Cars are not guns: the speed limit debate rumbles on

A further aspect I haven't heard mentioned yet is the proportion of speed-related accidents on parts of the Autobahn that ALREADY HAVE a speed limit.
I have no idea whether that data is even available but from personal observation I'd guess a general speed limit wouldn't do much for number of total accidents or lethality of those accidents. Simply beacause the people speeding usually go over the locally set limit. And I don't see them treating a general limit differently.

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?

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.

the plural of "Autobahn" is "Autobahnen" – not "Autobahns", which is not a word at all.

The DIN that specifies road furniture on the Autobahnen is hopelessly out of date.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 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.

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 👍

Love your videos!
How does the average level of driving in Britain compare to Germany, in your opinion?

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 🤷

Changes are possible, you just have to want it. The "bicycle paradise" in the Netherlands started with "stop de kindermoord" (stop the children's deaths) – an initiative aimed at preventing fatal traffic accidents, especially those of children.

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.

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.

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.

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? 😅😮

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

One thing to consider is that some kind of speed limit should, at least in principle, reduce fuel consumption per km.

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.

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).