EuropeThat's fine, being in prison can be part of their identity too.
It is very important that germany stays speed limit free.
Without that, the last reason to build cars that go faster than 130km/h would be gone.
Oh no
hell yeah buddy, fuck the planet
I'm not sure. should i have added a /s? I kind of thought that was obvious, but i can't tell how i should interpret your comment. Ah. the joys of autism. never being sure about any of this shit.
A reasonable solution would be to introduce a tempo limit, but set it so high that nobody would be bothered by it. Like, the new top speed on the Autobahn could be 500 km/h.
This is a fascinating topic because it shows the power of stereotypes. A majority of the general population has supported a general speed limit for decades. But the anti-limit minority is very vocal and has managed to present their preference as a matter of national identity.
And as fellow Europeans we then reinforce such stereotypes about Germans.
I think this issue is exactly the same as many others that are, in principle, supported by an overwhelming majority: it is the influence of lobbying that makes it possible for the will of the people to be ignored. While this phrase is widely used, it doesn’t quite capture the essence of the matter - it is simply corruption.
Germans become allergic to rules as soon as they have any kind of wheels under them
I have to strongly disagree, that is not my impression at all. Of all countries I've ever driven in, Germans are the most rule-abiding drivers.
In Germany, I've been honked at for driving half on the shoulder to let someone pass (that's not even illegal, but most people seem to think it is). Drivers brake if you're walking just in the general vicinity of a zebra crossing. Virtually no driver drives past a red light on purpose, I see that like once a year or so (yellow is a different story though..). And, to add a more objective observation, German dashcam compilations mostly consist of absolute mundane minor offenses, while they're much more action packed even in smaller countries like Netherlands.
Sure, we still have speeding, parking offenses and ignored stop signs on a regular basis. You can see any of these within minutes by just being on any busy city street. But that's anything but exclusive to Germany, that happens pretty everywhere in a similar (and often probably higher) frequency.
The only driving behavior related issues Germany has IMO are the fines that are an absolute joke, as well as a jurisdiction that treats even deadly and major offenses with kid gloves (drive 100+ in a city and kill someone, you just get 1y9m on probation and you even keep your license, so no time served, you'll keep living freely, just wait 2 years before you go reckless again and you're good).
But apart from this, that Germans specifically are allergic to rules is pretty much the opposite of my experience.
I’ve been honked at for driving half on the shoulder to let someone pass (that’s not even illegal, but most people seem to think it is)
On the Autobahn, you aren't allowed to drive there, unless you are in an emergency or there's street sign that allows it. Are talking about a country road?
Yes, that was on a country road. On any road with 2+ lanes in my direction I don't do that (including autobahn ofc), as there's no need to do it for someone to pass me.
no driver drives past a red light on purpose, I see that like once a year or so
I mean we're throwing personal observations at each other, but it really depends where you are. I see that shit multiple times per week ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
a day even...
Liar
A majority of the general population has supported a general speed limit for decades
ADAC graph in article clearly shows that this is only the case for the last 4 years by a margin of ~5%
The ADAC members do not represent the general population... The survey was among ADAC members (a motorist organization).
The ADAC is certainly representative, because that's just people using cars. People that do not use cars and are not affected by a speed limit (e.g. people living in larger cities) are irrelevant.
Also you did 0 research and consolidated 0 resources for your claims:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zul%C3%A4ssige_H%C3%B6chstgeschwindigkeit_im_Stra%C3%9Fenverkehr_(Deutschland)#Umfragen_und_Verb%C3%A4nde
There is a very slight majority in the recent years depending on the height of the limit. But certainly not for decades...
ADAC members are people who joined the motorist organization, it's not just people driving cars.
If you think that the opinion of the general population does not matter, fine. But the ADAC members still do not represent the general population.
Your Wikipedia reference does not support your claim that there hasn't been a majority for decades. It only lists surveys from the last few years. But that does not mean that there weren't majorities before that.
As a German the name Lutz Leif Linden pleases me
Going fast is not about being a petrolhead in Germany. Nor is it about culture.
The German autobahn is built to drive up to 250km/h and the German driving school is very throughout to enable drivers to drive at high speeds pretty safely.
So why would you limit the speed of a train in tracks that allow it to go faster? Having the option to go fast because you need to be somewhere fast is something not easily taken away from people.
I understand its about the environment but that would also be easily achievable with electric cars instead of a speed limit.
Let the fuckcars downvotes rain....
Have you driven actually on German highways?
I do regularly.
Having had an "Aufbauseminar" for speeding when I was young. That was eye opening. We timed going as fast as possible versus going 100 kph tops on a distance of some 50 km (30km Autobahn, mostly unlimited). In the end it made a difference of like 2 minutes. But for that you spend like 50% more on gas and arrive completely exhausted.
There's no time to be gained. On a long distance at night you could save some time, but then again: if you really observed how exhausting it is to concentrate at high speeds and really made a pause to account for that and not keep on driving, endangering yourself and others...you would be even slower.
But nobody does the latter anyway.
My mother is very prone to speeding, she regularly boasts about how she could go 250 last time. Then she's like "I made it in only 28 minutes home" and I'm like...well, it took me 33 minutes, going only 100, but my average fuel consumption was 4.7 L/100km ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Having had an “Aufbauseminar” for speeding when I was young. That was eye opening. We timed going as fast as possible versus going 100 kph tops on a distance of some 50 km (30km Autobahn, mostly unlimited). In the end it made a difference of like 2 minutes. But for that you spend like 50% more on gas and arrive completely exhausted.
Absolutely this.
I did a lot of traveling by hitch-hiking when I was younger, and had a lot of opportunity to study this. "Sporty" drivers would do speeding for one hour along a half-busy Autobahn section. Then have a five-minute coffee break.
And then, we would have the same slow cars again in front of us that we did overtake one hour ago....
and arrive completely exhausted.
I'm the same. I think there are two types of drivers.
-
Those that don't enjoy driving (like me). I tend to cruise at 100 km/h and just disconnect from the experience. The less I have to do the better. Cruise control is great. Empty road is great. I find constant overtaking and adjusting speed tiring.
-
Those that like driving. Those people want to drive actively all the time. Cruising is boring to them. They need the constant stimuli that comes with driving at the limit, when you need to constantly anticipate what can happen and react real fast. Without it they get tired and distracted.
I'm not sure if one way of driving causes more accidents than the other. Driving fast doesn't necessarily mean driving dangerously. If you're focuses on the road and don't do anything stupid it's probably as safe as cruising below speed limit. The problem is that both styles of driving are not compatible. I don't like people driving 1 meter behind and they don't like that I drive at the speed limit. Not much we can do about it though.
Driving fast doesn’t necessarily mean driving dangerously.
There is a lot of data on that one. To start with, the consequences of a collisions are always larger if you are faster. That's just physics.
Yes, you're right. I meant that someone driving 140 km/h while focusing on the road is not necessarily more likely to cause an accident than someone going 80 km/h while looking at their phone. But yes, if both crash the accident at 140 km/h will be more deadly. So yeah, I definitely would support taking away driving licenses from people that are unable to drive at the speed limit because it's too boring for them.
Yes, you’re right. I meant that someone driving 140 km/h while focusing on the road is not necessarily more likely to cause an accident than someone going 80 km/h while looking at their phone
First, that's scientifically wrong. When you drive faster, it is clear that your field of vision narrows and that you simply see less things, because of the speed.
Also, even if the risk for an accident happening would be the same, the consequences of an accident are larger, therefore the expected value of accident effects, which is risk times expected consequences, is larger.
And lastly, what you say with "people that are unable to drive" or "focusing on the road", that is what all unsafe drivers tell themselves - that they are in control, that they drive better than average, that they know the risk, and so on. In reality, if they were safe drivers, they would drive slower, because speed is the factor number one in accident risk.
As I said, I tend to drive below speed limit and I hate drivers that think they're the next Schumacher. Yes, assholes that think they are the best drivers and can get away with dangerous maneuvers are the most dangerous ones. I'm not defending them.
What I'm saying is that skilled drivers can drive faster safely. Because people in Germany do drive faster than in many other countries:
but have less accidents:
That doesn't mean that you can remove speed limits everywhere and not have more accidents. Most probably some discipline and training is needed. But discipline and skills can compensate for the reduced field of vision at higher speeds. Obviously up to a limit. Even the greatest driver can't drive safely at 200km/h on a highway.
Germany has better (and very, very costly) road infrastructure in parts with the motorways. On Landstrassen, die statistics are pretty bad even if the same people are driving there.
And, I don't think it is not a convincing argument that "actually, that are not so many people that are dying, only about 3000 people per year die".
What you also have to consider is that about 3.5 times more people die of bad air quality caused by traffic, than by traffic accidents.. So, adding to the 3000 deaths per year by traffic, we have 11,000 deaths by pollution caused by traffic. Yes, if you are speeding, you are killing other people, even if you don't have an accident.
But if both of the persons you’re talking about are focused on driving, the one doing 140 km/h is probably more likely to end up in some kind of accident. Of cause this will vary on the given situation.
I hope that people driving 140 km/h are more focused on driving then I am. Driving 100 km/h in normal conditions in Spain I barely have to overtake any cars. I have to be aware of what's more than 100 m in front of me most of the time because there's simply nothing closer. Driving at 120+ km/h you overtake all the time, you drive way closer behind other cars and you have to check mirrors all the time. So there's different level of focus required at higher speeds.
From experience, having started half hour later and having arrived about an hour earlier over 500ish km going the same exact roads at the same time, that doesn’t sound right. Is car dependent.
Going as fast as possible with a family car will consume as much petrol as a sports car of similar engine size going max speed, however the sports car is going to be about 50% faster.
If you drive a Prius at a speed which is “just cruising” for a sports car, it will use more fuel.
So.... You are saying that a family station wagon going 200kmph consumes as much as a sports car going 300kmph with the same engine size?
Sir I call your statement utter bullshit and here's why:
Let's take the Mercedes AMG A 45s 4Matic+ with 1991cm3 and 421hp. Not really a sports car but who the heck produces sports cars with the same engine size like normal station wagons? And the VW Passat Variant with the 2.0 TSI engine and 190hp. The VW consumes up to 20L/100km at 200kmph and the Mercedes going 270kmph (I know not even 50% faster) consumes 50l/100km going full throttle.
Give me any other modern good quality cars that prove me wrong and I'll apologise but till then that's not even close to make sense. Heck the sport's car's have to cool the engine with fuel to not overheating, how on earth will your claim ever work?
Are you even allowed to drive a car yet?
You have a vastly different opinion of family car and sports car than I do. Take a “normal” and affordable family car with a 2l with around 130hp and compare it with a “normal” affordable sports car, with a 2l producing 200hp. The sports car will go faster for the same amount of fuel consumed, even if you ignore all the other things and just focus on the aerodynamics.
You can compare something like a TT8j and a Golf maybe. That’s the same engine, tuned differently, in a different body. If you are going to be disrespectful, just refrain from replying.
Well sorry how I phrased that. But explain to me how that works.
I already did some math. Ok the golf is going what? 130? Then the TT goes 195kmph.
The VW EA888 is not available as 130hp edition, especially not in a Golf, there it's used in the R Models or as 190hp edition. The smallest equivalent engine I could find was the Golf VI 1.8T with 160hp. The CDAA engine.
But ok, let's just ignore the engines for now, focus on resistance.
In this calculation I use a density of 1.29kg/m³.
Audi TT8J with the spoiler retracted has a drag coefficient of 0.31 and that's really impressive. We have a surface area of 2.09m² and a speed of 195kmph.
That results in 1226.12N drag force applied to the Audi TT
The Golf has CW values ranging from Golf 1 with 0.42 to 0.27 Golf 7 Blue motion.
But let's assume we have a Golf 6 from 2010 with 0.31 CW (sounds familiar) a surface area of 2.23m² and the speed of 130kmph. That results in 581.44N drag force.
Explain to me like, how will the Audi manage to go that fast, with that drag force applied and consume the same amount of fuel like the Golf? I mean even the engine should be the same size. So either the Audi TT has a magical rolling resistance that he can compete with the golf fuel consumption. Don't know how the math here work's, especially in regard that the golf is 100kg lighter.
Are there much more efficient air conditioning systems/assistant systems in the sports car that reduce the fuel consumption?
I don't know... The Audi you mentioned consumes 7,7L/100km. Let's take the worst engine the Golf 6 has, that has less horsepower that the Audi: the VW EA 113 1.6L with 102 hp. Btw the same engine plattform like the Audi's engine. That consumes 7.1L/100km.
So please, enlighten me. How can the "sports car" go 50% faster and consume the same amount of fuel? The drag force is more than doubled. The engine consumes by default more. How?
As I wrote: on long distances it can make a difference. But blasting for 3,5 hours 200 is not safe, so if people do that, they're endangering themselves and others.
And obviously different cars use different amounts of fuel to achieve the same feat. But if you took the sports car at 100 only it saves a lot. Power (phys.) is dependent to the third power of 3 of the velocity. It's just physics. When you double the velocity it's thus way, way, WAY more fuel than just double the fuel.
A sports car doesn’t have the same aerodynamics as a family hatchback though. You can’t compare them like this directly.
No, that's why I didn't.
General physics apply to the sports car as well, though. The sports car still uses way, way, way more gas for a higher velocity.
My point is: gas usage is not proportional with speed. It is factor ^3. People underestimate that.
So when I cruise on a flat surface at 100kph, I use some 4.7 litres with my car. If I go 120kph, a lot of people would expect an increase of 20%, at max, so roughly 5.6 litres. But it gets to some 6.5 litres, an increase of almost 40%. And if I went 150 or above that shit gets crazy.
The same applies to the sports car. If people calculate "I drive twice as fast, it'll cost me twice as much", that's a crazy miscalculation.
Nobody said that though. It’s just not always to the power of three. It can’t be, if you consider aerodynamics and the shape of the car. A pointy rocket doesn’t use the same amount of fuel to go at a certain speed as a G wagon, all other things remaining equal.
It is, see e.g. here
The sports car has a better drag coefficient and less surface area, that is why at the same speed it needs less power. The "aerodynamics" are factored in only in those coefficients. But the velocity is the dominating part, as it is cubed in that equation.
But still, I am not comparing a sports car to a station wagon. I compare a sports car to itself at higher velocities. And contrary to popular belief, higher speeds result in an unproportional excess in fuel consumption.
The German autobahn is built to drive up to 250km/h and the German driving school is very throughout to enable drivers to drive at high speeds pretty safely.
Unless you drive on the 80% of Autobahn that has a speed limit, construction site, traffic jam or has the lanes blocked by east European trucks overtaking each other at 90kmh.
The German autobahn is built to drive up to 250km/h and the German driving school is very throughout to enable drivers to drive at high speeds pretty safely.
Really? You are required to to 180 minutes of driving on a Autobahn to get your B licence. That is enough to grasp the basics like getting on or off, but that is no high speed driving training. And if you take a look at how many drivers are driving at those speeds, they are driving unsafe as fuck. Let's not pretend that germans are the greatest drivers in the world because our Führerschein is so awesome. Nobody has high speed driving training, many people are driving at high speeds and many people are doing that quite dangerously
Have you seen what Americans learn to drive on and in which time? ;)
Yeah and that is a good reason to not allow tourists those "drive fast on the Autobahn" excursions many Americans are doing.
Electric cars are not here to save the environment, they are here to save the automobile industry
We are currently having reports on the main channels about the "DB train taskforce" coming up with the genius plan to reduce trains/hour to solve the railroads being overloaded. many big distributors are derailing with speed limit debates to make you look away at the fact the train tracks system we have is getting worse and worse.
Not to dive into the topic how the prices -before crises- instantly went up to 63€/month for short ride trains. We workers shouldnt restrict other worker's mobility by making public transport unrealistic - imo it should be free 100% the way we overpay for private autobahn road company subsidies..
Which gets me to your statement again: the roads are build this way... which is by design ... expensive... and expensive to uphold by repair after (topspeed and frequent) use.
Thats the whole debate, just in a very different light, to make you, the worker, incited..in a way.. at the wrong people. fellow workers
petrolheads
Doesn't Germany mostly use diesel?
Similarly, not all winos drink wine.
Not that i know off. I'd had to google. But yes lots of germans cling to their diesel for some ego reason
Diesel has its uses. It is useful for vehicles that need lots of torque.
Diesel can be stockpiled for a long time, whereas gasoline degrades over time.
And the last thing: Diesel can be produced entirely without crude oil. At least in theory.
Given that this has lingered on far too long, I'd even say speed limit for ICE cars only is an improvement.
High speed is a waste of energy regardless of the power source. Air resistance increases quadratically with speed. And half of the yearly produced electricity in Germany is generated using fossil fuels. Plus electric cars are not yet mainstream for the masses as prices are higher, only 4% of all cars in Germany are fully electric. I don't think giving privileges to a select few is ethical.
A maximum speed limit is a sane idea and reduces both pollution and accidents. As all countries know except for Afghanistan and Germany.
The majority of "Germany" if for speed limits for decades. But like with every other topic we are held hostage by corrupt politicians, the industry bribing them and the pensioneers voting for them again and again and again.
For the same reason "Germany" (your definition this time) will always fight tooth-and-nail against any restriction on or required medical evaluation for driver's licenses of our senile overlords. We have simply given up and just take the daily accidents with black humor (see: https://feddit.org/c/rentnerfahrenindinge)
To be fair, German highways are still some of the safest around. Hell, German roads are pretty safe - in terms of having the least road deaths per population, they're ranked 14th, with a lot of the countries above them either much more reliant on public transportation (which would be a much, much better solution to the pollution problem) or small enough so that the sample size is too small.
You want to know what the most dangerous roads in Germany are? They're the "Landstraßen", by far. The highways pale in comparison.
I very much know that, this speed ideology extends even to railways - speed is prioritised over traffic reduction, i.e. analysis of separation of needs is blocked, because speed is given priority of thought.
The de facto situation is exactly the reason why I think temporary subsidies by privilege is necessary, because change with privileges worked in Norway. The legal de facto situation is that (ICE) cars are still being subsidised via staff car privilege, diesel subsidies and commuter flat rate and over the last ten years, nothing has changed about any of this substantially despite heavy confrontation, so we have to take the opportunities where they are.
I don't give a damn how fast you drive, if you're burning fossil fuels while you do it then you're doing it wrong.
