There I was, flying down a German autobahn in a VW Phaeton, bumping up against the car’s electronic limiter. I glanced at the rear view mirror and moved over. A modified M5 streaked by at over 180mph. I say modified because BMW is part of a “gentleman’s agreement” hammered out in the 70’s, when Germany’s Green Party wanted to impose speed limits on de-restricted autobahns. Mercedes, BMW and Audi all agreed to limit their products’ top speed to 155mph. The idea that other countries could build automobiles capable of cresting 250kph somehow escaped everyone’s attention. As, eventually, did the entire speed limit issue.
At the time of the agreement, the majority of the automobiles plying Germany’s highways weren’t particularly clean or mind-numbingly fast. Some thirty years later, the tailpipe emissions produced by Germany’s increasingly modern automotive fleet are virtually sterile. And there’s hardly a new vehicle sold that can’t comfortably cruise well over 100mph— from diesel delivery vans to four-cylinder passenger cars. And so they do. At the same time, BMW, Mercedes and Audi all build mainstream models that could easily exceed their 155mph e-limit. And so they do, once a friendly tuner remaps their ECU. (FYI: Porsche never joined Club 155.) Clearly, German gentlemen kick ass.
Today’s German greens are also in butt kicking mode. Now that cars no longer belch significant amounts of harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, environmentalists are taking a new angle of attack: carbon dioxide. They claim that automotive CO2 emissions help reduce the Earth’s natural cooling, which causes global warming. This concern has resurrected the Green Party’s attack on automobiles in the same way that studies on the harmful effects of second hand smoke on non-smokers reignited the anti-smoking movement. Throughout the European Union (EU), member states are busy imposing legislative measures designed to restrict vehicular CO2.
The greens also have a new champion: Andreas Troge. The President of Germany’s Federal Environmental Agency (UBA) is a long time auto industry critic. For example, at a 2004 conference on environmental sustainability, Troge lambasted carmakers for using technological innovation to increase engine performance, rather than reduce fuel consumption. Last Thursday, Troge called for a 75mph speed limit on all German autobahns. He declared that the move would reduce Germany’s carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent.
The speed limit proposal is best seen within a much wider and more vigorous debate. The EU is currently trying to “convince” Germany to radically reduce its CO2 emissions. Specifically, the EU wants the German federal government to impose tougher CO2 restrictions on its power providers. Germany’s four largest utilities have rebelled, warning that any such concession will reduce energy supplies, eliminate jobs and increase prices– which are already the highest in Europe. Whether the autobahn speed limit will be a successful part of a growing environmental movement or nothing more than a doomed sideshow remains to be seen.
I’d bet on the sideshow. No less a personage than Germany Transport Minister immediately dismissed the 75mph speed limit [almost] out of hand. “I am committed to a reduction in emissions,” Wolfgang Tiefensee proclaimed. “But a general speed limit on open stretches of road does not make sense.” Tiefensee and his supporters assert that autobahns are environmentally irrelevant; they account for just two percent of German roadways. Defenders of the status quo also maintain that derestricted autobahns help the national automobile industry develop better and safer automobiles.
While the exact correlation between allowing 100mph+ driving on long straight roads and increased automotive safety may be a bit unclear, the underlying sentiment is not. Even without considering the merits of the safety argument, the fact that such a counter-intuitive justification can be mentioned in public without widespread condemnation highlights the enormous cultural importance of Germany’s derestricted autobahns. In other words, planet, schmanet. Don’t EU be messing with our autobahns.
Remember: Germans are a people who won’t jaywalk– even if there isn’t a car anywhere within sight. They can’t run their washing machines or wash their car on a Sunday– in case the noise disturbs their neighbors. In the main, they like rules. But they also like their autobahns. And that's because the roads liberate them from stifling peer pressure and governmental dictat, giving them a rare chance to explore and experience their individuality. Not to put too fine a point on it, German drivers revel in the sheer joy of accelerative release. The derestricted autobahn network is a precious bastion against soulless conformity.
That will one day fall victim to political conformity. While environmentalism is not likely to slow down German drivers, safety legislation will. The European Union is about to harmonize drivers’ license requirements across national boundaries. It’s only a matter of time before Brussels standardizes Union-wide road safety regulations. Reigning-in Germany’s derestricted autobahns may be the last step in this process, but it will also be one of the most significant. And regrettable.
94 Comments on “German Speed Limits: I Can’t Drive 155...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
When my driving teacher let me go on the Autobahn for the first time, I drove 130kph – the recommended limit. He looked at me and said, “Now get it on, this car does much more than that.” Sounds a bit careless, but he explained that I certainly won’t give a damn about that limit once I get my licence, so he wanted to give me at least some experience about driving at that sort of speed.
By the way, statistics indicate that the Autobahn isn’t any more dangerous than highways in other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road-traffic_safety#Motorway
Some of my happiest motorhead moments have been times when I’ve been able to hammer along over the ton on the derestricted Autobahn. I hope to buy my next BMW through European Delivery to experience it with my own car at least once.
Another plus is the structure and respect for basic road rules that German drivers have that makes the Autobahn a joy. That lack of basic road skills (keep to the right except to pass, yielding, etc.) make US roads (and particulary New England) roads a nightmare.
I think this “issue” is more about pansies trying to use environmentalism to reduce autobahn speeds. I consider myself somewhat of an environmentalist, and believe in minimizing CO2 emissions; yet I fail to see how limiting speeds would reduce by 30% total emissions (even just total vehicle emissions).
Limiting (or further taxing) engine displacement seems like a much more effective solution – speeds wouldn’t necessarily be kept down, but fuel usage (and therefore CO2) would be reduced at all times of operation, not just on…what…2% of roads?
After the initial thrill of exceeding 100mph on the Autobahn most of the time I drove a comfortable 85-90mph. In fact after living in a Germany for the first year of my three tour of duty there, I traded my Porsche for a Citroen. I learned that comfort and speed is much more enjoyable than raw speed. Sure the Porsche was fun, but that Citroen DS 21 Pallas was literally like riding on a cloud and it would do a comfortable 90mph all day with its 2.3 liter four cylinder. I would a buy a Citroen C6 if they sold them here in the US.
The German drivers as mentioned above also are very predictable and rule abiding when driving. That made driving much safer and is probably the main reason that the higher speeds are acceptable in Germany where here in the US it would be a disaster the way people drive with one hand on the wheel and the cell phone to their ear.
As far as the emmission of CO2 damaging the planet, I think there needs to be some real scientific data and study before we know the proper course or action. Remember in the 1970s the world population was predicted to exceed the food production capabilites of the planet resulting in mass starvation. Last time I looked we had a problem with obesity not scarcity.
Happy New Year .
I agree with UnclePete, one of the great joys of the Autobahn is not only the speed but the standard of driving. Keeping right when not overtaking, no cell phone usage, no eating, keeping an adequate distance and understanding the basics of on-ramp merging. That is also most likely the cause for their lower fatality rate. I wish US drivers got the same divers education – it would make driving over here a lot more enjoyable.
Thanks to ref for the very interesting Wikipedia citation. In my experience, people who argue about the impact of highway speed limits on safety in the US focus on the overall death toll, not the impact on the highway death toll, thus confusing the issue. Has anyone seen figures for the US comparing highway death tolls with speed limits?
As an infantry grunt in Germany in the late 80’s, I at first thought the autobahn reckless. Careful observation of other motorists and my German girlfriend showed otherwise.
Certain subtle anecdotes…
Driving in the center lane, my gal showed me how every other driver would ’stagger’ a little to the right or left of center in order to show a brake light of the car two in front.
Freezing my a** off during a helicopter ride and looking down on the autobahn’s 3 lanes, I noted the mechanical precision with which ‘drive-right/pass-left’ was universally applied by the hundreds of cars below… It was choreography by a car-god.
Gottleib said “I traded my Porsche for a Citroen”.
In Germany!
That’s bad, wrong, unheard of, ridiculous and totally unacceptable in a car-nuts forum :-)
Biturbo,
What wrong with Citroen and French cars in general? express yourself…
Car nutz generally dig cars with personality; quirkyness is a plus, and performance definitively a nice thing…
French cars have always been that.
US people have still their minds clouded by the Renault 5 (Le car of the 80’s).
On a funny note: Citröen is a German name. =)
This has been all over the news, but the fact of the matter is there’s a whole lot of environmentalists in Germany who think that not driving cars fast will save the planet, and they’re continuously at it. This is just the last in a long string of attempts to slow German drivers down.
And a new speed limit will slow them down – to a halt. Lower speed limits equal less efficient road use equals more traffic jams. And what car, oh Green Party, pollutes more than any other? That’s right: an idling car.
In slow traffic jams the average MPG is about 7 – or about twice as bad as what most cars will do at 100 mph. But no, fast is bad.
In my native Holland (traffic jam heaven) speed limits of 55 have been imposed (and enforced by trajectory speed traps) on parts of our highways recently in an effort to reduce pollution near cities. They have failed miserably – save for one piece of highway that has shown some improvement. They’ve been using this one example to upkeep all these limits, even the ones that have resulted in more and longer traffic jams. Why: because the general consensus seems to be that anyone suggesting people drive faster needs their head examined.
I sincerely hope the EU won’t succeed in slowing the Germans down – because no one will be able to speed them up again.
@rashakor: Citroën is actually a Dutch name. ;-)
>>> Last time I looked we had a problem with obesity not scarcity.
Germany’s four largest utilities have rebelled, warning that any such concession will reduce energy supplies, eliminate jobs and increase prices– which are already the highest in Europe.
I guess that depends on what measures you take…
in the Netherlands :(, Denmark etc energy is more expensive to my knowledge…
I hate the econazis, trying to use a new “religion” to rule my life and increase my taxes. However, I have to agree with Herr Troge on one point. A 300 hp family car makes no sense in 65mph America. All the latest technical advances in engine management have been used to increase horsepower, not fuel economy. Even the Lexus hybrids use the electric motor to improve performance. Consumers Reports calls them “green superchargers”. The horsepower race is senseless and useless. The MINI for example, is a clear example of fun and economy rolled into one neat package. If you buy a minivan, don’t tell me you also want power. How on earth can you possibly use it?
The Mini is an example of overprices fun and economy mixed with a high dose of unreliability.
Pretty much the first thing I did when I moved to the fatherland was stake out what sections of unrestricted autobahn were free of traffic and linksfahrer and when so I could blast around at full throttle (company paid for gas) . After a few times, it gets a little old and like someone said above, you relax into a 85-105mph mode which, given the design and well maintained surfacing of the roadway, is very comfortable and safe. You also don’t get anywhere too much faster punching it all day.
That being said, to hell with the envirowhacks pushing this. It is interesting to see cars flaring by while on the road, and it is nice to have the optioin to punch it from time to time. Most people there are very cautious of the rules, which is nice, and it feels great to blow by a Polizeiwagen at 140mph when he is doing 90mph. It’s cool, but you know, denial of “approved” fun and private money is part of the liberal mantra that so many in europe sadly buy into, and sadder yet too many in the USA also. It’s why I moved out of Cal and to Texas to get away from them for a while longer.
Argh!
Another case of environmentalists getting the concept right and the execution wrong.
For environmental purposes (The safety issue is a separate consideration), the problem is NOT speed, it’s pollution generation (including CO2) and driver’s not paying for the external costs they generate.
A perfect example of this is WaaHoo. Not only does he/she admit that he/she didn’t pay for the gas he/she used driving his/her car that quickly (power required for forward motion rises as the 3rd power of velocity), he/she did not pay for the lung damage caused by particulate/ground level ozone pollution generate, or ocean acidification, or the portion of US military budget required to guarantee access Middle East oil, or the budget of the Polizei/Krankenwagens/etc. needed to administrate these highways.
To paraphrase a jingoistic/militaristic catch phrase, ‘Freedom’ isn’t free……it’s usually heavily subsidized.
Make people pay the full price of their ‘freedom’ and suddenly getting 10 mpg at 120 mph seems less attractive than getting 30 mpg at 70-75 mph.
I’ve read about the subject before, but I’m still not crystal clear about this. How exactly is CO2 an insulator of some sorts? Is the atmosphere not 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, and 1% “other”?
If I have a container of nitrogen and a container of CO2 and I heat them both up, is it to be believed that the CO2 will retain more heat?
Why don’t those environmentalist plant some trees? Plant enough of them and this whole “CO2 issue” will be resolved right?
All things considered, I still don’t think CO2 causes or is involved in “global warming”. Do we have “global warming” in the winter time? ;) I don’t know about you, but it’s sure not very warm out there today! Someone tell Colorado they are producing too much CO2! ;)
in a nutshell, the reason that CO2 results in the greenhouse effect is because it absorbs infrared radiation but is transparent to visible radiation.
for the earth to remain at a constant temperature it has to emit as much radiation as it receives. the problem is that the earth emits heat in the form of infrared radiation. because CO2 levels are increasing, more and more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere rather than emitted into space. the result is that the surface temperature rises until as much radiation is sent out into space as is received.
Replying to rtz:
Why don’t those environmentalist plant some trees? Plant enough of them and this whole “CO2 issue” will be resolved right?
It’s like saying why don’t American troops stay in tanks so they cannot be killed by insurgents. Theoretically correct; pratically impossible.
All things considered, I still don’t think CO2 causes or is involved in “global warming”. Do we have “global warming” in the winter time? ;) I don’t know about you, but it’s sure not very warm out there today! Someone tell Colorado they are producing too much CO2! ;)
Again you logic is flawed. There is no global warming only because your local town is cold now? It’s like saying the earth is not a sphere because it’s all flat from where I can see. One certainly cannot see the big picture with tunnel vision.
IMO, global warming is real and we should deal with the problem. However, I would prefer economic means instead of regulations. Say, if CO2 emission is increasing at a rate of 2% per year (purely guessing), then increase gas tax at a rate of 10% per year until the CO2 emission is not increasing any more.
The accident statistics can be debated, but the fuel economy, or lack their of, at these high speeds is horrible. If Europe is serious about hitting CO2 reduction goals then there is no way the unlimited autobahn speeds will survive.
High fuel prices do not seem to limit the fuel wasting behaviour of autobahn drivers, so regulation seems to be the only answer. In fact, there is also an issue of equality. Why should the wealthy be able to travel at light speed while the working blokes in their diesel Golfs have to poke along ?
Never mind the Autobahn. Check out this picture I took in Mayo, Ireland.
Just beyond is a hill locals call: “The Corkscrew.”
What it comes down to is; is the burning of fuels used for transportation the root cause of global warming?
How about when a volcano goes off or when California catches on fire every summer? How do those events compare to the constant emissions of vehicular exhaust?
Where do the coal and natural gas fired power plants fit into this? I know the energy companies like to portray natural gas as clean energy; but when it’s burnt, it gets turned into what?
Maybe the best thing to happen in regards to ceasing these C02 emissions would be for the oil supply to start running low like these peak oil sites surmise? What then? Electric cars? Hydrogen powered internal combustion engines? Your local power company will be responsible for either way regardless.
You want to slow the germans down on the autobahn? Limits won’t do it. Here’s how … most people flying around in their bimmers and porsches there basically do not pay the draconian hypertaxed gas prices Herr und Frau Jedermann in his 1.2 liter Opel must pay. Instead, they all have company cars that pick up the entire gas tab for these people with a minimal, steady hit from their paychecks , so they don’t care if they punch it, fry the motor, burn the gas, etc. That is for the peons to worry about. Their insurance and repairs are even covered by the company.
You eliminate any and all tax benefits there for having a company car over a private car so that the “burners” to pay for the fuel they burn at the same rate that most everyone else there has to pay and you will see a drop in the number of people driving balls out down the autobahn. I heard it there all the time … “I’m not paying for it so I don’t care” … and I heartily agree.
Driving a company car in Germany with regard to gas is like driving a rental car here with regard to carelessness … “oh, damn, I hit that curb hard … HA HA HA!”
Global warming is hard to talk about because it is a bit like non-point water pollution — it accumulates in varying amounts from a bewildering array of human activities. Because of that, it is easy for an individual polluter to argue that their contribution is minor. In a sense that is true, but if you look at the data, the transportation sector is still one of the biggest worldwide sources of greenhouse gases.
Another troublesome aspect of global warming is that greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere for roughly 100 years. So even if all of humanity completely stopped producing CO2 tomorrow, there would still be a lag period where the trapped gases would heat up the planet. That’s why many scientists say that we need to move quickly to rein in CO2 emissions.
Even nations that have committed themselves to implementing the Kyoto Protocol are having difficulty reducing the growth in CO2 emissions, let alone cutting them back to 1990 levels.
One reason: Folks seem to be gravitating toward bigger and faster cars throughout the world (in general, the worse the gas mileage, the greater the greenhouse gas emissions).
Here are two useful sources of scientific information on global warming:
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
What it comes down to is; is the burning of fuels used for transportation the root cause of global warming?
I think fuel for transportation accounts for about 20% of CO2 emissions. The real problem is burning fossil fuels in general, so switching to electric cars wouldn’t necessarily be a magic bullet unless power stations switched as well.
How about when a volcano goes off or when California catches on fire every summer? How do those events compare to the constant emissions of vehicular exhaust?
there’s a natural CO2 cycle thats responsible for normal average temperatures, but the concern is that CO2 concentrations have gone through the roof in modern times, much higher than what’s typically seen naturally.
I recall being in the back of a big Benz cab, going from the Munich airport into the city (a very long drive)… I was behind the driver, with my co-worker opposite me. It was his first trip to Munich, but I had been there many times before. I was just looking out the window, enjoying the scenery when I turnedto say something to him. I stopped speaking when I noted his eyeballs were as big as saucers. He was staring at the dashboard in front of the cab driver with a look of fear. I glanced over the driver’s shoulder and he had the big S-class barge floating along at well over 200 Kp/h.
I just smiled and said to my friend: “Welcome to Germany.”
Up until that moment, I had no sensation of speed at all… just another cab ride on the Autobahn.
I also agree that the 80-110 MPH zone on most restricted access highways is quite comfortable, and would be achievable here in the USA if they made getting (and keeping) a driver’s license more stringent than it is now. My son is 16 and I’ve been helping him learn, but the testing – at least in my state – is laughable. 20 questions, easily half of which are concerned with fines and DUI, and very little about actual driving.
Here, take it yourself!
That is an embarrassment and pretty much sums up why Americans drive the way they do.
–chuck
I think that many of you are missing Mr. Farago’s closing words and the context of the discussion.
The Greens have long tried, without success, to impose a low speed limit on the autobahnen. In the past, they attempted to convince the public of the need for a 100 km/h (62 mph) limit, but that idea was about as welcome as a Klansman at an Al Sharpton rally. Germans like their high speeds, and concerns for the environment notwithstanding, they are fond of their acceleration that much more. They tend to deal with the pollution issue by driving less and using mass transit more, not by attacking fast cars.
Furthermore, EU countries outside of Scandinavia tend to universally support relatively high speed limits on motorways/ freeways. The typical limit is 120 or 130 km/h (75 or 81 mph), with Italy even having some sections of autostrade with 150 km/h (94 mph) limits. So there is no push from anyone with any political power to slow Europe to a halt.
But as noted, speed limits are inevitable largely because of the EU’s consistent desire to harmonize laws of all types across borders, which would be the case irrespective of the environmental movement. I would bet that this will ultimately lead to a universal 130 km/h limit being imposed across the EU, including a long-overdue increase in the UK from 70 to 80 mph.
I hope the fact that the individual states in the USA set their own speed (and other road) regulations (in the aftermath of the disastrous "Drive 55") will help the Germans keep the Autobahnen "immer mit kein geschwindigkeitsbegrenzen" in their battles with the nanny statists in Brussels. And I have long said that the single greatest improvement for driving in the US would be mandatory lane discipline, with citations given to offenders. (I wonder if anyone has ever, ever (!) been cited in the US for left lane blocking??)
Of course the road surfaces are so much better in Germany because the specs require a 40 year life span, as opposed to the 20 or so years expected in the States. German road beds are like twice as deep as those of typical American freeways. And i somehow doubt that the contracts in the Fatherland go to the lowest bidder, yaknowwhatimsayin?
BTW, I have driven 911s and Citroen C6's flat out in Germany and I enjoyed myself immensely in both. Andre Citroen's family was from Poland via Amsterdam. He was born in France though.
Glad you changed the heading RF, it wasn’t exactly or classically Shakespearean.
I’m from Spain, and I hate the effects of EU legislation.
Spain isn’t a country that likes rules. So when the Northern Europeans (who do) write up their lists of restrictions, that’s fine for them, but it doesn’t work for anybody but them!
We already have the silliness of cops smoking next to no smoking signs. Now the road laws are going nuts too.
Germans are a people who won’t jaywalk– even if there isn’t a car anywhere within sight.
This freaked me out the most when I was living there. The Germans have a long tradition of obedience to external authority (Though I think that is waning… I did my best to “corrupt” them and make them “irresponsible”… especially the young girls… The concepts of free-will/free-choice (Volition) are foreign to many). There are a lot of pedestrian/auto accidents (Hence pedestrian-safe “laws” for front-end car designs.) because they will look straight ahead waiting for “permission” from a traffic walk light and then not even look right and left before they cross… ouch!
Unlimited speed *causes* better drivers. I think a great driver test for Americans would be to send them to Bremerhaven and “force” them to drive a Chrysler Sebring to Munich, if they arrive alive, give them a drivers license for life. If they arrive dead, um, give them a drivers license for life. (Reminds me of a great saying “Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life…. AhrAhr)
The Bundestag could more easily outlaw Oktoberfest than limit speeds on the Autobahn. The speed limits will come from Brussels. Then the Germans will become sloppy drivers like Americans.
The derestricted autobahn is a precious bastion against soulless conformity.
Yup. Well said RF. An escape from egalitarian nit-wittery.
Jaywalking…
Side note about jaywalking in Germany … one night about 2am in a semi-residential part of Munich I am walking to my car, and cut across a 2-lane street where there was no moving car to be seen at all. Some old lady starts yelling at me out her window (why she was watching me, I don’t know, but I got used to being observed there everywhere). She is saying “what are you doing crossing there? what if children see? you are a bad example!” I’m thinking “WTF, oh die armen Kinder” and and respond that any kid out on the streets at 2am has parents for a bad example and not me. She hollered further but I wandered on thankfully knowing full well I would not spend the rest of my life in that country.
Unlimited speed *causes* better drivers.
Make no mistake — I do like to drive fast, and I am a big fan of the autobahn concept — but you can’t use one country’s example as proof that a lack of limits inspires discipline. The Northern Territory of Australia and India also have no limits, yet I doubt that you’d be inclined to cite either one as an exemplar of quality driving.
Likewise, some of lowest motorway fatality rates in the world are to be found in the UK and the Netherlands, both of which have speed limits (70 mph, and 120 kmh/ 75 mph limit, respectively.) And bless our hearts, even though the US has forsaken the 55 mph anchor in favor of somewhat more reasonable speeds, our fatality rates remain solidly mid-pack to somewhat better than average.
I’m sure that there are many factors that affect fatality rates, but I doubt that a limit or lack thereof makes much of a difference, either way. Most traffic studies I’ve seen indicate that speed limits are largely irrelevant in governing behavior. Given the choice, drivers will drive at the speeds at which they are comfortable, and the limits are largely ignored.
Traffic engineers appreciate that most speed limits should be set near the 85th percentile, i.e. at a point that reflects the speed of the prevailing flow of traffic. This implies that appropriate speed limits should generally account for existing behaviors, rather than try to modify them, and that rational people will typically drive at speeds that account for their need to get to Point B efficiently without killing themselves whilst in transit. A limit that is too low will simply be violated, and is therefore pointless.
chuckgoolsbee–
I had a similar experience on my last trip into Munich from the ariport. A nice quick, quiet run and 180 to 200 KPH. No danger, no drama.
A couple of years ago in France we were running about 160 KPH from Paris to Angers. (yes, I know the limit was 130) and I notice that my wife and kids are fast asleep. This is the same woman who tells me to slow down should the speedo touch 80 mph in the states.
Later she tells me, “Drivers over here are much better behaved. And Everyone is running 80 to 100 mph. They stay in their lanes and the speed is just no big deal.”
We were there for two weeks and it was great to be able to drive at a reasonable speed on an open road.
I hope the autobahns that are still unlimited stay that away, but I fear that may not be.
Spain isn’t a country that likes rules.
We already have the silliness of cops smoking next to no smoking signs.
I like Spain!!! Although I could probably not do to much “physicological damage” there.
The economic union is a good thing but the political union is… Well… Brussels are the most hard-core Statist maggots in the “free” world… Worse than the maggots in DC if you can believe that.
The Green Party are Watermelons: Green on the outside, Red in the middle. The discredited Communists ran to the Green Party after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Make no mistake — I do like to drive fast, and I am a big fan of the autobahn concept — but you can’t use one country’s example as proof that a lack of limits inspires discipline.
Nothing focuses the mind, inspires reason, encourages lane disipline than survival pressure. Nothing.
“A limit that is too low will simply be violated, and is therefore pointless.”
When common sense applies, I agree. Howver, a speed limit that is constantly violated makes it alot easier for Law Enforcement to pick victims for a speed tax. Oops, I mean pick violators for speeding offense, you catch my drift.
In the US speed limits have long stopped being enforce for safety for the much more appreciated (for the revenue) ticket money. Otherwise they would also be citing for other (more) fangerous behaviors.
Straight line 4 lane highways, miles of visibility, 55 mph. Makes a lot of sense.
Nothing focuses the mind, inspires reason, encourages lane disipline than survival pressure. Nothing.
This doesn’t seem to apply in either India or the Northern Territory, although it seemed to work well in Montana. Frankly, we don’t have enough examples to know whether or not this is true.
If you want to slow down the Autobahn, just grab some Floridians and throw them the keys to a couple of 745il’s
There's no question that Germany's combination of stringent driving standards, the high cost of motoring and their national character create a country of relatively courteous and safe drivers– at any speed.
There's also no question that the European Union is a non-democratic organization bound and determined to steamroller national differences in the name of, um, what was it again?
I say increase the laughable license requirements in the US first, and then think about lifting speed limits. Limits today are already relatively lethal and people still drive like morons for the most part. Although, there are already a few roads in LA that have absurdly high limits for some reason.
Of course, with traffic the way is, it might not matter either way.
There’s also no question that the European Union is a non-democratic organization bound and determined to steamroller national differences in the name of, um, what was it again?
COMMUNISM!
Tyler D:
Nope. That's not it. (At least officially.)
Economic harmonization? It's on the tip of my tongue…
Der europäische Superstaat?
jthorner:
High fuel prices do not seem to limit the fuel wasting behaviour of autobahn drivers, so regulation seems to be the only answer.
That’s because the price isn’t really high enough. As long as the price increase at a certain percentage higher than the CO2 rate, the CO2 emission (caused by cars) will cease to increase someday.
A 300 hp family car makes no sense in 65mph America.
So, what does?
You could just as easily say that 100hp is good enough for most Americans. But then again, most Americans have their own opinions on what’s best for them, good or bad.
More:
John Williams:
Yes, we each make our own choices. Take houses, for example. Did George Washington need Mount Vernon? Did Thomas Jefferson need Monticello? Is there a residential square footage limit above which a house makes no sense? Many of our choices in cars are made to reinforce, for ourselves and those we encounter, our own social and economic stature. Some folks may seek high horsepower because they genuinely want that extra margin of safety for certain driving situations. I test drove the first Infiniti G35 and loved the zip, but it seemed excessive for my needs. On the other hand, I’d regard extra safety features in a car, even at added cost, as modest and prudent. If we all liked the same cars, TTAC would be dull indeed.
@RF: Steamroller national differences? Let them start with new car prices – a low-spec Miata, taxes added up, costs about 30% more here in Holland than it does in Belgium!
This is exactly what’s so ridiculous about the EU. They’d like every country to conform to certain rules, except when it puts a lot of money into their pockets – then it’s just fine to let sleeping dogs lie.
@Pch101: We have low fatality rates in the Netherlands because we’re crawling along at 2mph most of the time! Check your Europe-wide NOx levels, and we’ll come out on top. Idling diesels do NOT help the environment!
@noley: This is true until you actually drive around the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. ;-) Germany is, whichever way you put it, entirely different from any country in Europe. People pay attention constantly, watch their rearview mirrors – driving on the Autobahn, whether at 60 or 160 MPH, is an incredible experience.
“There’s also no question that the European Union is a non-democratic organization bound and determined to steamroller national differences in the name of, um, what was it again?” — Farago
Can we acknowledge that European integration has hardly been imposed by fiat, and that it has had numerous set backs along the way? So to describe the EU as “non-democratic” is rather simplistic and shrill.
Indeed, given the constant bickering within the EU over other issues, I’m not willing to assume that speed limit harmonization is a done deal until in fact the ink is dry on a formal agreement.
More broadly, it should be noted that the strongest advocates of economic harmonization have been multinational corporations. It’s easy to understand why by looking at the advantages to the auto industry. If the U.S. and EU shared identical safety and environmental-protection regulations, automakers could save a great deal of money, reduce regulatory uncertainty, and increase the flexibiility with which they could shift their products among markets.
Here in the U.S., one of the greatest areas of agreement between the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations has been the importance of harmonizing regulations through a host of international agreements. Furthermore, if you are concerned about a lack of democratic process, the WTO is much, much more problematic than the EU.
In saying all of this I’m not agreeing with the apparent EU goal of harmonizing speed limits. Rather, I’m pointing out that this particular issue is caught up in a larger trend. If you are going to criticize that trend, the questions then become: When does harmonization go too far? And — perhaps more importantly — on what logical basis do you reject harmonization on one issue (e.g., speed limits) and not on another?
Once you start asking those questions you may see a divergence between the interests of (most) automakers and gearheads.