11–20 of 173 posts
The author should have listed the fatalities by 100 million km driven - of course practically-empty Finland is going to have far fewer fatalities per 1000km of road than much denser Germany!
Just like the gun debate in the US, the speed limit debate in Germany has at its core nothing to do with rational arguments. It is about perceived restriction, limiting personal freedom, and potentially taking away a right people are used to.
> limiting personal freedom, and potentially potentially taking away a right people are used to
not a rational concern? Sure you might personally be of a different opinion, but to claim these things can’t be the subject of a rational argument is absurd.
Myth #2: I've never met someone who is like: oh if I cannot drive 200kmph I'll be late to my meeting. That's not why people drive fast. They do because it's fun!
Myth #3: Emissions are taxed. Car consumes more, so you pay more taxes.
Myth #4: You cannot push everybody to electric cars and then yell: oh but the electricity isn't clean...
Myth #5: This is the worst actually, it's missing a significant piece of information... which part of the fatalities happened > 130kmph?
Just like the gun debate in the US, the speed limit debate in Germany has at its core nothing to do with rational arguments. It is about perceived restriction, limiting personal freedom, and potentially taking away a right people are used to.
Those sound like rational concerns to me.
The problem with the Autobahn are the 120 km/h speed limits that are there on a sizeable portion of it for no reason. They should remove all the speed limits, not add more.
Most of those limits are for noise levels and surface conditions.
And for surface conditions, repave the road.
I believe a speed limit would be useful. Maybe add more Nürburgring-style race tracks where people can drive their cars as fast as they want to.
Despite having occasionally enjoyed letting ‘er rip at 160-180 (about 100-110mph), I lean towards a 130 general limit - having a kid changes a lot of one’s priorities, it turns out. The author should have listed the fatalities by 100 million km driven - of course practically-empty Finland is going to have far fewer fatalities per 1000km of road than much denser Germany!
No-one forces you to drive faster (1) and when driving you can stick to the right lane (2) and check your mirrors when you need to pass (3).
Just like the gun debate in the US, the speed limit debate in Germany has at its core nothing to do with rational arguments. It is about perceived restriction, limiting personal freedom, and potentially taking away a right people are used to.
Those sound like rational concerns to me.
About 2.5 years ago, the maximum speed of 120 was introduced in a 10 km long section near Augsburg, from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.
There are some many exits in quick succession. It is generally very dangerous when people traveling at very high speeds (i.e. people who are just driving there) meet people who are traveling at very low speeds (i.e. people who are trying to get onto the motorway in slow cars or trucks).
There have been many accidents in the past. Since the speed was set at 120, there have been far fewer accidents on this section, and therefore fewer seriously injured / killed.
I generally observe a harmonization of traffic flow. And I'm less stuck in traffic!
Despite having occasionally enjoyed letting ‘er rip at 160-180 (about 100-110mph), I lean towards a 130 general limit - having a kid changes a lot of one’s priorities, it turns out. The author should have listed the fatalities by 100 million km driven - of course practically-empty Finland is going to have far fewer fatalities per 1000km of road than much denser Germany!
Having done 250kmph / 155mph on the German Autobahn I do wonder what why you feel like you should take the pleasure away from other people because you had a kid? No-one forces you to drive faster (1) and when driving you can stick to the right lane (2) and check your mirrors when you need to pass (3).