthermore, a strong majority of Germans is in favor of a (reasonable) national speed limit, say, 130 km/h. The ONLY reason we don’t have one is a fanatical, irrational minority - not unlike the fanatical, irrational gun lobby in the 🇺🇸. Speed limits and gun control save many lives. Not having them only provides tiny subsets of the population with some measure of “fun.” Again, in a rational public discourse, both questions should have been long settled.
5:10 I'm studying traffic engineering and according to a class I took a year ago the statistic for deaths per million km in 2019 were as follows:
Overall: 4.0
Autobahn: 1.4
Bundesstraßen (outside of towns): 5.9
The source given is the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt), but I was not able to find this statistic on my own.
Thank you. Any chance that can be broken down by category of road user (car, motorcycle, cyclist, pedestrian, etc)?
@@rewboss no, the only data I have for the category of road users are absolute numbers
The per km statistics is only telling half the story. Let's look at the data from the year 2022 BASt:
Sure, car deaths are higher within cities compared to autobahn:
Autobahn: 314
Within City: 881
Out-of-town (no autobahn): 1593
Total car deaths: 2788
HOWEVER compare that to the number of accidents:
Autobahn: 164533
Within City: 1949115
Out-of-town (no autobahn): 550505
Total: 2664153
So while the inner city has about 12 times as many accidents as the autobahn, it has only 2.5 as many deaths.
Same with Out-of Town (4 times as many accidents yet only half as many deaths)
And Out-of-town has roughly a quarter of the accidents of a city, yet has twice as many deaths.
It's because people drive a lot more around in the inner city (driving to work every day) compared to Autobahn.
If we go by deaths per [edit] 1000 crashes, we have:
Autobahn: 24
Bundesstraßen: 17
Landesstraßen: 8
Kreis-straßen: 5
Meaning that you are way more likely to get into an accident within a city.
But if you have a crash on an Autobahn it is far more likely to be deadly. Kinda makes sense, right?
The best way to reduce the deadliness of a crash is reducing speed (reason why inner city is so tame).
If you travel at 120 compared to 160 before your crash, the difference isn't between crash or no crash.
It is also about how much speed do you still have at the moment of impact.
The difference between slamming into the obstacle with 40 or 80 is HUGE.
Even if you don't die in both cases, you might avoid chronic health issues for the parties involved if you crash slower.
And LASTLY you have to look at the economics of safety:
If you can cut the inner city deaths in half that would be more desirably than cutting autobahn deaths in half.
But the question is how much do you have to do in order to cut them in half?
The Speed limit has a very marginal impact compared to a lot of other things we might do. And it is also not the end all be all of street safety:
We introduced begleitetes Fahren because it greatly reduces accidents a few years back for example.
Car safety technology is also constantly improved and being implemented.
One thing that I am greatly in favor of is that you should have to retake your Führerschein from a certain age onwards.
Just my two Pfennige :)
Of course motorways are far safer than other roads outside of towns. No left turns, no worrying about oncoming traffic when overtaking, no sharp curves, etc.
If we want to find out how much a speed limit will be worth, the only way to actually do it would be - make a test. Limit the speed on a select Autobahn section for say 12 months and see where the accident rates go.
Really, per million? So somebody commuting to work every day for a couple of decades not using the Autobahn will cause an average of 1 death per ~170,000 km (entirely realistic in terms of distance)? That seems like a lot. Particularly since the unit referred to in the video is per billion km.
There IS a speed limit on the Autobahn: just shy of 300000km/s. If you drive faster, a physicist will have a word with you!
On the other hand: They did reroute the Kaiserleikreisel in Offenbach, so - naturally, the incidence rate in Germany dropped significantly.
although you will most definitely get invited to Stockholm
fun fact: if you drive towards a red traffic light with about 55,000 km/s, it will appear green due to the Doppler Effect 😆 So next time you get caught rushing a red light, use that as an excuse, maybe the speeding ticket will be cheaper than the red light one.
299,792,458 m/s, but you will turn into a black hole at this speed
The physicists should shut their fuck up.
@@eltfellNo we don't :)
To quote the satirical heute show: We cannot implement a speed limit on the Autobahn, because otherwise we will only be known for Hitler abroad.
As Luxembourger, where I have both experienced our own 130 limit and German Autobahns, I find the intensity of this debate confusing. The big joke normally is that you cant reach over that speed on most autobahn anyway, due to either congestion or construction based temporary limits.
On a lighter note, theres a joke about why Luxembourg has a limit when Germany doesnt. The joke goes that the reason for the limit is that if speeds werent restricted, people would accidentally drive through the entire country before they could hit the brakes!
I (as a German) think the comparison is good. The issue is very political in both countries. Most of the world thinks these peculiarities are nonsense
And they're also often discussed very emotionally. That's another similarity.
There's also one side that's thinking about what's necessary for the greater good and the community at large and the other side is concerned with what they personally want/don't want to give up and are downplaying the problem. Another similarity.
Young people favour one side without much support from "the powers to be", older people (esp. older men) argue for the other side and are supported by a large and influential lobby of corporations with a financial interest in keeping things as they are.
@@e.458True, but... In only one of the countries is violence (by some, not all) threatened when serious talk about limiting said right enters the mainstream.
Put another way, the attempted coups in the past few years were closer to success in one of these countries than the other.
@@Shadowguy456234 I've always found it ironic that the people in the US who proclaim the loudest that they need their guns to be able to resist a totalitarian government are typically on the side most likely to create such a government. I don't think there's an analog to that on the other side of the Atlantic.
Well no @schlman605. The Problem is that there is a comparison used which is based in the US more than 200 years old law in times when these law had a meaning. nowadays there is no wild west anymore. The Autobahn is existing for not even 100 years, back in the days when the first parts were first built the cars/trucks, weren't even able to go this fast as they can today. Guns shot back then and shot now, but the purpose of shooting has changed. So I would consider this comparison one of apples and oranges.
I'm myelf a car driver and a german, I absolutely see no reason at all to go faster than maybe 140 (but the actual general speed limit I would leave open for a debate in the Bundestag).
I tried myself when I was around 20 -25 (I was a weekend commuter at this time) to drive a 300 Km distance as fast as my old 1.8 liter (115 HP) Ford Escord could, always max 20 Km/h above the speed limit on the Autobahn - when there was no speed limit I was going by 200 - 220 (max speed of what my car was able to do). It actually gave me an effective difference of 15 - 30 minutes to reach my goal compared to when I was driving for an aimed speed of 140Km/h. The only big difference it made for me was just that the fuel tank was nearly empty when I went full throttle compared to around half empty when I was aiming for 140. I surely forgot the environment and the waste of sacres resources of our planet. But thats surely not interessting for the most who can affort the gasoline for driving this fast or even faster.
So I came to the conclusion, that It makes not sense to go this fast for my pocket and as well for the environment and for fun there are race tracks in Germany where you can go as fast as you want on tourist events who want to drive e.g. over the Nordschleife (called "Touristenfahrten"). Here is a funny video of these for those who are interessted: ua-cam.com/video/sDtKTl1CRiU/v-deo.html
The same counts for the people who start a fight on purpose in a disco if they drank a little to much - there are sport facilities where you can indulge your "hobby".
I already said 10 years ago: "Was dem Ami seine Knarre ist dem Deutschen seine Karre."
The only objection I have against the comparison of speed limit vs. gun control is, that (as far as I know) there actually is a majority in Germany that is pro speed limit. It's only a loud minority (and politicians that prefer listening to the loud instead of the many) that prevents us from doing the sensible thing.
The only reason I didn't comment that on the original video was, that I'm not sure if this is not also the case with gun control in the US: A silent majority pro gun control and a loud lobbying group that is willing to sacrifice a dozen pupil or two every year for what they call "freedom".
I'm not sure if this happens where speed limits are already in force in Germany, but here in the UK it is a bugbear of mine that many motorists seem to get very impatient, and sometimes even aggressive, when they encounter somebody driving slower than the posted speed limit. The one benefit of not specifying a specific limit is that morons can't mistake the limit for an expectation.
On the other hand there is a strong case against letting people drive at 90 or 100mph on a motorway. It's not just that people's tyres may not be rated to run at that speed and people's cars won't have been designed to pass crash tests based on the kinds of impact you get when cars travelling that fast crash. It's also about the balance of speed against energy efficiency. Cars are a very inefficient mode in any case, especially on long journeys when compared to coaches and, most particularly, trains. That's even more so when they're being driven fast. The additional fuel burned per minute for each additional mile per hour over, to pick an arbitrary figure, 60mph is quite a lot and it increases quite quickly the faster you go.
At 100mph you need to push the engine really rather hard just to maintain that speed given the amount of wind resistance and friction you encounter, and you burn about three times as much fuel per mile travelled as you would at 60mph. Perhaps at one time this would have been regarded as the motorist's own problem if they want to waste petrol, but I wonder whether we may have reached the stage where that is a view one cannot, in general, afford to take?
I really appreciate the way you are sorting this out in a sober manner while you are appreciating passionate arguing.
DANKE.
Thanks a million for addressing my argument made in your short (schools at the Autobahn ;-)). While we might not entirely be aligned in this matter, I really appreciate your arguments and insights. I am a happy subscriber of your channel, exactly for this.
The fact is Germans are actually trained to drive to obtain a driving license, here in Mississippi your lucky if you get a two-week driver's course, which one week in a classroom, and one week actually driving and of course you are sharing that driving experience with three other people. At least, Mississippi has raised the age to obtain a license to drive to 16 years of age. In the 1980's I obtain my drivers permit at fourteen and my driver's license at fifteen. If I had lived on a farm, I could obtain a driver's permit at thirteen and a driver's license at Fourteen. Gone are the days.
The driving training in Germany isn't good, it's extremely bureaucratic and expensive. 3000€ is not uncommon
@@Reichsritter The training content actually is good, just the cost is insane.
I think there were and are some exceptions to the minmum age of 16 for people in very rural areas to be able to get to school and such things. This sounds to me like what you refer too. Even here in Germany there are very few and complicated exceptions for such situations. But it seems to apply for that you have to live like in the bavarian apls half the way up the Zugspitze, a 3 hour walk to the next street.
But I heard such things from several Americans. While some jokingly said the theoretical training you have to do here in Germany qould qualify you as a car mechanic or engineer already (No of course it is not that simple, although around here for certain trades you indeed have to be a journeyman or at the very least a supervised apprentice. And even then you need additional qualifications for electric vehicles, HVAC systems, Airbags,... although those usually are obtained during aprenticeship. And I know at least in some states in the US there are to some extents comparable regulations at least for parts of that stuff as well.)
Comparing it to obtaining a drivers license in the US, from what I was told it vastly differs from state to state. While in some states it seems to be like a regular high school class, in others it at first glance having to pass a simple multiple choice test for theory after some short afternoon class and for the practical exam you have to drive around for half an hour without anyone getting killed.
@@alexanderkupke920 it's not that good, you train once a week or something and during the exam you barely know anything and are just stressed. A majority fails the exam because of this awful concept. It would be better to do a theoretical exam and then have the applicant drive around with a large L for learner and then after say 6 months take an exam.
@@Reichsritter No. You don't understand. The U.S. is 50 different states and fifty different laws on a driver's license. Mississippi is VERY lax in is laws while for instance California is more strict in its' driver license requirements. Basically, as long as you can read you can get a license in Mississippi. THERE is no requirement for driver's school in Mississippi. And I will make one more observation about you Germans, you complain about everything, not realizing how good YOU actually have it. For instance, Germans complain about their train service, even though it's one of the best in the world. As opposed to having no train service at all in the U.S. You see if Mississippi had no speed limits on the Interstate's we would have 150 car pile ups EVERY day! Why you ask? Because, Mississippians would not follow the basic law of slower traffic stays in the right lane. Which by the way is now a law here in Mississippi with gigantic signs telling slower traffic to stay in the right lane. I saw a video of the Autobahn in which traffic parted in the middle to allow an ambulance get through to an accident, THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN ANYWHERE IN THE U.S., EVEN IN CALIFORNIA! Yes, in comparison to the U.S. German drivers are better trained then U.S drivers!
If you hit something above the speed of 50 km/h, generally, you're dead. - The speed at you react may be much higher, and you may have hit the breaks to slow down. It's the speed at impact. For a pedestrian or cyclist, that is max 30 km/h, which, many bicycles are capable of doing and they are doing that speed. Autobahn, with all "other" limitations it enforces, is a much safer place for travel than all other roads. - By the way, hitting the barriers at 130 km/h won't save a person. That person will most probably die of internal bleeding, suffering. Hitting the same barriers at 250 km/h would make sure an instant death is guaranteed. - At least the time of suffering is much shorter.
No speedlimits is a myth. There is a Baustelle every 3 km, nobody can drive fast.
I'm from Italy: here we have a 130 km/h limit on most motorways, however it's normal to witness cars driving way faster than that, sometimes reaching 200 km/h. I'm not sure how they can get away with that, as many section of motorways here have devices that can detect your average speed on a stretch of road, as well as some fixed speed cameras. They could be aware of where it's possible to speed up without consequences, or they're so wealthy that they consider the fines as a part of the road toll.
Anyway, nobody seems to be too concerned about this fact, and many Italian motorways, especially in the north, are straight and well designed enough to allow for similar speeds in the same way as the German ones make them possible. I think that if Germany decided to impose a similar speed limit, but didn't invest massively on speeding deterrence devices, the situation could become really similar: it could be a political decision without a big effect in the real world. Even now most people on German autobahns don't drive that fast.
Also, a considerable part of the cars driving at crazy speeds on the motorways of northern Italy have Swiss or German number plates.
Those systems already exist on vast stretches of the Autobahn (e.g. rise with speed limits), but increasing it will probably be necessary. We already have speed traps on some parts of the Autobahn with temporary speed limits (digital signs that can be changed quickly if necessary).
I don't think they do get away with it. But depending on how you handle reckless driving charges, the following could apply:
"If the punishment for breaking a law is a fine, it only applies to poor people."
@Heresor Possibly, but then how many "poor people" own a high-end sports car capable of 200kph plus? 🤔
Auto-generated (via surveillance cameras) speeding fines might just be 1 more efficient way of taxing the "non-poor people" than trying to squeeze their legitimate tax-share around their high-power layers and accountants! After all, you can just keep jacking up the fines until the national budget balances - or the fools start getting some brains. 🙄😁
There are now cameras being rolled out here in Oz to auto-detect and issue fines for mugs using their mobile phones while driving. The authorities expect it to be a big winner! 😉
I got what you were aiming at, and that‘s why I thought your short was spot on! 😅
Maybe I am a bit more relaxed with respect to the topic as I live (and mostly drive Autobahn) in the Rhein-Ruhr area. Where „drive“ is a relativistic attribution. To put it bluntly: We here oftentimes are happy if we are, indeed, driving - and rejoicing if this happens at 60 km/h or - beware -even faster.
A speed limit (as well as the necessity of one) in this context occurs to me like a legend of old times, when one still could see there was a road underneath all those cars… at times at least.
So, basically, you're very experienced at driving at high speeds, and are therefore not likely to lose control of your vehicle.
There's something like 25% more accidents on the sections of autobahn that have no speed limits versus the sections that do.
This does not seem very satisfactory or efficient. (sorry, I had to 🤣)
@@peterclarke7240 "So, basically, you're very experienced at driving at high speeds, and are therefore not likely to lose control of your vehicle." -
I was actually stating the absolute opposite, therefore I am somewhat confused about your answer. 😅
Fact is: In the Rhine-Ruhr-area normal daytime drivers are not used to driving at high velocities _at all_ , as "driving" means more a "diffusing from traffic jam to traffic jam"... (It's probably a bit like greater London with respect to that.)
In other words... we don't actually need a speed limit here (even if most autobahns in the area actually have one), and we don't actually MIND a speed limit, as there is not speed to speak of... 🤣
Or in other words: Locals are grateful as long as their cars are rolling and not standing.
@@marge2548 We can be grateful for all the traffic jams! If they didn't exist and we could drive freely, all the cars would break apart at 80 km/h anyway because the road surfaces are so lousy.
@@VoodooMcVee Word!🤣
look... as a german... (who will never drive because of a mental condition) I agree with you that the defense of the autobahn is very pridefilled.
But comparing the autobahn with guncontrol is seriously lacking in substance. While superficially looking similar (national pride filled detriment to society)
one is respinsible for thousands of deaths every day, while the other is responsible for 8... while also disregarding that the autobahn causes less deaths than normal streets.
We can argue all day about environmental impacts. But to compare thousands of dead per day to a ~1% increase in CO2 emissions... is a bit far-fetched, don't you think?
Not that it is not a discussion to be had... but those two issues are not comparable. One is factually insane, while the other one is a concern that has pros and cons, probably siding a bit on the con side!
Stereotypes implies negativity, there is nothing negative about America's internal logical consistency that having the right to defend yourself naturally comes with the right to the appropriate means to defend yourself. Gun control is just mandating pacifism by proxy. When you accept "you cannot have a gun, even to defend yourself" you are just saying that you have no right to defend yourself. Why? Because it accepts the right just doesn't apply to the most suitable implement to defend yourself.
What would be suitable? Anti-gun activists do not advocate for how effective something like a bow and arrow is at defending yourself, their entire argument depends on ridiculing any non-pacifist means of defending yourself. Their only alternatives are entirely passive like ruinously expensive panic rooms which are only practical for the super-rich. Or running away. Or they insist "don't worry about it, statistically it simply is never going to happen".
The UK is now enacting stricter and stricter legislation about knives. Knives. Gun rights are the canary in the coal mine to fundamental attacks on the right to defend yourself.
The UK now specifically bans taking ANY preemptive measures to actively defend yourself, by any means. Sure, you can lie, but a legal protection that depends on dishonesty will only protect the dishonest.
Here in the USA we are seeing the opposite trend. Road's deaths are increasing. I wish our roads were as safe as Germany's.
It isn't just the roads. All those SUVs and pickups are very dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists. It isn't just a coincidence that it is called a "Ram".
@@danielcarroll3358 That and the low standard in the US for drivers licenses. But there's another factor: people in the US drive a lot more, which ofc gives them more opportunities to get involved in accidents.
@@faultier1158 Contributing factor to that is the lack of feasible alternatives to driving (mass transit, bicycle networks, pedestrian streets, etc.). So people who don't want or shouldn't drive (DUI offenders) are forced to drive, yet are more likely to be distracted (phones, books, etc.).
@@danielcarroll3358 Also these SUV and pickups may have bullbars, which causes more harm to pedestrians and cyclists as well.
My car can go 240kmh and i will use this to get home quicker. Time on the road is time wasted. The Party that actually makes this law will loose 80% of their voters.
As a French living in Germany since several years, I do not think the lack of speed limit is actually much of a problem. I am part of the people who drives fast on the Autobahn. However, I do adapt my speed to traffic, and, above all, I usually drive around 200km/h with low traffic and I am almost never overtaken. Most Germans, in my experience, drive at most 160 and often 150 or less. So, I don't really know if a speed limit would change much. I would however comply to a speed limit.
Also, French Highways are of much higher quality (even though a lot more expensive) compared to German ones, but I think the last time I checked, there were more accidents on French ones.
Now, outside of the Autobahn, if we compare to France, where the speed limit on the most common type of road was reduced from 90 to 80 (100 here in Germany), as it should have reduced the number of accident, the pollution and traffic jams, well, it did none of this and, similarly to other countries which reduced their speed limits, it actually did not really reduce the speed at which people drove.
I am all for safety, especially because I also mostly drive a motorcycle, but most studies on the impact of speed on the reduction of deaths disregard other factors, especially the technological improvements of cars.
What I am for on the Autobahn, however, is adaptive speed limits in more places, because that is most definitely useful.
You are comparing way different things. From 90 down to 80 is a small difference and something I have never heard of being even proposed (and also there is no context given).
Reducing it from insane speeds like 160 or 200 down to (probably) 130 is a much bigger change and deaths are ofcourse not the only relevant point.
@@xraselver7634 That is exactly why I stated "outside of Autobahn" for this part of my comment. Not all of my comment was about that.
Yes, it's not the same, but some of the arguments against unrestricted Autobahn are pollution, more damage to the road and reduction in traffic jams. Pollution has little to do with speed, but rather with torque/RPMs (and weight), which from 160 to 130 in highest gear will be a limited impact. That's similar for road damage, and weight is also a factor there. Traffic jams are more complex, hence why I would be for adaptive speed limits in more places.
160 is not an insane speed (23% differential, which in this case is less than the advised differential for overtaking), especially given how cars are made today, and as I wrote, from experience, which is of course not an overall truth, but I've discuss with many Germans and they agree, most people don't drive faster than that. 200 is fast, yes, hence why you adapt your speed to traffic and don't do it in heavy traffic. Do all people adapt their speed ? No, but are the people who don't going to change that with a speed limit ? I don't know, but I doubt it.
As I also wrote, I would comply with a speed limit, but there are perverse effect for having a speed limit as well. One that comes to my mind is highway hypnosis/being less focused on driving. When you drive faster, you have to stay focused. That's not even about a speed limit, but about what feels right for most people (not just me, but generally). That point is valid for any speed limit reduction.
Overall, there are points against and for unrestricted Autobahns. I do personally think it won't change much overall, if anything, for safety and some other points listed above. If it does, why even stop at 130, why not 50 ? 130 was chosen decades ago, when safety features on cars were not what they are today. Again, that doesn't mean there is no point to it, but I don't think it's a simple "yes, we need speed limits".
Go, drive in france
Reducing the speed limit isn't so much about reducing the number of accidents, but reducing the severity of accidents. And you're right on your point that most Germans drive in the 150-160km/h range while only minority goes over 200. But some people driving much faster than the general traffic around them is an inherent security risk, so reducing the speed limit to something like 150km/h would already help a bit at least.
@@faultier1158 You are right about that, even roughly quadratically proportional to the speed difference. It's however not the only way to reduce the severity of accidents and the argument will later come to reduce it further (as some other countries are currently discussing going from 130 to 110), even though only the difference in speed is what matters.
Again, I am not saying it is necessarily a non-sense to have a speed limit, and 150-160km/h may be a good place, but I don't think it's the miracle solution to the points which promote a speed limit, and is even inherently wrong for some of them (not yours though).
My suggestion for the speed limit on the German Autobahn is the speed of light! With that, all has been said
You're happy with the fact that, statistically, those sections of the autobahn that has no speed limits have 25% more accidents than sections with speed limits, and that, because of this, German motorways are twice as dangerous as those in the UK, Denmark or the Netherlands?
Interesting.
If you show me proof that you even broke the speed of sound (which is comparatively a low bar) on the Autobahn, I'll support it and even buy you a beer. Just promise not to drive after drinking it, okay? 🤣
@peterclarke7240 I'd say "happy" is the wrong word. I'm "alright" with that statistic. It's the classic freedom vs security question. Are you happy that, statistically, China has a lower crime rate than Germany because of mass surveillance and a more homogeneous society?
@@ThisNils False equivalency. Mass surveillance does not signifcantly reduce crime.
@InfiniteSilver97 It's just a speculation based on "there could be a correlation in this country". Just like the speed limit issue. I assume you don't have any data on how a general speed limit in germany reduces accidents
It’s been said in ever comments before but still: I think you miss the (second) most important argument (besides safety) which is the huge reduction in greenhouse gas emission that we could get FOR FREE by just having everybody drive at reduced speed (reduced from full throttle that is; 130kph is still plenty fast to kill yourself)
ja you stepped in the DO DOO ! 🤣
While you discussed arguments that were made based on statistics for not introducing a speed limit, one additional factor these days got out of sight this way that would absolutely justify a speed limit. Fuel savings. While modern cars are already highly efficient compared to cars of the past (well, at least if you can afford the more expensive better equipped versions), it is no secret and we cannot hide the fact, that going 130 or 120 (or even lower) on the autobahn is way more fuel efficient than going for example 150 or above. For my car, the step from 130 to 150 already makes about a 2 l / 100 km difference. going even faster that discrepancy does rise even further, and as it seems not quite linear.
Personally I think a speed limit of 130 would be absolutely ok for both reasons, fuel savings and safety. For even lower limits as some claim we need, I see the issue that speed limits even today only can be enforced to a very limited degree. It would also be easy to memorize, as it would be the same as the current recommended speed. (And around where I live, on about 95 % of the Autobahn I would love to even be able to go that fast at all). Without convincing people of the need, the lower the limit, the lower the acceptance.
Autobahn crashes and deaths could be massively reduced if truck drivers wouldn't drive until they fall asleep, jerk off while driving (oh the things you see if you take a bus tour...) or be plain old drunk to boot.
A few years ago I saw a truck hit a construction vehicle. There where signs, a speed limit, cones, about 1km of free sight... Nooo, he had to crash into this thing.
Basically on every commute I see trucks keeping a "safety" distance I couldn't fit my car in. At fucking 90+ km/h (thanks to tweaked limiters).
Remove this problem source and accidents are cut in half, minimum.
Globalisation and the rise of online purchases have meant an increase in the number of trucks on the road, with employers sourcing the cheapest labour possible and placing unrealistic or illegal demands on their drivers. Germany is, among other things, a transit country, and there are a lot of truck drivers out there who don't know or care about German road traffic regulations and work for people who don't care about them.
@@rewboss Watching the road and not having a blood alcohol level like you've just left the village fair has nothing to do with road regulations.
Same goes for not driving a rust bucket with slicks for tires and breaks at 30% power.
That is basic self preservation.
And don't say "these poor people can't work anything else": They could work at construction sites or as waiters. Similar pay, but no option to admire Miss Centerfold while "working".
There is no right to individual gun ownership in America, despite idiots believing to the contrary. There is a right for "the people" (collectively) to "bear" (not own) "arms" (not guns) as part of a well-regulated (state) MILITIA (again, not individually).
Unfortunately, conservatives have very successfully framed it as an individual right over the last few decades. It's a shame.
And in my personal opinion ( and I am not a Constitutional lawyer) these well regulated state militias are already existing. The National Guards....but, that's my opinion.
Well, it might be that that was the intention of the Constitution, but it is certainly not how it is interpreted. Your view would mean that the people in the national guards are allowed to carry guns, and no one else.
@@miriamreiss It's not an opinion. There is NO valid interpretation of "well regulated state militia" that reads "individual".
@@weksauce It does not say well regulated state militia" it says "well regulated militia". At the time of writing "well regulated" was a phrase used to describe things being in working order, militia being a group of citizens banding together. None of that matters, as that is only a justification for the second clause, "The right of the people to KEEP and bear arms" which clearly demonstrates that the purpose is for the average person to be able to have and use firearms. Adding and leaving out words to justify your poor interpretation is very dishonest.
For me, i feel the core issue with the speed limit debate isn't the logically of it. We're at a time where we collectively feel like getting pitted against each other all the time, hence i think brute forcing side issues like these just adds more fuel to the already burning fires. A lot of People feel patronized, and this debate just plays right into the Hands of Radical Groups. (Climate, Language, Gender, War, Refuges just to name some of the most heated issues right now). Imo it's a pick your Battles situation, and this is not a Hill i think we should die fighting on.
There's also the Question of how feasible it really is, when it comes to speed limits they are more often than not ignored to start with unless there's a Radar Trap - and once you add those you get the whole Argument of it being just a speed tax.
And this is where I have to massively disagree. "This isn't the hill to die on" is what we call a salami tactic. You get people to give up small fights all the time, because you personally don't think this slice is important. But what happens is that more and more slices of the salami get cut off over time. To me, this is absolutely the hill to die on.
The counter arguments I have are that for one, most travelers already don't drive faster than 140 km/h most of the time (and let's be honest, even with a speed limit, this would be the speed most people would be driving), and for two: It will never get reverted. If the limit is ever implemented, it will never be revoked. Even if proved completely ineffectual by actual evidence. We have seen this with the 1000 hour rule in America, and we keep seeing it everywhere. No politician wants to be the one who made road safety worse. And so I keep fighting, for if I loose, I loose forever.
@@nullplan01 ah, i think you got it slightly backwards what side I'm on. I'm all for not adding a speed limit and pushing us all apart further. As much as the Speed limit is the logical choice, pushing people right now isn't.
And while i agree that "pick your battles" can lead to salami tactics, change in and off itself is better digested through these salami tactics, rather than all at once. It's how our brain works, we can only deal with so much change before we shut down.
(and just to mention the statistic from someone else's comments: i think it would be way better and more sensible if people actually bothered to not drive 130 kmh on country roads which already have a speed limit of 100 kmh. Seeing that's where most the deaths and accidents are. I don't think a limit would actually do anything right now.)
sorry if I am splitting hairs, but it always triggers me. Just like "lay" and "lie" getting confused, so it is with "lose" and "loose". The first is a verb, the second is an ajdective meaning "not very tight" or "undone". So, you "lose a right to do something", but your shoe's "laces have come loose". @@nullplan01
The DIN that specifies road furniture on the Autobahnen is hopelessly out of date. Take the Leitpfosten for example. they may indicate the edges on secondary roads but placed at the side of the Standspur ( emergency parking lane??) are completely useless other than to indicate where the nearest emergency telephone is.
Secondly, hardly any of the Autobahn are lit at night including intersections. Compare that to those in France, Belgium, Holland or Czech republic.
Thirdly, the absence of any cats eyes either to mark the lanes or more importantly the edge of the overtaking lane where it meets the central reservation is darnright dangerous. You would think that the previously mentioned Leitpfosten may be used but no,
In roadworks, temporary yellow lines are used which have priority over the permanent white lines. This is of course fine except at night when it is raining, it is very difficult to distinguish between the two!
On the subject of traffic lines, there is so much inconsistency on what is laid out. You may see, for example, a sign for "no overtaking" but the lines in the middle of the road may or may not be laid out to reflect this.
German contribution to road safety is to put a sign up. The latest usage is for 30kmh speed limit outside Kindergarten. This is fine of course but you must not only be aware what day of the week it is (Mon-Fri) but also the time of day when the speed restriction applies (07:00 to 16:30). In my cynisism, I maintain this is not for road safety but for the lawyers. If you do, heaven forbid, have an accident with a child involved, the law can crucify you 'cos there is a sign. I have seen in France or Holland for example, flashing lights to warn you to be careful. Germany? flashing lights are far too expensive, put up a sign and in the first few days a mobile radar trap behind the sign which will finance it.
I would like to add that improving roads is important, as is improving drivers. But there is one factor that also must be considered. If the number of road deaths in Germany has been dropping consistently since the 1970s, you are doing something that the Americans can't achieve. In the USA, road deaths have been increasing recently, after a steady decline for many years. Everything I read blames this on people replacing their (already big) cars by SUVs. So maybe the best thing Germany can do is to ban big SUVs, or at least stop the number increasing. Another American trend that the world does not need to copy.
I'm all for banning them or taxing them to oblivion. After that I'd say: "Good job! Let's keep improving, though. What about speed limits?"
The true reason for the fact that the number of deaths in traffic accidents has been decreasing for 50 years, are the advances that have occurred in the field of trauma surgery and medicine in general during the same period. Another decisive factor was the adoption of the security standards established for the US export control system by the (West) German car manufacturers. People who would have been killed a generation ago, now survive, but crippled.
There is also a statistical component: if the victim dies 30 days after entering the hospital, it is no longer counted as victim of a traffic accident.
I do like guns and driving fast but I also am for more strict gun laws and a general speed limit on the Autobahn. Neither having 25 assault rifles and 10k rounds nor blasting down the A31 at 260kph makes any sense, at all. Be reasonable. If you want to shoot assault rifles join the army. If you want to drive cars very fast do it at a trackday.
I've been driving around Germany today. And due to weather conditions almost everywhere the speed limit was set to 130 or below.
Logical argument, most people in America have guns. Also a fact, most Americans are not in prison for murdering someone with their guns, also a fact. If this is the case then we can conclude there either they are and hide it well which is doubtful as it takes less time to kill someone with a gun therefore this place should look like a war zone OR this means that most Americans are not killing each other with these guns and that the ones that are, are people who are willing to break the law in general wether it be guns or not. Case closed.
Now....let's get to an argument that's not logical, the fact that people are even complaining about having speed limit signs in general! How are you guys not all dead over there!? If you guys drive even remotely like us here in America, I wish your numbers regarding fatalities for the future well!
It was provocative in a good way and made me think and realize a lot. 👍👍👍
I think that improvements in car design is massively influential in the reduction in road collision deaths and injuries; seat belts, crash structures, ABS, DSC all help.
Road design too has improved greatly.
speeding causes road collisions deaths, it doesn't make driving safer
This isn't good enough
Speed limit on highways in most countries is stupid. 130km/h, really? Or even 110km/h in some countries? What are you driving on? Swiss cheese? Seriously. People are speeding on highways like it's nobody's bussiness and it's still safer than on a parking lot! I can agree that depending of circumstances a speed limit is wise. But also, after experiencing autobahns in Germany, people just aren't willing to drive that fast. With the technology that is common in last at least 20 years, speed limit of 200km/h on highways should be much more common across the Europe!
I'm a German with a car that needs to use one of our most used Autobahns frequently for his job, ~1h each way.
I love cutting that "lost" time down as much as I can, so I experimented a little:
- Going right lane (~80km/h) with the trucks, unless they're stuck in their own jam (due to not being allowed to overtake) resulted in overall worst times
- Aiming for an average of 130mh/h is decent, as long as I'm able to overtake "convoys" of 100km/h drivers in the middle lane quickly
- Pedal to the metal whenever possible gains almost nothing in time compared to the 2nd option, but drains my gas considerably more
All things considered, times spent in traffic on Bundesstraßen and/or red lights anywhere are THE dominant factors, very closely followed by construction, no matter on which type of road.
During that 1h commute, I get to exceed 130km/h for maybe 10m in total (A1/A2/A40/A42, depending on traffic, from Hamm to Bottrop/Essen). The times I DO get to go this fast, I use it to overtake "the sludge" on the next two lanes on my right. And I LOVE being able to do that as quickly as possible. (Which often goes as low as 90km/h on the leftmost lane thanks to some really "optimistic" people.)
Result: I rarely even get to drive over 130. But when I do, it matters considerably. I do not think, that limiting anyone's possibility to use like 15% of the time they spend on the Autobahn to go over 130 will do ANYTHING to safety or environmental gains of anyone. Especially since this doesn't mean going 300km/h, but more realistically 160-170 tops, with the VERY rare opportunitly to push 200 for a few seconds.
This is purely a political discussion on both sides, that simply doesn't matter AT ALL. Maybe, in 100 years, when all other options with a greater impact on both issues have been exhausted, we could come back to this. For the moment, this is literally energy spent badly, but not in the way the public discussion makes it out to be.
Well my experience was different. When you have a car that can only go 140 km/h and you try to overtake the lane with the 90s crowed, you will be astonished how often a rocket passes you by if you try to get on the left or suddenly is almost in your backside. Although i should mention, im living near the swiss border.....
The neat thing about a speed limit imho is that it is basically a „free“ CO2 savings measure.
Fun Fact: Most of the exhaust gas treatment is disabled at speeds higher than 130kph since the emissions tests wont test at higher speeds
The reason the UK has a motorway speed limit was one of the 1970s oil crises. A national speed limit was introduced as a fuel saving measure during the crisis. It wasn't introduced as a road safety measure. Prior to that UK motorways operated a regime similar to the Autobahns with no overall limit, but sometimes local ones. As happens with any 'emergency' restriction on the public, it was never totally reversed and now we have a permanent national speed limit of 70 mph.
I'm a car guy. I like cars. I like how they look, how they sound all that. Yeah I even like fast cars.
however, I'm pro "Tempolimit" on Autobahn. The Autobahn is just not a racetrack, it's for commuting which is the safest on certain speeds
200 kph is a safe speed. So what's your point? Banning Bugattis doing 450?
@@meckerhesseausfrankfurt4019 Just because it can do 450, doesn't mean you have to on public roads. Drive on a race track. My stereo system can deliver ungodly sound volume, but it's perfectly fine that I'm not allowed to do that in the middle of the night.
But if you prefer, yes we can ban everything going faster than 130.
I don't think that the Autobahn is for commuting. At least that wasn't the original intention to build them. They should allow travelling long distance quicker than on other roads. Unfortunately that purpose has been neglected and now commuter traffic and freight traffic are clogging the autobahn network more and more.
(typo)
@@michaelburggraf2822 The point was actually military use, just as with the US Interstate system. Both were meant to enable *the military* to move their forces around at speed.
@@meckerhesseausfrankfurt4019no it's not.
The most important statistic to me would be what portion of fatalities falls upon the passively involved party, e.g. getting hit by a car that's going 250km/h.
I genuinely don't care about people speeding and dying themselves as a result.
I agree that people who speed and then as a result end up in an accident that harms only themselves have simply *Fucked Around* and then subsequently *Found Out* and have no-one to blame but themselves, but it is definitely important to not forget the passengers they may have hurt in the process!
But every crash also endangers others.
The firefighters and tow truck workers. And the people in the cars at the end of the traffic jam.
You don't care. A responsible government has to, that's what they are paid for. It is not the primary task of government to impose justice, whatever this is, but well-being. I hope you are not a politician, judge, teacher or anything else requiring responsibility beyond yourselves.
@HelmutQ hahahahahahahahaha.
Not a single politicians fulfills your ideal
Passengers, especially those without control over the vehicle's speed, deserve maximum protection. Consider the implications of having your children in a car speeding at 200 km/hr. Is their safety not paramount?
6:04 This argument is in my perspective mostly irrelevant. When you drive fast, YOU consciously expose YOURSELF to danger, which is ok. On the other hand, I find the argument that CO2 emissions could be saved in this way to be much more important
No no limits, we'll reach for the sky
No valley too deep, no mountain too high
No no limits, won't give up the fight
We do what we want and we do it with pride
No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no there's no limit
No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no there's no limit
-2 Unlimited
🚗☁☁☁
1) I am gun nut 2) I thought your short was hilarious and appropriate and gave me a chance to think again
I have guns and am for strong regulation - to the point that I would register them and allow law enforcement checking on them regularly that I keep them safe and that I in the meantime did not become a non-trustworthy menace to society by committing violent crimes, stalking or harassment - the typical precursors to gun violence.
And when I lived in Germany, I did drive fast. A lot. But my car was also meticulously inspected. In Texas, where I live now, I drive to a place that drivers the car 10 yards forward, brakes, turns on the lights, honks the horn, and I get a pass. That's not even close to a check - it can be fully rotted out beneath, have only 2 brakes working, it would still pass. That's why Texas has way more deadly accidents than Germany with not even half the population.
I come agree. He never said both cars and guns are the same. He only said both people have a similar mentality
@@Thoringer why should you have to prove that you are not a menace? Do you think of yourself as a menace?
Do you really need the state to keep you from murdering somebody that badly?
@@Thoringer Darwinian selection again doing its bit to improve the human gene pool? 🤔🙄😉
It's actually quite simple: weapons are expendable for most citizens, motor vehicles are not (yet).
Both don't need prohibition, but regulation so as not to pose a possible danger.
But the level of regulation required is just not comparable. Apples and oranges.
Not sure if I gave an argument on your short, or if so, if it was this one: With more traffic, you are less able to drive fast. And with traffic around, it becomes illegal to drive too fast.
What exactly "too fast" is, no one really knows, but you are obliged to be able to safely drive your car, without hindering and endangering others.
Looking at the somewhat recent Czech Bugatti, it was a completely safe and legal thing to do. The driver was capable, so was the car. There were spotters around, to check for traffic.
The only thing I would deem not really legal, is considering the law about uselessly driving around. Which by extend the driver, as well as all the spotters were doing.
My point is this: You can't drive too fast in traffic, as you have to consider what the traffic is doing.
In fact, with more people driving on the Autobahn, you'd reduce the ability to drive fast.
Honestly, 200km/h sounds like a fair general speed limit, but everyone in favour of speed limits seems to want to go extreme, sparking an endless debate.
If the debate continues like it is, I think we will have a speed limit, and it will be extreme for no reason other than being extreme to make a point.
I don't want to go to any extreme. I just want a speed limit comparable to our European neighbors. Anything between 110-130 km/h sounds reasonable.
There are so many good proposals to support alternative modes, and to make ecological improvements for the traffic sector. Here Just a few: 1. Giving local communities more control and possibilities to enforce traffic calming measures. 2. Investing broadly Into public transport. 3. Breaking Up the car privileges in favor of pedestrians and bikes. 4. Car free Zones in the inner cities. 5. Actual realistic CO-taxes on Cars and special fees for unnecessary heavy vehicles. 6. A temporary Stop and reevaluation of all new Autobahn and bigger street projects in favor of investigating more eco-firendly alternatives. 7. Cheaper Public Transport for everyone... We almost got nothing of that... Instead of that, we get a stupid backlash on the vague Idea of a tempo limit. We could implement IT with almost no costs, and it would bring a lot of additional benefits, but we don't even get this minimal improvement. So...I personally need the tempolimit to gain back just a small amount of Hope for improvements in this sector.
I think safety requirments on cars could improve as there seems to be alot of tech that is used by only the likes of Volvo, this would be helpful for reducing fatalities across all road types.
Graduating license restrictions. Works a treat in Australia. That and really solid road safety infrastructure, such as you find in the UK and all the countries in the top 5 safest countries to drive in.
Car safety features are nice to have, but they're pointless if your country's drivers aren't competent or experienced enough to be driving at speed (there's a reason young male drivers are considered the worst insurance risk), and your country's road infrastructure isn't safe to begin with.
There's only so much safety features can do if you drive really fast.
Love your videos!
How does the average level of driving in Britain compare to Germany, in your opinion?
There's also the argument, that if there was a speed limit, no one would design let alone buy one that can go 250kph and stop from that speed.
I love improvements. when it comes to autobahn I especially love the dynamic speed limits in some places. that is by far the superior solution, because sometimes even a strict general speedlimit of 100km/h is dangerous and sometimes there is no need for any limit on the same road. the problem I see with a general speedlimit is that alot of germans (normal and sane people) have a strong desire to drive fast sometimes. But when they are never allowed to do it, theyll do it whenever they want to and not when a traffic expert correctly evaluated when it's safe to do so. that problem is solved with the dynamic limits
Everytime in the discussion about a Speed Limit on the Autobahn people in favor tend to say it would improve on safety, I don´t think by much if even. Because most people drive responsibly fast and the deaths on the Autobahn which are caused by Lorries or in already limited sections would not be affected. I oppose the idea of increasing and arguably unnecessary regulation in all life matters in the name of safety without a definitive and reasonable idea of what is safe enough and why the need of additional regulation occured. Because then Speed Limits will just drop further despite improving vehicles and falling death numbers, like it is demanded by some in the case of the general Speed Limit or the sometimes proposed 80 kph on rural roads and 30kph in urban areas. And zero deaths or injuries are neither reasonable nor obtainable in my opinion. Life is inherently risky and deadly. In addition I do think a Speed Limit can be to low.People need to be challenged in the right amount to be optimal focused and concentrated, and neither be bored nor overwhelmed . That is the beauty of the Autobahn in its current state everyone can at times chose the speed which feels comfortable to them and is appropriate in the given situation.
I never drive or drove more than 130 km/h. Just because I'm not comfortable with more. A limit in this ballpark would be acceptable, -- to me. Would it save a lot of lives? Probably not. Definitely less than people dying from alcohol, cigarettes and the like. A marginal improvement (only 700 people die on the autobahn a year) cannot justify legal limitations. Reducing the speed limit there would probably save 50 lives a year at most. A lot if you are among them, probably not enough to justify a legal change which Germans would consider drastic. Other things as apparently innocuous as sugar are not forbidden. Germany suffers from a lot of overregulation, this might just be a relatively harmless security valve to release the mental pressure. The comparison to the gun laws may be more or less funny, but probably not really valid under many perspectives. You are the judge of your own style. No complaints from my side. Last but not least, that driving as fast as you want is not a constitutional right in Germany. A lot of the speed limit discussion is really ideological recently. More about C02 levels than safety. This fashion will pass with the next elections, both in Germany and in my native Austria. And that truly is a good thing. The population is not idefinitely ready to accept deindustrialisation and impoverishment. In just two to four years the government were incredibly effective in this regard.
I really love all of your profound contributions. They help us to better understand the world as it is and not to take ourselves too seriously :-). Keep up the good work 👍
Hmm, interesting point! Regarding your argument - I'd like to counter or append/correct it a bit to open it up for interpretation:
"The faster you are traveling, the more likely it is to be involved in an accident" may be statistically true, meaning these two factors correlate, but the causation is different. The causation is not about "Higher speeds -> higher accident rates" but rather "the more inappropriate the speed -> higher accident rates". Simple prospect: Are you more likely to crash your car in rainy foggy weather going 80 on a country road or going 150 on a clear sunny day, without traffic, on the autobahn? Of course you are more likely to have an accident in the first condition. The conditions matter way more then anything else. The lethality portion is completely true and there is little you can do to argue against that, it's simple physics. I still stand by the idea of not regulating speed limits for two reasons:
Firstly, our current approach is, in my oppinion, how most things government related should be handled. To me, it appears as "We trust you to make good decisions as a responsible adult and your ability to evaluate the situation you find yourself in". This attitude also warrents the extensive and expensive driver training we do, as it ensures everyone who passes it has the ability to judge situations and act accordingly. It warrants the expensive TÜV controls on cars every two years. It's something of a balance - we trust you to operate your machine within the limits of every situation, and we eliminated outside influences like "Bad drivers" and "badly maintained vehicles" as good as possible to make sure your assesment doesn't have to include these factors. Putting up speedlimits feels like breaking that informal contract and will call into question all these expensive and tedious processes.
The second reason is that I don't trust the government on implementing anything in a competent fashion. I simply object change because I'm 100% sure they will fuck it up. I have no trust in the abilities of any elected official because they are all incompetent and corrupt idiots who couldn't make it anywhere but in politics. Therefor I'd like them to change as little as possible because that limits the damage they can do.
I know, both of those points are attackable, people on here will counter them, call me stupid or find them offensive or whatever, but to me those make perfect sense. And if anyone is deathly afraid of going faster then 130 km/h on the autobahn, the good news is they don't have to. I'm full on board with improving Deutsche Bahn to the point that it becomes the superior mode of transport. Just leave the autobahn as is and make the trains better.
This discussion might benefit from the framework of the philosophy of technology: the central question of "what is a weapon?" This particularly in the area of automation in weapons as well as vehicles.
I tend to be on the side which is against a general speed limit on Autobahns. That being said, it is not unreasonable to demand one. It can prevent carbon emissions and unnecessary deaths without costing money directly. Sounds great, doesn’t it. Well, yes.
But there is a tiny thing I want to mention: Banning alcohol completely would prevent more carbon emissions and way more deaths, also without costing money directly. So, if the arguments are valid to impose a speed limit, which they might, they are only more valid for a ban on alcohol.
And yes, I do not really drink alcohol often and I sometimes go fast on the Autobahn, but I do consume alcohol more frequently than driving faster than 130 kph. This year I have had only one trip on the Autobahn were I really went fast - well, sort of at least. I had forgotten to remove the speed limiter for winter tyres and so my car stopped accelerating when I reached 210 kph, which was a bit annoying. Alcoholic beverages I have consumed three times this year - and I have never been drunk in my life and do not think I ever will be, nor have I caused a crash at high speed or on the Autobahn.
some things that are arguably more dangerous than speed:
- people who tailgate
- people switching lanes without looking and or not accelerating to match the speeds of the lane they are merging into
- Elefantenrennen (aka a truck trying to over take another truck and since they are so slow block and entire lane)
- people not matching the speed of cars in their own lane
- people looking at their phones while driving
people going fast on the autobahn isn't inherently dangerous as long as they do it responsibly, if nobody is around for miles then why not allow someone to go as fast as their car allows it?
You'd have a good point, if most of these were legal. Driving 200+km/h is dangerous and legal, we aim to make it dangerous and illegal, like your points currently are.
Except trucks blocking 2 lanes, I am unsure if its illegal or just annoying.
From a viewer in the US, I cannot speak to the Autobahn, but people are almost always on their phones. I would say I see 25% of drivers looking at their phone or glancing at it at some point. I am really good about not doing this and actually get people annoyed when I do not answer texts when I am driving. It seems like it is a given that people just do it and it is fine. I would almost venture to think that the slower the speed limit, the more likely someone will look at their phone. Additionally, the more they look at their phone, the more likely they will be in an accident due to traffic passing through their lane (or stopping) because that is more common on lower speed limit streets. Only a guess on my part though from my experience.
@Tudsamfa Driving 200km/h+ is not inherently dangerous. Driving at dangerous speeds however is illegal in germany. It doesn't matter if those things are legal, people do them anyway. If anything, you're proving the point that making things illegal doesn't stop people from doing them.
Yes - fun fact: Most accidents on the Autobahn don't happen at very high speeds but at the end of traffic jams and in construction sites. Deadly high speed accidents on parts with no speed limit are actually rather rare. At the end studies found only very few such accidents on unrestricted Autobahns. And then to stay in the comparison to guns - we are talking about aorund 10-15 deaths per year that might be (emphasis on might) related to this (with a total of just over 300 death in total on the Autobahn in total) - compared to around 50.000 gun related deaths in the US. I mean the sheer number should show how dumb the comparison gun law vs. no speed limit on Autobahns is.
The only "valid" argument for a speed limit could be a reduction in CO2 emissions by like 0,3% on the total amount of CO2 from Germany with its total of 1,8% ot the worlds CO2 emissions - or in other word - shutting down any one coal driven power plant in Germany will bring several time the amount of savings in CO2 emissions.
Full disclosure I am for a speed limit generally, so keep that in mind while reading my comment. Nonetheless I think the biggest issue with the speed limit is the political gravitas we prescribe to it. I (anecdotally) know a number of people who in most other fields of policy hold a generally center left position, however they are massively against a speed limit, and they start focusing so much on that point that they ultimately vote for parties that have less in common with their other believes just to not have to drive 130km/h on the Autobahn. ( I doubt that the other way round exists and if so in much lower numbers but maybe they do) Long story short, I think that the speed limit issue is ridiculously minute in any case and it’s ultimately terrible for our civic discourse that it has this high importance for people either way round. We should vote because of economic policies, foreign policies and judicial policies. Not this crap imo 🤷
Speed limit and gun control only would be beneficial for the masses of citizens.
And speed limit regulation, would nearly not cost anything, as you only would have to change the law, and replace the signs at the borders.
Less traffic jams, faster average speed, less heavy accidents, less polution, less use of fuel.
But at the same time, the main argument is always "There will be no freedom anymore, if this wouldn't be available!"
You know, unlimited speed or free guns are the only differences, that are the difference to the limited "freedom" in countries like North Korea.
No one talks about the real one and only argument: "The manufacturers will sell less!"
They would sell less guns or why would you buy a Porsche, if you could only drive top speed on the Nürburgring?
Me: i want unlimited speed limits and firearms
It’s an interesting discussion - I’ve only driven once on an autobahn in Germany - in a hire Opel Meriva about 15 years ago. It’s a different way of driving but it didn’t feel unsafe. With the improvements to car safety as well as the adaptive cruise controls / car radar etc, these may be sufficient to mitigate against some / most severe accidents on the autobahns?
And the higher you exceed 130 on the Autobahn the higher your share in partial fault and the lower your insurance coverage. Schroedinger's speed limit so to say.
That's a general misconception.
I mean they are very similar. One is designed to get you from point a to point b. The others designed to get a bullet from point a to point b.
5:00 But in other countries the relation of highway driving to all driving must be very similar. So if we're talking about AUTOBAHN speed limits specifically, this is irrelevant.
Not at all. Some countries have a very dense network of express highways (the Netherlands, for example), and others have very few express highways (e.g. Romania), so the proportions are going to be very different. If you look at the figures per kilometre of highway, Germany actually performs slightly worse than average. There are many different ways of measuring accident rates, and each way gives you slightly different results.
@@rewboss ok, but then your have to normalize that statistic by the percentage of highways in each county
Having just gone to Finland... I was thankful that the speed limit on the icy and snowy roads up in northerly Finland are just 60 or 80 km... can be quite treacherous with moose venturing about and the visibility is so low. But Germany and winter weather? 😅😮
Reason why motorways are the safest is not (necessarily) because of speed but there are barriers that should stop cars from having a head on collision or other danger spots and the fact that pedestrians and cyclists are normally not allowed on it. Left turns (or right turns for UK, Ireland, Japan and left drive lands) and U turns cannot be done and the fact that you only join a motorway via a slip road so you will try to match the speed of the road instead of going from 0 to 100/60.
There are also usually safe places if you break down (hard shoulder) and not gat in the way of traffic.
The speed limit also has consequences for the environment. That’s why the speed limit in the Netherlands was brought back from 130 to 100 at day.
Which nobody really takes any notice of.
@@Mishima505 From my own observation that is not true, at least not in the west of the country (where I drive). Most drive between 100 and 115, yes too fast, but far less than 130.
I don't gun control or speed controls. Can't we have the best of both worlds?
Well, the US has gun control (there are guns legally available in the EU which are illegal on the other side of the Atlantic), they just do it very badly and they don't know how to target guns already in the hands of criminals, which is a thing European police forces are usually able to do. Another thing to consider is going on the autobahn is usually a choice, so you know you are going on a road with people running fast, and the fact favouring every time safety over freedom is not a good thing (and if we reason as the average "why don't America just ban guns" we should go back to the times of horses to stop road deaths).
I don't care for a speed limit. However, I wish there was a better way to punish pushy drivers. I tend to drive a little slower (because I'm new to driving). If I drive 85 km/h on a Bundesstraße, there should be a device that measures the distance to the car behind me because people often drive 1.5m behind me, so there is no way of avoiding an accident if I need to stop suddenly. (Besides that, it makes the driver in front (me) nervous and more likely to drive faster than they are actually capable of)
If you just got your license you should know that driving to slow is also illigal. And 15km/h below the speed limit is to slow. If you don't want to speed up I suggest you stick behind a truck (take care to leave a big enough gap so you retain awarness) and drive behind it at its usual speed of 80-90km/h people will suddenly care much less, just drive a bit more to the right once they are behind you so they know you do not want to overtake the truck.
@@AlphaHorst you should know that not everywhere is 100km allowed or reasonable. I drive slowly if the road is curvy af and many others do to. But there is always that guy that feels like he needs to drive the maximum possible speed regardless of the road.
@pinkmuffin9842 with that I agree.
But limiting possibility for all to punish the few is stupid.
The one who go 140km/h on a serpentine will also go 140km/h on it even if the speedll limit was set at 60 or 80.
Removal of insurance coverage past 130 is already the biggest reason to slow down, far more so than speed limits or speed cams.
And people who forfeit their insurance (which for such an accident would be between 10k and millions of euros) by driving recklessly would do the same even with speed limits and speed cams.
The vast majority drives with open eyes and chastises bad and or dangerous driving with the harshest words.
And comparing the issue with guncontrol in the US is just blind to reality.
To make the two comparable we would need to get rid of 90% of traffic laws as well as the entire process of training drivers as well as the process of obtaining a licence.
I am however an advocate of a law which would require you to repeat part of your drivers training every 10 or 20 years. (The biggest issue with that is the costs. Those should be 0 for such a repeat test)
I am of the opinion that teaching is better than punishment. But the latter ofcourse needs to exist.
All of that I say as someone who does not own a car and only drives 4 to 5 times a year mostly long distance (300km or more)
Just because you quote a number doesn't mean you've proven your point. You need to make sure that the statistics you've chosen _are answering the question you're asking._
This is what Rewboss is pointing out here at 5:22 - "total number of accidents" isn't very useful, as it scrambles in different kinds of roads, population density in the region travelled, severity of accidents, number of drivers a country has, skill level of each of those drivers … makes it difficult to compare between countries. This is why he's talking about "accidents/miles_driven". That number will _still_ scramble together a bunch-o-stuff, but it _is_ eliminating the difference between number of drivers a country has as well as the population density in the region travelled.
Be careful with numbers, you can trick yourself into thinking you're right, when all you've really done is shout, "Purple," in response to a question. 😉
the plural of "Autobahn" is "Autobahnen" - not "Autobahns", which is not a word at all.
I'm disappointed that you didn't use the German word for "speed limit" or use my favourite German phrase, which uses the two German words that are, apparently, the most difficult to say:
_Mein Eichhörnchen hat eine Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung_
I think the comparison works to a point but considering the potential number of saved lives differ a lot between the issue, one should not take it too far IMO. That being said, the savings in road maintenance alone probably justify a speed limit.
As a german, not having speed limits leads to statistically more traffic deaths, higher co2 emissions, higher fuel costs and less freely flowing traffic (because a more homogenous travel speed leads to more smoothly flowing traffic, that leads to less traffic jams and therefore shorter travel times), so we should ditch this practice, reaping all those benefits that come with speed limitations is basically for free and we are idiotic for not taking it.
My personal experience is, people with a fast car provided by the company they work for, with free unlimited gas, are against a speed limit, while everyone having to pay that by themself is basically not driving that fast anyway but annoyed by the first group and therefore pro speed limit, just to get rid of the suddenly appearing cars with flashing lights in their back-mirror.
Thanks for this video. I did not comment, but I disliked the video where you compared the gun laws in the US to the speed limit laws in Germany. The reason I felt that way is because I think that other countries, especially those in Europe, do not understand WHY we have the right to bear arms and why it is important. I think that this is why it is not equivalent and, in my opinion, shows ignorance on the part of anyone who would make such a comparison. If anyone wishes to disagree, I invite them to state their point in a comment to mine but please keep it civil as I will have an open mind. I had to give this video a like though. It was a big boy move to admit this in a video and state your ignorance to gun laws as to why you felt such a comparison is valid. Not enough people admit this these days and I respect you more for it, even if we don't always agree. I guess now I won't be unsubscribing after all.
A quick point about speed limits though: I think a bigger issue is that at slower speeds, people feel more inclined to pull out their phone. I doubt many folks are buzzing along on the Autobahn scrolling TikTok while travelling near their max speed. Though I live in the US, I do drive a manual and like that it gives me a good excuse and something to do when, and I swear this happens all the time, someone asks why I did not answer their message or something while I was driving! Like it is a totally normal thing people expect you to do while driving...
I just read that the Consitutions was meant to let civilians bear arms only in militia that are well organised (posses or national guard) and that the current interpretation of the freedom to bear arms is a misinterpretation. I am not American, so I am a bit confused about that. As far as the European point of view, the state has the monopoly on violence. It may do everything to keep that monopoly. However, it is not forbidden to have arms for sport or recration. But the state will check your criminal record, your private situation, your mental state and your intentions and watch you as a hawk seeing a mouse.
@@ronaldderooij1774 The constitution of the United States says "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." This reads to me as the purpose of the to bear arms is to participate in a well regulated militia. It does not state that being in a militia is the reason to bear arms, but a primary reason. Aside from governmental tyranny, I think the culture here in the US is more so that of self reliance. We don't want to depend on the government, nor do we trust the government, to take care of our safety. The saying "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" applies as well. It was also ruled in court, after the police were sued for not taking more action in a school shooting, that the police have no requirement to put themselves in harms way to protect other citizens. This proves to many of us here in the US that we are the ones required to shoulder the responsibility of our own safety. People think that banning what they consider "assault weapons" makes sense because nobody should ever need one and due to some mass shooting that occurred with one. Those who believe in gun rights know that only the law abiding citizens who follow such laws of banning guns would therefore be the only ones left with less defense. We would instead say something like "Look at those bad guys with those scary assault weapons. To be the most effective in defending myself and my community, I should consider getting one too."
I don't really care how fast people drive on motorways etc. they're designed for high speeds, and there are no other users. I do think the EU needs to do more to distinguish between streets and roads though, and in built up areas there should be a 30km/h limit on streets. It's not a number I plucked from the air, at 30 there's a 90-95% chance of surviving after being hit by a car or a truck. It drops to 50% at 50km and then off a cliff. I don't think putting the convenience of drivers ahead of safety for pedestrians and cyclists is morally justified. This is actually being implemented in a few cities like London, and it's deeply unpopular... and I actually blame the green movement for this, they plugged it as an environmental issue when it's a safety issue. That just irked people, especially as more and more people drive electric cars and think that this law is just to inconvenience them (which it is, I guess, but not because of some nefarious globalist elite).
I've learned that with the way people are today, you cannot compare to _CONCEPTS_ . You have to take into account each and every single detail that anyone who could possibly oppose you could think of, and tailor your statements to that. Even if the color of the sky doesn't matter, you're *wrong* for not including it. You'll get absolutely nowhere with these people, and these people will get in the way of the others who are able to actually make such simple connections between _concepts_ . I think some of it comes down to everyone _needing_ to be in some position of correctness, so they _must_ include details which turn the argument in their favor. There can never be generic any longer. It has to be biased one way or the other from the very start.
Guns can be used to save lives and prevent crime. Can cars be used that way? Yeah so much for “being bad”
It's importand to say: The debate is not only about safty but also about contribute limiting the effects of the climate catasrophy.
And about getting treffic smoother, as a speed limit gernally helps, when DeltaV is smaller the number of traffic jams is gernally smaller. (While contruction sides, intersections etc have a negative impact)
Which word is easier to say while filming: Gratuitously, or the German word for Gratuitously?
You mean "grundlos"? Not too hard to say. Even for English speakers (at least I think so).
I definitely feel that "unnötig" is easier to say.
@@rewboss Uh yeah. Looks infinitely easier to type, even on an American keyboard trying to switch over to the German keys.
@@aaronwhite1786 To avoid the umlaut take the two word version: "ohne Not" (However, there may be a slight shift in meaning.)
Statistics about deaths on highways per billion vehicle kilometers in different countries can be found by searching
motorway_deaths_per_billion_vehicle_kilometers
The problem with limiting speeds in Autobahnen is the same as prohibiting people from drinking alcohol. They'll find a way, sometimes even more riskier, to get what they want. With firearms and tobacco, it's more likely to kill yourself than killing others, most of the time.
The ban on cigarettes in New Zealand is bound to fail, even NZ being an island. Because, people.
I.e. laws are useless, apparently.
The argument that cars, unlike guns, are not designed to kill is pretty laughable in my opinion when you consider that, even in the USA, not even half as many people die from car accidents than due to murder with guns. Knives, drugs, fire and explosives are not designed to kill people either, but overall they do it much more frequently than any gun. Not even most poisons were designed to kill humans, not to mention nuclear energy or greenhouse gases.
Keep in mind, both (car related and gun related deaths in the united states) are about 40 to 50 thousand a year, but over 50% of gun related deaths are suicides that could not be prevented with weapon bans since the suicide rate in the USA is actually lower than in most western countries like germany which simply chose different alternatives.
No, im not saying that 20 thousand murder victims are not worth restrictions of firearms. Thats a whole different argument and much more valid than the car one, yet a great argument to slow down cars as long as people die because of it aswell. By the way; most people saying to slow down traffic rightfully argue with the limitation of CO2 which is a demand of scientists, and not advocates for road safety.
This sort of debate always gets people resorting to emotional responses based around their beliefs, rather than the facts or statistics, which is probably why people end up resorting to what I will diplomatically refer to as "stupid, selfish excuses." 🤣
Personally, I have no particular issue with guns or autobahn, but I believe sensible moderation is key.
The lack of speed limits on autobahn, and higher speed limits in general, means car manufacturers have little reason to not produce cars capable of speeds that are completely unnecessary unless you're in a race, in much the same way the lack of gun ownership restrictions encourage the gun industry to flood the market with weapons that are completely unnecessary unless you're fighting a war.
And, unfortunately, the easier you make it for people to kill themselves or others, the more frequently this will occur, despite the gun or car nuts loudly saying "but *I've* never killed anyone!" as though that somehow changes the figures.
I feel like people might want to reflect on the *fact* that the leading cause of death for children under 14 in the US is gunshot wounds, and that's even during a global pandemic, as well as the *fact* that British roads are much safer than German roads.
For SHAME, Germany! 🤣
I think the gun comparison makes sense. Not that guns and cars are comparable, but clinging to some outdated regulation - or lack thereof - because of some sort of weird notion of "freedom" is comparable.
Without freedom there is no life worth living and we will defend every inch.
@@panzrok8701 Your freedom begins, where another one's ends. Remember that. Don't be an egoist and think about others.
@@ronaldderooij1774 I don't support regulations that maybe perhaps could help a little bit but will certainly reduce the freedom of everyone.
Very good video! In Hamburg, there are a lot of people driving terribly bad or superfast. This can be because of existence of autobahns, as drivers get used to drive crazy. Worth saying, that cars in general are killing a lot of people indirectly because of the pollution they create and because of lack of pedestrian infrastructure, public transport, and bike lanes (all these potential places are replaces by car roads). In the latter case, a person using a bike would live longer just because of regular exercises (see how healthy is the Dutch or the Danish population), while sitting in a car and breathing smoke makes life shorter.
True. But then the country would have an even greater preponderance of the elderly as a drain on the economy. Far better surely to have all those chimneys pumping out the smoke and reducing the drain on resources? 🤔
Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass eben Leidenschaft für dieses Thema, aber auch jedes anderes, das mit Risiken verbunden ist, von den jeweiligen Fan-Gruppen verteidigt wird. Dies ziehen sehr viel positives aus dem Thema. Und ich hätte ein Riesenproblem damit wenn mein Lieblingsthema gesellschaftlich ein Problem darstellt. Und hier gibt es halt den Spruch die Freiheit geht zur Freiheit des nächsten, halte ich für wichtig. In beiden Richtungen. Und ich glaube, das Mann prüfen muß, wem nützt eine Regel am meisten, wo können wir die meiste Freiheit schaffen. Es gibt z.b. auch die Argumentation das der Verkehr besser fließen würde. Wenn dies stimmt, wäre ich für ein Tempolimit. Aber müsste man schauen. Den Vergleich mit den Waffengesetzen fand ich aber auch unpassend. Hier ist die Waage sehr eindeutig. Z.b. wenn Schulen wie Gefängnisse aussehen.
Das mit Schulen-wie-Gefängnisse hat mehr als nur die Waffenprobleme. Da ist zB die Idee bei vielen Lehrern (und auch bei vielen Eltern), dass die Schüler da Disziplin haben müssen, dass der Lehrer recht hat, auch wenn er Unrecht hat, und nicht in Frage gestellt werden darf, da ist der Fahneneid, und eine Menge ähnlicher Ideen, die in unseren Schulen nahezu undenkbar wären.
Speed limits are wrong. As are ALL arbitrary "risk" based prohibitions. The only non-arbitrary way to prohibit driving beyond certain speeds, driving beyond certain BACs, etc is to, government-wide, declare the acceptable risk level, in some kind of units. Then, find out the best-predictive function for risk level of EVERYTHING, and prohibit EVERYTHING where the predicted risk level exceeds the acceptable risk level, and allow EVERYTHING where the predicted risk level is below the acceptable risk level.
I agree. Problem is, that risk is not only a mathematical figure, but also a human perception (equally valid, and thus political). Besides that, it would take a never seen before bureaucracy and amount of control to get the data from all the risks in life. Finally setting a limit on risk is also inherently political.
@@ronaldderooij1774 Risk is entirely an agent's perception. Risk isn't mathematical. Risk isn't real. That's why I wrote it in quotes. Probability, risk, expectation all exist in agents' minds, not in reality. The universe is deterministic, not probabilistic.
"get the data from all the risks in life" This is nonsense. There is no data. There are no risks in life. Everything is certain. Uncertainty only exists in finite agents' minds. You're either going to get hurt, die, collide, or you're not, and it's all determined by physical causes and effects. It would take a tiny sliver of the existing bureaucracy to quantify the risks as best we can for the existing stuff we "want" to prohibit, like: drunk driving, "too fast" driving, "too young" fucking, "too young" driving, "too young" smoking, "too young" drinking, "too young" voting, etc.
"Finally setting a limit on risk is also inherently political." No, it is not, but it would be set politically. And, at least then, it wouldn't be arbitrary. The problem with existing laws is that they're unjust because they're arbitrary. At least if a behavior or choice was quantifiably above some threshold of risk, the prohibition against it wouldn't be arbitrary. I much rather have it be prohibited because it's "too risky" according to our best estimates and the arbitrary process of democracy setting the threshold that determines what's "too risky" than be told I can't drive over a specific-but-arbitrary BAC, a specific-but-arbitrary speed, vote under a specific-but-arbitrary age, all of which AREN'T democratically (politically) determined.
If we there are convincing data pro speed limit and convincing data against it, then we should just try for two years a general speed limit if, let's say 130 km/h and see how it turns out. When the number of accidents significantly drops, then we'll keep it. If not then let the speed limit go away.
But then there's still the fact that a speed limit can seriously help with reducing CO2 emissions, which we need to do fast if we don't want to destroy our own habitats.
High speeds also destroy road surfaces more quickly (as do unnecessarily heavy vehicles - I'm looking at you, SUV drivers) which means more annoying construction sites, more taxpayer money being wasted that could be invested in improving public transport, plus (road) construction itself means another increase in CO2 emissions.
There are areas where it had to be removed
@@e.458make it unlimited for vehicles with low emissions then
@@e.458 Fair point.
@@sebastiangeorge7714 The areas where it had to be removed show the stupidity of our current regulations. There were sections with a speed limit because of a high number of accidents, and when the accidents disappeared as a speed limit was imposed, the speed limit had to be lifted again. This is insanity.
I live in Germany since 2011, got my driver license in 2017 and I drive every day to work using Autobahn and I share the same sentiment as yours. The limitless portions of the Autobahn are really scary to drive on especially when you are sharing the road with sport car drivers who would like to show us through dangerously high speed and loud revving that we (peasants) made a horrible choice in our lives by driving normal cars. It becomes even worse with cars that hold non German number plates (Autobahn-tourists..... I believe they are called that) who want to experience freedom of extreme speed.
There's a study commissioned by a pro speed limit activists which estimated a general speed limit on the Autobahn could save about 80 lives per year. That's similar to half a year of our average decline of traffic related deaths over the past two decades. I'd much rather like to see some more intersections replaced with roundabouts and rely on better safety engineering than to miss the freie Fahrt für freie Bürger.
Sure, who cares about those 80 people. Great attitude
But this is exactly the kind of argument I was critiquing in my original Short: you acknowledge that lives can be saved by imposing a general speed limit, but still oppose a general speed limit purely on the grounds that you personally want to be allowed to drive fast.
@@rewboss That's why they can't be convinced by reason: it's not that they don't know, they don't care.
@@rewboss Life is inherently dangerous and it gets dull and boring if you attempt to minimize risk of death by all means necessary everywhere. It's a balancing act to decide where you want to take risks in your life and it's up to society to restrict your decision space. I caution against the latter here though.
I understand the freedom of being allowed to drive fast isn't valuable to you, but it is to me and many others. There's no shortage of potentially deadly activities and I consider many of them silly, while others enjoy them. I think in general we're better off to tolerate each others behavior, even if we consider it to be irresponsible ourselves, unless they really fall out of line. I don't think that's the case for a driving fast on the Autobahn though.
As far as I'm concerned Tempolimit is an emotionally charged topic, which gets far more attention than it deserves. 33,000 deadly accidents happen in Germany each year. Engineers, lawyers, civil servants and many more continuously work on reducing the number of accident with great success and without infringing on the right of their fellow men. I guess it's hard to get passionate about the friction coefficients of bathtubs and safety/transport engineering though.
Leben und leben lassen!
I find that drivers are nicer and behave better on unrestricted sections of the autobahn than on restricted sections. And mostly for that reason I'd be kind of sad if they were all restricted. To me (a Brit), it's one of Germany's distinctive features that makes it stand out from other countries. However, although I don't find the safety argument particularly compelling, I find it hard to reject the environmental case for limits.
The reason we need a general speed limit in Germany is related to the environment and has nothing to do with road safety. Road safety has nothing to do with anything in Germany, witness the refusal to separate the green cycles of cars and all other traffic at junctions. The car is sacred, we spend gazillions of euros in making roads and bridges for cars, we accept that a bit of metal can block half a street where instead children could be playing or (if you add it all up) people could be living in affordable houses. (Just for funsies, check how much room is wasted in Munich for car parking, both in open areas, car parks and on the streets, and then consider how much housing you could build there instead.) Anyway, I digress; TLDR: Nobody really cares about road safety.
Yet the thing is, there's more CO2 and other pollutants to save in different sectors, like power production. Autobahn travel is a miniscule part of the overall car usage in Germany, even less of it is in parts without a speed limit and even fewer actually drive faster than 140km/h. While I am kinda on both sides here (for and against a limit), I don't think that it's an effective way to reduce our CO2 output.
Oh, and about my opinion on the speedlimits: I'm of the opinion that speed shouldn't be just a set ammount with dumb road signs, but the Autobahn should be divided into more segments with more signal bridges that regulate the speed limit constantly and more flexible depending on traffic, weather and possible accidents. I see no reason in driving 80km/h at night in a construction site without anyone working there, 100 should be ok depending on the remaining track width. There are already semi-smart signs that tell you ti drive a certain speed during certain hours or in rain, but either the people are too dumb to read signs correctly or it's just too confusing for many, a simple, changing limit without any modifyers underneath should be more clearly.
But that's exactly why we don't need a speed limit. Most electric cars already come with much lower maximum speeds. VW limits cars to, I believe, 160 km/h. Even Tesla went down to 200 km/h.
Sooner or later, we'll all be driving electric cars with green energy from solar or wind. There's no advantage with or without the speed limit for the environment.
You talk about Munich. Yes, I can see there's a problem with cars in big cities. That's something these cities need to figure out an appropriate solution for. Outside of these big cities, having a car is a necessity, and driving reasonably fast is our way of getting around as fast as you would in Munich with public transport.
A real solution where everyone would benefit would be to set a maximum speed for diesel and gasoline cars. But keep the unlimited speed for electric cars. This would force even the fiercest petrolhead to switch to an electric car.
If we know that the Autobahn is 4 times safer* than Bundesstraßen (federal out-of town roads), then getting people to use Autobahn routes instead of Bundesstraßen could be a benefit in itself. Any kilometer saved on out-of-town roads is well compensated for by going 4 extra kilometers or less on the Autobahn.
How do we get more people to switch to Autobahn routes? Higher speed limits on the Autobahn is one way. Conversely, lowering the speed limit on the Autobahn could even lead to an overall increase in road deaths.
Lower speed limits on Bundesstraßen (and inner city roads) would be another way, and it would have the added benefit of also _directly_ lowering the deaths occurring there.
Mathematically, it would be ideal (purely death-wise) if 4km on the Autobahn would take the same time as going 1km on a Bundesstraße. That would be a speed limit of 400km/h on the Autobahn (effectively unlimited), or 120km/h on Autobahn and 30km/h on Bundesstraßen. Of course, we won't have to limit Bundesstraßen all the way to 30km/h, because any decrease in speed also leads to an imporovement in the safety statistics that these calculations are based on.
In my opinion, most of the Bundesstraßen that you are allowed to drive 100km/h on are _much_ scarier at that speed than the Autobahn is at 150km/h. So why not reduce the Bundesstraßen to 80km/h too? Also, I wonder how many of the people that hang in behind a truck and drive 80km/h on the Autobahn (we all have seen them) avoid Bundesstraßen, because they would feel pressured to actually drive FASTER on them than they do on the Autobahn? Talk about perverted incentives.
Cutting autobahn speeds from 150km/h to 120km/h would reduce emissions by roughly 50%, and if we decreased Bundesstraßen from 100km/h to 80km/h we would cut 40% of the emissions generated on them.
Maybe decreasing Autobahn speeds to 140km/h and Bundesstraßen to 90km/h (except those section that are explicitly deemed safe enough to have a 100km/h or 120km/h sign) would be a more balanced way to go about things.
*see pinned comment by felixw19.
There is barely any time gained by increasing speed. Even the contrary, as with higher speed, the capacity of the Autobahn decreases rapidly (more congestion). If you think about that, it is logical. With increased speed, the reaction and braking distances increase exponentially, so every car needs a lot more road space. The optimum lies around 70 km/h.
I'm a traffic engineer. Of course we should have a speed limit on autobahns. But it is even more crazy you're allowed to drive 100km/h on country roads.
Yes, agreed. And it especially drives me crazy, if it's only for short stretches of road. Where I live (Cologne area), there aren't very many long stretches of road, where you can drive undisturbed. Between roundabouts, construction sites, villages and narrow bends in the road, there's really no point in ever accelerating to 100km/h. But it's allowed for short stretches of sometimes less than 1km all the time and people get batshit crazy, if you just keep driving at 70km/h.
I mean, I'm sorry, but I'm not wasting fuel by pushing my vehicle to that speed, just to decelerate to 30km/h for a roundabout, that I know is coming in a minute or two.
One thing to consider is that some kind of speed limit should, at least in principle, reduce fuel consumption per km.
I'm fully for a Speed limit, but I'm also one of the few Germans who dont consider the car as an extension of themselves. I know car culture is an international problem, but it is the reason why speed limits on the autobahn feels like a personal attack for most people.
Well, describing some else's hobby as an international problem is a bit antagonistic. Makes one wonder why others might consider your line of reasoning a personal attack ;)? But let me tell you a little-known secret: You DON'T HAVE TO drive fast.
@@meckerhesseausfrankfurt4019 Do you know what car culture is?
Here's one definition: "a society built around private modes of transportation, but with massive public investment in the infrastructure that allows those private uses"
It is not (just) your hobby, I am criticizing our public subsidies to car owners, which are better spend on public transportation.
Not "most people". 6 out of 10 Germans are in favor of a speed limit.
@@SomePotato Good point, but you can see in the from commenter why I thought it was a minority opinion.
@@Tudsamfa Which doesn't really apply to Germany. The German state takes in 30 billion in gas taxes, but spends 12 billion on roads. If anything at all German car drivers are paying for what they use. Which is fine. I'm all for adequately high gas prices. Which do WAY more for the environment than speed limits, which have negligable effect. But nice try, conflating American car culture with a different reality in Germany. So when you are both antagonistic and ill-informed and talking in generalities that don't apply to your conversation partner, you should not complain that others might consider it a personal attack.
"The faster you are travelling the more likely it is that you will be involved in a road traffic accident." Is that per km or per minute? (Just being devil's advocate here 🙂)
You forgot one important aspect: climate change. CO₂ emissions rise exponentially with speed. Germany could save tons of CO₂ emissions by imposing a national speed limit. With car traffic being one of the worst climate offenders and all traffic sector measures being woefully insufficient to reach Germany’s climate treaty obligations, a national speed limit - which would yield significant CO₂ savings at essentially zero cost - should be a no-brainer.
Furthermore, a strong majority of Germans is in favor of a (reasonable) national speed limit, say, 130 km/h.
The ONLY reason we don’t have one is a fanatical, irrational minority - not unlike the fanatical, irrational gun lobby in the 🇺🇸.
Speed limits and gun control save many lives. Not having them only provides tiny subsets of the population with some measure of “fun.” Again, in a rational public discourse, both questions should have been long settled.
Everything you wrote is factually wrong.
@@consgchaos Since you said “factually”, I guess there is no need for you to back your claim.