[atoav]

Ok I'll bite. The single most thing I hate about driving car in Germany is the lack of an upper speed limit on big stretches of the Autobahn. If you cross over from any neighbouring country any driver will notice that what before was a friendly chugging along now has become a stressful battle between people who just want to go somewhere with a good compromise of speed and fuel use and speedsters who will breath up you neck even if you are going 160. No thanks.

If this law were to enforce the speed limit by enforcing it in the motor control system there would still allow for unlimited speed on those stretches.

Your freedom to go faster than the speed limit also interferes with other freedoms btw. for example the health of people who live close to roads, the bodily integrity of people who might fall victim to the accidents caused by it etc.

If we build the roads correctly (e.g. like in more modern european places, many places in the Netherlands) speed limits become less relevant, because the shape of the street itself will limit how fast any sane person would go (not to speak of speed bumps).

So if you find yourself constantly enforcing speed limits, maybe there is an impedance mismatch between the way your road feels and the limit you slapped onto the traffic sign?

The obvious solution is to change the road, which might also come with added benefits (better for pedestrians, people on bicycles, therefore better revenue for local shops, restaurants and cafes etc).

Quite frankly I'd have no problem if my car enforced a speed limit, if the speed limit matches the street. Going 30 in a narrow (and I mean european narrow) street feels totally appropriate. Going 30 in what could be a highway not so much.

[koonsolo]

Maybe I'm too old school, but I don't agree with you. Here in Belgium there used to be a law that when you have 2 lanes in the same direction with a middle section separating the other direction(s), you could go 120. Then it became 90, and now in most places it's 70. There are no pedestrians there, so there is no real reason why not to drive at least 90. Everybody there drives 90. Speed limits are currently just too low, that's why nobody is obeying them. And adapting roads to go slower is just plain ridiculous.

I have the feeling that the politics works like this: A lof of people are speeding on that road, so let's just lower the speed limit. Real consequence is that now everybody is speeding.

Same with construction works: 30km/h. Even in the weekend when nobody is working there. So basically a free road and you have to go 30km/h. Nobody does that of course. I know a buddy of mine once did that to be funny, and we got passed by a scooter. Huge line of cars behind us. Crazy.

[411111111111111]

Their argument is basically what "strong towns" is about. There is a video series on YouTube which goes over the books content if you're interested. There is definitely truth in it and your examples are spot on with proving their point, you're just missing context as it's not really possible to summarize it in one comment.

But besides that: reducing speed from 90 to 70 is most likely not for safety and more about the noise pollution. But i guess you don't care about that, as you're only driving through

[koonsolo]

My street used to be 70 and now it's 50. 70 was fine for me, so I indeed don't care. I care about a car mobility plan, not a car immobility plan.

[nicbou]

I drive under 100 in the rightmost line and it's not a problem, since there are trucks and campers there. Just stay out of the left lane.

However speed limits make sense from an environmental perspective. The difference between 100 and 130 is quite a lot of petrol.

[snapplebobapple]

The environmental argument for speed limits is ridiculous because many places have a carbon tax/other taxes meant to capture the unpriced environmental cost that accrues to the commons. With the carbon tax the person doing the speeding is paying for any excess harm they to the environment they may be doing and is willing to pay that cost in order to go faster so they should be able to go faster. If you don't think the cost of carbon is properly priced argue to raise your carbon tax, don't argue to add additional special taxes for various things you don't like.

[fho]

The crazy thing is that the Autobahns are not exactly safe ... Sure, millions of people drive on them every day and most of them will never be in an accident. Still there are about 15000 accidents per year on the Autobahns [1].

More anecdotally, my SO was commuting on the A2 for about a year. She saw the aftermaths of (minor) accidents basically every day and was the first car not to collide in a pile up twice.

(To be fair, most accidents on the A2 happen on that stretch around Gütersloh iirc.)

[1] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Verkeh...

[andreareina]

I thought the consensus is that speed bumps don't help, except in the very near vicinity of the bump? That's what I observe anyway.

[atoav]

Speed bumps alone don't help, that is right. You also need to have raised pedestrian crossings, you need to reduce lane width (maybe even so narrow that you have to yield when a car is coming from the other direction), the street needs to not be straight, etc. The space you get from that can be used for trees, bicycle paths, broader sidewalks and such niceties.

If all of this is there you can't just ride 50 km/h through there because it just feels wrong. Of course this is an example where we go from a limit of 50 to a limit of 30, but similar ideas exist for going from 70 to 50 etc.

[picsao]

Straw man, germany has physical speed limits on most of the Autobahn. Meaning the rightmost lane is usually filled with trucks, leaving one or two lanes, were the aging populations slowest drivers create a upper speed limits (usually 120). And even those struggle with those slow Netherlands caravans. Your habbits are not a borthright to be a traffic obsticle in another country.

[atoav]

I said driving on the German Autobahn (I live in Germany btw.) is more stressful than driving on a same looking street that has a speed limit of say 130 like in Austria. Traffic flow is better when all people go at similar speed. Safety is better, pollution is better, noise is better and it makes not that much difference.

Given the fact that air resistance is increasing quadratically with speed, that fast cars are loud, that accidents cost everybody in a socity time and money and that we have even more to expect in form of climate change not having a speed limit seems like a very radical political position. It doesn't seem radical, because it has been "normal" for a long time, but it is forcefully irrational.

Nothing against a little bit of irrationality. I am jumping into the sea or lakes from cliffs, bridges and cranes. But this is a danger to myself and not to others. Also I check beforehand how deep the water is.

[pas]

many people do go 160+ in Austria, then hit the brakes when the speedcam approaches, then speed up again.

that said the problem is, according to my observations, is that the German highways are full, there are more cars, so it's harder to go at almost any speed. so yes, it's more stressful.

(and just to mention something else stressful on German highways: Hochzeit Korsos! we had the pleasure to see one very close this year on the ring around München)

[wink]

yeah, as someone living close to the Austrian border and being over there very often... every single trip every nth car overtakes me when I'm going 130 as allowed. You just need to be local and know where you'll have to pay a fine. Depends on which of theirs though, the one from Salzburg to Italy isn't so bad, but the others are.

[omnimus]

No need to be local just install Waze and you will see all cameras and policemen in the app.

[wink]

I wasn't complaining, I'm completely happy to go 130 - just stating the fact that there are more locals speeding than Germans. And the "fun" fact is that on certain days there are actually more cars with German plates on their Autobahn than Austrian ones.. or certainly a 2:1 ratio at most.