# What is the correct speed limit on motorways?



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

70mph.


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

Way too many factors to just say "they oughta all have x speed limit" - number of lanes, pavement condition, curves, line of sight, shoulders, nearby foliage, terrain, etc.


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

Correct speed limit is such that makes driving safe and comfortable for the majority of drivers.


----------



## bogdymol (Feb 4, 2010)

nerdly_dood said:


> Way too many factors to just say "they oughta all have x speed limit" - number of lanes, pavement condition, curves, line of sight, shoulders, nearby foliage, terrain, etc.


I agree!

I consider that a general speed limit of 140 km/h is fine on motorways considering the modern cars, but with a posibility of upgrading it on _some sections*_ to 160 km/h _sometimes**_.

_*some sections_ = must be rural motorways, have few exists, good quality pavement, good road design (no sharp curves or very steep slopes)
_**sometimes_ = dry road surface + low traffic

Of course, 140 or 160 km/h might not be the most fuel efficient speeds, but if someone is in a hurry is willing to pay more for it. If someone wants to drive cheap will go with 110 km/h.


----------



## aswnl (Jun 6, 2004)

arriaca said:


> Can you post or write the links of this grapics please?


What do you mean ??

If you want more information on superelevation to be applied in curves, just check some of your national guidelines on road design.

Free information on superelevation can also be found on the internet, for instance the South Dakota DOT site: http://www.sddot.com/pe/roaddesign/docs/rdmanual/rdmch05.pdf , or the Delaware DOT: http://www.deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/manuals/road_design/pdf/05_allignment_superelev.pdf

Google is your friend


----------



## ForteTwo (Feb 27, 2010)

If I ever have to set a speed limit on a road, it will be a nice round 1079252848 km/h. But seriously, in a perfect world, a speed limit would be based on overall driving culture/experience, traffic density and road quality. I suspect this is rarely the case...


----------



## JeremyCastle (Dec 28, 2007)

You should come to Norway. Driving misery. First, it costs an obscene amount of money to get your licence but what are they teaching them?? The max speed limit on motorways/freeways is 100 and that is just in the Oslo/South Norway region. Here in Bergen, on the short 2 stretches of freeway, the speed limit is only 80km and these are nice 4 lane stretches with wide shoulders, wider than the new 100km ones down south. They also recently lowered the speed limit from 80 to 70 on plenty of stretches of roads instead of improving the safety of them. 

Hardly anyone seems to know what a turn signal is, and it is far too common for people to go 10 kms slower than the already ridiculously slow limit. All too often I am trying to drive exactly 50 in a 50 zone, yet the car in front of me insists on doing between 33-38kph!

Everyone talks about how "rich" this place is, but the the roads certainly don't bear witness to that fact. Plenty of roads around where I live are littered with potholes and centre lines that have worn away. I could go on and on, but read the Norwegian road thread for more details! 

I dream of doing 100 or even 110 kph!!


----------



## geor (Nov 3, 2011)

Definitely, speed limit on the road, in general,must depend on the star rating drivers, star rating roads and star rating vehicles. There are many unsafe drivers even when driving at 60km/h and what you can expect of them when driving at 100 or 130km/h. That is an impossible mission. In addition to that, speed limit must depend on meteorological condition and density of traffic as well.


----------



## arriaca (Feb 28, 2006)

aswnl said:


> What do you mean ??
> 
> If you want more information on superelevation to be applied in curves, just check some of your national guidelines on road design.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your help, but I use I use the Spanish standard of road and rail route to work.


----------



## geor (Nov 3, 2011)

arriaca said:


> Thanks for your help, but I use I use the Spanish standard of road and rail route to work.


Is it possible to take a look at that Spanish Standard?


----------



## arriaca (Feb 28, 2006)

^^

www.carreteros.org 

Look to the right column: "Normativa" (Only roads)

And this is about railways http://www.carreteros.org/legislacionb/ferrocarriles/ferrocarriles.htm
The only problem is that it is in Spanish.


----------



## shpirtkosova (Jun 7, 2009)

Day : 120-130
Night : 130-140 
Winter: 100-110


----------



## arriaca (Feb 28, 2006)

^^

Are you sure?

Or maybe this...



shpirtkosova said:


> _Day : 130-140
> Night : 120-130 _
> Winter: 100-110


----------



## shpirtkosova (Jun 7, 2009)

arriaca said:


> ^^
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> Or maybe this...


Yes, reason for that would be that during night, the density of traffic is much less, therefore safer for fast driving.


----------



## ForteTwo (Feb 27, 2010)

^^...except for the increased hazard of less visibility, combined with non-vehicle hazards (animals, debris, etc.).


----------



## Ron2K (Dec 28, 2007)

^^ Yeah. At night, there will be less traffic, but decreased visibility -- in my personal experience, the decreased visibility is a greater hazard than the traffic that one _can_ see. (There are some areas that I will even avoid driving though at night while on a roadtrip, as the chances of hitting stray animals is extremely high in those parts.) At night, I actually drive around 5-10 km/h _slower_ than during the day.

To complete the thread, the general speed limits in these parts are:

60 km/h in urban areas
100 km/h in rural areas
120 km/h on freeways

Of course, there will always be localized exceptions, but the above holds true in the general sense.


----------



## Zagor666 (Feb 20, 2011)

130km/h.you can drive 150km/h on the speedmeter and nobody would care and that is enough.driving faster is no fun and if you want to do so go on a closed area like the nürburgring.an slow down in urban areas from 50km/h to 40km/h


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

ForteTwo said:


> ^^...except for the increased hazard of less visibility, combined with non-vehicle hazards (animals, debris, etc.).


Imagine this road at 3am:
http://maps.google.nl/?ll=52.009625...=zdYX5WcQ3M9_eY2JrBdE1w&cbp=12,323.51,,0,0.53
or this:
http://maps.google.nl/?ll=52.256763...vslZ8ler3H9tl9OfgTDv8Q&cbp=12,227.84,,0,-2.46
Straight.
Lit up like a christmas tree.
You can see the tail lights from miles of...

Sorry but a speed limit at night there makes no sense imho. 


> driving faster is no fun


But travelling for an hour at 180 km/h saves you much time from 100-120 km/h...

When I travel to Poland, from Hengelo to the Polish border at Swiecko, I try to make it in 4 hrs and this is usually easily achievable ( at night then, during daytime traffic doesn't allow it ). I simply try to keep an average of 150-160 km/h, this means slower at some parts when needed, and flooring it when possible to 200-220 km/h. I try to travel at night these days, you can simply keep up the pace far easier, only slow down for Baustelle and otherwise cruise control at 160-170 and no worries about traffic.

If I have to drive a rediculous low speed of 130 at max, I'd easily take 5 and a half - 6 hrs: one or two 10 min stops, the traffic lights near Bad Oeynhausen, etc... No way to make up for lost time and keep a nice average speed. I'm glad there's at least 1 country where the government still allows people to travel quicker if they're in a hurry at own risk...

I really think it's not the government's place to meddle with how fast you can drive on a motorway.


----------



## Stahlsturm (Mar 30, 2012)

Zagor666 said:


> 130km/h.you can drive 150km/h on the speedmeter and nobody would care and that is enough.driving faster is no fun and if you want to do so go on a closed area like the nürburgring.an slow down in urban areas from 50km/h to 40km/h


I beg to differ. Driving faster may be no fun for you, granted, but why should people who routinely go 200 kmh for long stretches of motorway be hindered by that ? Personally I think there should be no speed limit at all. it is a driver's responsibility to react appropriately to road conditions and no posted sign can really reflect that.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

Stahlsturm said:


> I beg to differ. Driving faster may be no fun for you, granted, but why should people who routinely go 200 kmh for long stretches of motorway be hindered by that ? Personally I think there should be no speed limit at all. it is a driver's responsibility to react appropriately to road conditions and no posted sign can really reflect that.


Don't think so. Some people with supercars will do even 300kph. And at this speed is very difficult if not impossible slow down if you encounter a slow vehicle in front of you with deadly consequences. No speed limits may turn highways into racetracks where some assholes testing their cars and betting money. You can't trust on responsibility of drivers, to many people aren't responsible at all.


----------



## Stahlsturm (Mar 30, 2012)

g.spinoza said:


> You're German and driving Alfa? You must be one of a kind... I lived in Germany for 1 year and I've seen none (actually I've seen one, but he stepped down from his car and spoke Italian  )


Must've been a while since there's quite a few Alfas on German roads now, at least here in the South 



g.spinoza said:


> I can see your point either, but we're not getting very far: you drive very fast and never had an accident, I drive well below the limits and and one. I think the only thing would be looking at the statistics of speed, number and seriousness of accidents, and so on. Unfortunately I don't have such data.


I drive very fast SOMETIMES when conditions allow it. I do not drive recklessly or insane and the fact that I've never had a crash and avoided several potential ones speaks for the fact that whatever I'm doing can't be that bad that it needs to be criminalized by a speed limt.



g.spinoza said:


> Always remember that your freedom ends where mine begins, as Surel explained very well


I'm well aware of that but that goes both ways and as log as I don't run you off the road or get you into any dangerous situations you should allow me to drive as I deem right and I shall extend you the same courteousy. Driving on the motorway is always a together and as civilized persons we should be able to handle that without cops and speed traps and annoying rules.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

^^ You are a reasonable person but you are not going to change your mind. Let me just say this: rules are not annoying, they are meant to protect the weakest on the roads. Obviously you are a prudent and decent driver but not everybody is like you: either we forbid everyone to go faster than a certain speed or we allow everybody. I'd prefer to limit speed for everyone rather than allowing every moron with a V8 engine to go recklessly fast and endanger other people. If that means limiting the right even for prudent people to go 200+, well, I am sorry but I honestly don't care. Preserving life is more important, to me, than allowing someone to go fast in the name of "freedom".

That said, I think I will not reply because, I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, so this has no purpose.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

Stahlsturm said:


> the fact that I've never had a crash and avoided several potential ones speaks for the fact that whatever I'm doing can't be that bad that it needs to be criminalized by a speed limt.


It's just a matter of probability. There are people who smoked for decades and never had cancer. It doesn't mean that if you smoke you have a 100% chance of getting a cancer in few years or if you drive fast you will surely have a bad accident. But off course such behaviors increase the probability a lot. And since we can choose to reduce risk probability...


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

Personally, I consider the 80-100 kph interval sensible on urban motorway sections with reasonably modern junctions. On rural sections, 120 or 130 makes sense. Any higher, and the difference in travel speed between slower-moving traffic (HGVs, buses etc) and cars in itself becomes a hazard. In addition, both human and vehicular abilities to deal with extraordinary incidents deteriorate as speed increases - it doesn't really matter if you and your car is perfectly at ease doing 200+ if somebody else isn't. Hit someone or something at that speed, and you're just a number in the statistics.


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

g.spinoza said:


> Yes, it's very uncomfortable when, on a 2-lane autobahn, I am forced to stay on the right lane by a column of 200+ kmh cars on the left lane.
> 
> So you're sick of people who declare their comfort zone standard for everyone? We, 130 kmh drivers, could say the same about you.


So because of your discomfort everyone has to suffer ?

You want to force us to drive at 1980's speeds, we don't force you to do anything, it's your own phobia which limits you. You are not forced to stay in the right lane at all...

And you well know at night there is no such thing as ''column of cars'', the new A2 in the NL for example, 100km/h limit due to environmental reasons, in the middle of the night you have FIVE lanes for yourself, that means even if you're doing 200+ and overtaking a 80 km/h truck you can leave a gap of THREE lanes. It's well lit up, straight and flat, there are no large animals anyhwere near. I really don't see any good reason to have any speed limit there.



g.spinoza said:


> Preserving life is more important, to me, than allowing someone to go fast in the name of "freedom".


Definitely not, the roads are MORE than safe enough, they were 20 years ago imho. It's time to stop taking away freedom.


> I'm well aware of that but that goes both ways and as log as I don't run you off the road or get you into any dangerous situations you should allow me to drive as I deem right and I shall extend you the same courteousy. Driving on the motorway is always a together and as civilized persons we should be able to handle that without cops and speed traps and annoying rules.


Exactly.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

snowdog said:


> Definitely not, the roads are MORE than safe enough, they were 20 years ago imho. It's time to stop taking away freedom.


Roads are safer than in the past because we took away "freedom". Speeds and alchol controls are more serious than in the past and suspensions of licences more common (you don't prevent a rich businessman or footballer doing 250 with his Ferrari with a 100EUR fine). People fear legal consequences of illegal behaviors and tent to behave better. And it's not only for traffic rules, but all kind of rules.
Unfortunately often the primary aim of fines is earning money, but that's another story.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

snowdog said:


> Definitely not, the roads are MORE than safe enough, they were 20 years ago imho. It's time to stop taking away freedom.


Not worth replying to those who value freedom more than life.


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

italystf said:


> Roads are safer than in the past because we took away "freedom". Speeds and alchol controls are more serious than in the past and suspensions of licences more common (you don't prevent a rich businessman or footballer doing 250 with his Ferrari with a 100EUR fine). People fear legal consequences of illegal behaviors and tent to behave better. And it's not only for traffic rules, but all kind of rules.
> Unfortunately often the primary aim of fines is earning money, but that's another story.


I disagree, I think it's mainly because of safer cars, roads and mentality change towards alcohol.
Nothing to do with speed.




g.spinoza said:


> Not worth replying to those who value freedom more than life.


Going fast doesn't nessecerily mean less deaths, that's a myth.

Compare the German state of Nordrein Westfalen with Holland, about the same density, population and infrastructure, yet they have less deaths than the Netherlands...


> Unfallstatistik So wenig Verkehrstote in NRW wie nie zuvor
> Auto, 23.02.2011, xnr029
> 
> 2010 starben knapp 3 700 Menschen auf deutschen Strassen. Dies waren 495 Getötete weniger als im Vorjahr. Foto: dapd
> ...


Only 550 deaths in 2010 for 18 mil ppl.
640 in holland in 2010 for 16 mil people.
Yet there, you can travel as fast as you like on rural autobahnen. 120km/h on Busy city highways like near Koln, that would be 80km/h in Holland, 100km/h on provincial roads instead of 60 or 80 in NL, normal fines of 10€ up to 10km/h to fast, 30€ up to 20 to fast there. No speed mafia. Yet their roads are still safer... Nothing to do with speed limits and enforcing...
Overtake a police car at 180 km/h and smile knowing you're in a country where people think normally about car travel unlike in Holland.


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

g.spinoza said:


> Not worth replying to those who value freedom more than life.


Well. I dont know. I value freedom as well. And in many cases life without certain freedoms would be to me worse then not living, because it would be suffering. Or in other words it would be worth dying trying to get more freedom.

But I notice that people like snowdog seem not to consider anything else then their personal freedom and profit to matter. They tend to forget that the freedoms of others are the same valuable. And they definitely dont understand that when all the freedoms were unleashed, they would in fact have much less personal freedom than they have now. Also on the motorway. This is rather dangerous and in certain way psychopatic behaviour. I recommend movie Fishead.

Its more the argumentation that takes the midninght motorway example as an argument for no speed limits at no consequences that strikes me and makes me think whether this discussion has any sense. In fact we should first find out if we agree on the basic premisses. Like the premis on what bases should be determined the speed on a motorway. What should the decision mechanism to be.

snowdog: The decission mechanism is irrelevant. The only thing that matters i my choice and I chose to drive as I want. Therefore there should be no limit because my freedom to chose is the only objective criteria.

me: there should be decission mechanism for the speed limit. And it should be such mechanism that provides the most effective solution. That means, solution that tries to produce the highest utility.

To put it more practical. Yes to the no limit, if the discomfort caused to the rest of the drivers is small or not existing and if the costs of possible accidents etc are overweighted by the gains achieved due to the higher speed.


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

Surel said:


> But I notice that people like snowdog seem not to consider anything else then their personal freedom and profit to matter. They tend to forget that the freedoms of others are the same valuable. And they definitely dont understand that when all the freedoms were unleashed, they would in fact have much less personal freedom than they have now. Also on the motorway. This is rather dangerous and in certain way psychopatic behaviour. I recommend movie Fishead.


Not all freedoms, all other traffic laws are fine, just the speed limit.



> Its more the argumentation that takes the midninght motorway example as an argument for no speed limits at no consequences that strikes me and makes me think whether this discussion has any sense. In fact we should first find out if we agree on the basic premisses. Like the premis on what bases should be determined the speed on a motorway. What should the decision mechanism to be.
> 
> snowdog: The decission mechanism is irrelevant. The only thing that matters i my choice and I chose to drive as I want. Therefore there should be no limit because my freedom to chose is the only objective criteria.
> 
> ...


Very few % of the accidents are caused by to high speed, I have posted the stats somewhere on this forum before iirc (I'll look this up later if you want). I doubt increasing the speed limit will have a significant impact on deaths.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Maybe accidents are not caused by speed(ing), but speed is certainly a factor in the gravity of an accident.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

snowdog said:


> I disagree, I think it's mainly because of safer cars, roads and mentality change towards alcohol.
> Nothing to do with speed.


Safer cars and safer roads off course, but mentality change towards alchol I doubt. Drinking culture is very common among young people, not less than 20 or 30 years before.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

ChrisZwolle said:


> Maybe accidents are not caused by speed(ing), but speed is certainly a factor in the gravity of an accident.


Speed is even more significant on urban roads. If a pedestrian cut you the road or a car stops in the middle to turn left without indicators there is a huge different if you drive 70 instead of 50. You need more meters to brake.


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

snowdog said:


> Not all freedoms, all other traffic laws are fine, just the speed limit.
> 
> 
> Very few % of the accidents are caused by to high speed, I have posted the stats somewhere on this forum before iirc (I'll look this up later if you want). I doubt increasing the speed limit will have a significant impact on deaths.


Well if we can make agreement on the methodology and we get results that would propose no general speed limit I am more then happy to see sections without limits. There is nowhere said that the dutch experiment with 130 km/h is the final frontier.

In my eyes is the only correct methodology to compare the utility (comfort) of the drivers if there is general limit and if there is not such limit (there would be other variables that would have to be compared... e.g. costs to the police, emergency services, motorways design, costs of accidents, savings on time etc, etc). We could proxy this by some general public comfort with the speed limits on the motorways and expert oppinions about the cons and pros based on hard data.

I keep repeating the same. The correct speed is neither 100 nor 140 not no limit. It should be tailored to the conditions taking the pros and cons into consideration.

And I have to add. Especially with the issue like the speed limit it is very important whether the individuals are able to self regulate or not. Does mainly the german discipline make the no limit possible? Or would it work anywhere in the world?


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

Surel said:


> And I have to add. Especially with the issue like the speed limit it is very important whether the individuals are able to self regulate or not. Does mainly the german discipline make the no limit possible? Or would it work anywhere in the world?


In Germany if there is an accident between one driving above 130 and another driving below that 'limit' results guilty who broke the reccomended limit of 130. For this reason many respect this limit and this explain the low accident rate.


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

italystf said:


> In Germany if there is an accident between one driving above 130 and another driving below that 'limit' results guilty who broke the reccomended limit of 130. For this reason many respect this limit and this explain the low accident rate.


Yeah I know about the rule. But anyway its funny to see either Czech or Dutch drivers, also the Polish and Swiss how their speed in many cases instantly increases after crossing the border.

What I meant is more that implicit explicit rules are not necessary as long as the society is behaving according to the rules anyway, or at least takes the results of its actions into the consideration. Thus as long as there is wide majority of decent polite drivers in the german population the implicit rules may be given a rest. However, in the moment that the selfish driving style will protuberate on the german roads, the rules will have to be made implicit and strongly enforced.

It occurs to me that it is perhaps no accident that the higly individualistic british and us society have very strict road rules enforcement.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

Surel said:


> Yeah I know about the rule. But anyway its funny to see either Czech or Dutch drivers, also the Polish and Swiss how their speed in many cases instantly increases after crossing the border.
> 
> What I meant is more that implicit rules are not necessary as long as the society is behaving according to the rules anyway, or at least takes the results of its actions into the consideration. Thus as long as there is wide majority of decent polite drivers in the german population the implicit rules may be given a rest. However, in the moment that the selfish driving style will protuberate on the german roads, the rules will have to be made implicit and strongly enforced.
> 
> It occurs to me that it is perhaps no accident that the higly individualistic british and us society have very strict road rules enforcement.


A society made 100% by honest people will never exists. Even if only 1% of people behave badly, rules are necessaries because that 1% is enough to provoke nuisance to the remaining 99%. The concept 'everybody will meet some behavior conventions even with no rules and punishment' is valid maybe within a family or group of friends.


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

italystf said:


> A society made 100% by honest people will never exists. Even if only 1% of people behave badly, rules are necessaries because that 1% is enough to provoke nuisance to the remaining 99%. The concept 'everybody will meet some behavior conventions even with no rules and punishment' is valid maybe within a family or group of friends.


well yes and no. Such society doesnt exist, you are right, there will be allways wolfs that want to profit on the sheep. But the rules are not allways the best solution. There may be costs to the establishing the rules and enforcing them. Thus the system may as well converge into the state where there are anyway "free riders" because eliminating them would be more costly then having them. But in general you are right, the violations most often spread like a virus and are not contained if the rules are not established.

Dont also forget that culture and social behaviour are also rules, evolved through centuries. For example such rules as religions affect even civilisations not only nations, and they may be planted deep in your cortex through the family upbringing, community etc. Although modern society (especially since French revolution and Napoleon times) indeed works with explicit rules = the codified law.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

Surel said:


> But the rules are not allways the best solution. There may be costs to the establishing the rules and enforcing them. Thus the system may as well converge into the state where there are anyway "free riders" because eliminating them would be more costly then having them.


I guess you are referring to things like legalization of prostitution and soft drugs to reduce criminal activities.


Surel said:


> But in general you are right, the violations most often spread like a virus and are not contained if the rules are not established.


The famous 'broken windows theory'.

Anyway, I stop continuing this discussion. Differents points of view have already been shown and discussed enough and now we're going too much off topic. This thread is about speed limits on motorway, not sociology or behavior psychology.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

italystf said:


> Safer cars and safer roads off course, but mentality change towards alchol I doubt. Drinking culture is very common among young people, not less than 20 or 30 years before.


True, but I would say that the attitude towards drinking and driving has changed considerably in Europe over the past 15 years. The limits have been lowered, spot checks are more common and the general public's attitude towards the problem has changed considerably.


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

italystf said:


> I guess you are referring to things like legalization of prostitution and soft drugs to reduce criminal activities.


I meant it more to the driving example. That if there is only tiny fraction of the german drivers that missuse the free speed, then it may be that the rules will not be brought upon them, because establishing them would be more costly than the damages caused by these drivers. Another straightforward example is free riding in the public transport... the chipkaart, turnstile, inspectors, versus the costs of all this, or the costs of not having any payment enforcement at all.

Yes, your examples are direct extrapolation of this general paradox.

You are right, the discussion goes OT, I liked it nevertheless . How else can you explain the reasons of the need (and benefit) of such rules?


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

Surel said:


> here may be costs to the establishing the rules and enforcing them. Thus the system may as well converge into the state where there are anyway "free riders" because eliminating them would be more costly then having them.


No cost is too much if lifes are saved.


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

g.spinoza said:


> No cost is too much if lifes are saved.


There is always a limit to this. If you reduce speed limits - and introduce a control and punishment system to match - to a point where no serious accidents will ever happen, say 30 kph on motorways and 10 in built-up areas, it will be highly impractical and most certainly unacceptable to the general public. The key issue is to identify an acceptable amount of risk. One solution is the Scandinavian (particularly Swedish) "zero fatalities" strategy, where speed limits should be set according to the safety level of any given section of road. Personally, I like the idea, even though complete success will remain an illusion.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

ElviS77 said:


> True, but I would say that the attitude towards drinking and driving has changed considerably in Europe over the past 15 years. The limits have been lowered, spot checks are more common and the general public's attitude towards the problem has changed considerably.


Absolutely true, now everybody fear the breathanalizer.

But I was referring to drink&drive, not drinking in general.
When our parents or grandparents were young, becaming drunk expecially in pubblic was a shame, something associated with moral and familiar decay and a sign of weakness (be subjeced to an addictive vice). Drunkards were often mocked.
Now who drinks 6 beers or half bottle of vodka at a party is "cool" and "brave".hno:


----------



## ElviS77 (Aug 3, 2007)

italystf said:


> Absolutely true, now everybody fear the breathanalizer.
> 
> But I was referring to drink&drive, not drinking in general.
> When our parents or grandparents were young, becaming drunk expecially in pubblic was a shame, something associated with moral and familiar decay and a sign of weakness (be subjeced to an addictive vice). Drunkards were often mocked.
> Now who drinks 6 beers or half bottle of vodka at a party is "cool" and "brave".hno:


No doubt. But I still believe the world to be a somewhat better place than in those days...


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

Surel said:


> You are right, the discussion goes OT, I liked it nevertheless . How else can you explain the reasons of the need (and benefit) of such rules?


A month with no ticket check = economic failure of the PT comany
If the average ticket checker finds that, let's say, 95% of riders bought the ticket, it doesn't mean that this percentage will remain so high with no controls at all.
If you have a 10% chance to meet the officer checking your ticket you'll probably spend 1€ for it instead of 40 for the fine.


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

italystf said:


> A month with no ticket check = economic failure of the PT comany
> If the average ticket checker finds that, let's say, 95% of riders bought the ticket, it doesn't mean that this percentage will remain so high with no controls at all.
> If you have a 10% chance to meet the officer checking your ticket you'll probably spend 1€ for it instead of 40 for the fine.


I know. What I meant with explaining the benefits of such rules is that we need to have a "complicated" theories (based in sociology, psychology, economics etc) in order to decide whether have speed limits or not and how much enforcement.

I talked about the turnstiles, chipcards etc... The system against the free riders can be made almost bulletproof but the costs rise accordingly. What you will see and what makes sense is to create the system in such a way that the marginal costs of further checking and enforcing mechanism equals the marginal gains from such a mechanism. Therefore the system will most probably with current technological level not end up with 100 % paying customers (this would also require that the customers would have to evaluate the situation of buying tickets as cheaper compared to the free riding). There will be allways free riders (and this comes also due to the fact that the risk aversion is not the same for everyone).


Turned into the road traffic rules enforcement:

the marginal gain to the society from more enforcement of a given rule would have to be at least equal to the marginal costs of enforcing given rule.



in normal language:

lets say I install new speed trap. This costs me certain resources. It should hold that the social gains from installed speed trap should be higher then the costs on the resources.

also the necessary condition for this is that the speed trap makes drivers change their driving habbits - it hast to be for them more costly to violate the rules then to obey them.



g.spinoza said:


> No cost is too much if lifes are saved.


That may be, given the evaluation for life is limitless but the statement is not moving us any further. What life do you chose to save? Is the life of a driver on a motorway more valuable then a life of an old person dying with cancer? Or a man dying with HIV, or a young girl commiting suicide? Or a worker on construction site? Or a soldier in a war? etc etc.

You can easily see, that if the same resources would be invested elswhere there would be more lifes saved. You would allways have to compromise and choose the variant that save most lives with given resources.

In the traffic safety framework it may show (and it is coincidentally so), that the costs of eliminating lives losses are too costly to undergo, because the same resources invested elswhere would save much more lives. Thus you would end up with a system where for example rules enforcement would be unperfect, but still optimal, and therefore there would be still place for free riders.


----------



## Zagor666 (Feb 20, 2011)

its funny that somebody thinks he could drive with hes bugatti or what ever 400km/h and that that causes no problems on a public road.when you drive very fast you and everybody around you(when you drive 400km/h i would say in a circle of 3km)must very VERY concentrate and be extremly careful and thats impossible to drive so for hours and hours.
btw:i could accelerate with my motorcycle from 0 to 200km/h in under 10 sec. but i would never do so on a public road unless i am realy,REALY alone


----------



## Stahlsturm (Mar 30, 2012)

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Stahlsturm said:


> "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin


This doesn't make sense in this context. Proponents of speed limits don't lose any liberty, because they don't drive 200 km/h anyway.


----------



## Zagor666 (Feb 20, 2011)

Verso said:


> This doesn't make sense in this context. Proponents of speed limits don't lose any liberty, because they don't drive 200 km/h anyway.


Absolutely,very nice words indeed but in a very very wrong context postet here.If you want real freedom you are againt every rule or limit or what ever so if you want no speed limit on highways its logic that you are also against limits on every other road


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I think a significant part of speed problems would be solved with aggressive use of variable signaling that could adjust speeds dynamically so that an "empty, lit, dry, straight" motorway at 3am can accommodate traffic at 170km/h, if that is the case, whereas the ones full of traffic can have speeds reduced.

Let's remember when a road is rapidly approaching its saturation point, any major "bump" on the flow can make a ripple effect making an otherwise "everyone at 100" situation a "everybody slows to 40 for no apparent reason".

This being said, I think truck overtaking bans should be more intensively used than they are today. It's better to have a "train" of trucks on the right lane than trucks coming and going to the left lane on a 2+2 road.

=============================================================

As for the Autobahnen: I don't mind driving on the right, if I can do so at a speed around the recommended (130). However, if the right lane is moving slowly at 100-110, no way I'm going to keep the flow there if both lanes are busy just to avoid pissing the 170+ drivers on the left lane. Sometimes I get the occasional light beam signal, and I totally hate when I'm at or over the recommended speed in the left lane overtaking a lot of vehicles in sequence (= right lane full) and some driver feels entitled to "clear" me to the slower lane (than my speed) so that the driver can keep speeding.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> This being said, I think truck overtaking bans should be more intensively used than they are today. It's better to have a "train" of trucks on the right lane than trucks coming and going to the left lane on a 2+2 road.


I'm not sure about that. Then you'll have old grandpas overtaking "trains" of trucks at 100 km/h in their cars and that will take much longer than one truck overtaking another truck.


----------



## snowdog (Mar 27, 2011)

Suburbanist said:


> .
> 
> 
> As for the Autobahnen: I don't mind driving on the right, if I can do so at a speed around the recommended (130). However, if the right lane is moving slowly at 100-110, no way I'm going to keep the flow there if both lanes are busy just to avoid pissing the 170+ drivers on the left lane. Sometimes I get the occasional light beam signal, and I totally hate when I'm at or over the recommended speed in the left lane overtaking a lot of vehicles in sequence (= right lane full) and some driver feels entitled to "clear" me to the slower lane (than my speed) so that the driver can keep speeding.


That is simple though, if a car on the left lane has to brake for you because you moved into the lane he was in then you simply didn't give way. And if there's a recommended limit there is no such thing as ''speeding''. Any courteous driver presses his gas pedal a bit harder for an overtake. Special manoeuvres have to be carried out asap. I don't know about Germany but there's ''article 5'' in Holland which means you can theoretically be fined for hampering/impeding the traffic (flow).



Verso said:


> I'm not sure about that. Then you'll have old grandpas overtaking "trains" of trucks at 100 km/h in their cars and that will take much longer than one truck overtaking another truck.


Only trucks are limited to 80 km/h, so if they are overtaking they are usually doing it with a 1km/h speed difference resulting in overtakes of 2-3 mins and huge tailbacks of cars, rather have granps on the left lane 100 km/h than a HGV overtaking a HGV @81km/h for many minutes. 


> but anyway its funny to see either Czech or Dutch drivers, also the Polish and Swiss


Meh it's usually the yellow plates (Dutch) who pull out on you and think using their indicator give them the right of way and have no clue how to drive on the autobahns, Germans are surprisingly pleasant to share the road with, until a fellow Dutchy pulls out his Aygo/other city tincan that doesn't belong on an Autobahn on the left lane @120-130 km/h unaware that the car in the left lane has to slam on his anchors very hard. I pretty much EXPECT them to not see me/pull out in front of me if I see yellow plates in Germany, EXTRA caution if the car is also a small hatchback or mini-mpv, stereotyping much ? Yeah, but I can't remember the last time a normal (luxury) saloon/coupe/estate pulled out in front of me like that causing me to slam the anchors. Germans behave very nicely on the autobahn, Dutch really don't, Poles also don't but better than Dutch imho. Dutch forget to use their mirrors often, and in Holland themselves there are so many people on a moral high horse...

I'm a fast driver but hardly the fastest, especially in the east of Germany I can cruise along at 170 or so on Cruise control and get overtaken by cars every few minutes doing well over 220. It's not something I find remotely annoying, I just find it peculiar the culture towards driving is so messed up in Holland.


----------



## Stahlsturm (Mar 30, 2012)

Verso said:


> This doesn't make sense in this context. Proponents of speed limits don't lose any liberty, because they don't drive 200 km/h anyway.





Zagor666 said:


> Absolutely,very nice words indeed but in a very very wrong context postet here.If you want real freedom you are againt every rule or limit or what ever so if you want no speed limit on highways its logic that you are also against limits on every other road


I don't think either of you understands what I meant. Every general limitation imposed by society to gain security will ultimately backfire. I'm hiting at the discrepancy that while everyone has the liberty of going 120 or even slower on a motorway they want to force everyone else to do the same. And to achieve that they argue security while it is statistically proven that a general speed has a negative effect in connection with traffic relatet fatalities on motorways. I'm not against limiting speed where it is necessary but the boundaries of that necessity are applied more general every year and the over-regulation in traffic rules by far outweighs it's supposed benefits.

As another exemple, they lowered the legal alcohol limit in Germany a few years back from 0.08% to 0.05 % to the effect that a lot more people are stopped and have taken their license away while at the same time the number of alcohol related traffic fatalities has not significantly changed. AND, when you look at those cases you'll see that in the vast majority of cases the violators would've been way over the old limit as well so they criminalized a lot of people to zero positive effect.


----------



## Stahlsturm (Mar 30, 2012)

snowdog said:


> That is simple though, if a car on the left lane has to brake for you because you moved into the lane he was in then you simply didn't give way. And if there's a recommended limit there is no such thing as ''speeding''. Any courteous driver presses his gas pedal a bit harder for an overtake. Special manoeuvres have to be carried out asap. I don't know about Germany but there's ''article 5'' in Holland which means you can theoretically be fined for hampering/impeding the traffic (flow).


It's the same in Germany, you are technically not allowed to change lanes unless you can do so without getting in the way of a faster car that is already on that lane. Of course, it is never enforced so most people aren't aware of it.

There are bad drivers in either category of course. Letting a nice slower driver who actually moved out of the way "starve" behind a truck by not speeding up to give him space to pull back out is just as rude as pulling out right in front of someone despite a speed difference of 80 kmh. There#s just generally too little thought going on.


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

Stahlsturm said:


> And to achieve that they argue security while it is statistically proven that a general speed has a negative effect in connection with traffic relatet fatalities on motorways. I'm not against limiting speed where it is necessary but the boundaries of that necessity are applied more general every year and the over-regulation in traffic rules by far outweighs it's supposed benefits.


If 99 drivers are willing to pay 10 euro for having general speed limits on the motorways you would have to be willing to pay 990 euro for having no limitis in order to support your argument.... Thats all what it is about. Even better is to measure this with minutes, because they are not so easy to obtain as money:

e.g. if 99 drivers would be willing to pay 1 minute each time they drive in order to have general speed limit, you would have to pay 99 minutes for your drive.

(the chosen measure values are not based in any real valuation, they only show that such valuation is necessary)

The argument about freedom is rather wrongly placed.

First, it comments on quite different freedoms that the freedom to speed up.

Second, even if we let it in, there are people whose freedom would be lowered because of the higher freedom of the person that wants to speed up. Thus the argument is only relative not absolute...


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

Stahlsturm said:


> It's the same in Germany, you are technically not allowed to change lanes unless you can do so without getting in the way of a faster car that is already on that lane. Of course, it is never enforced so most people aren't aware of it.


I am glad that you note this. Because that shows how the slow drivers are being punished when the fast drivers are in fact rewarded. When the slow driver has to wait for the fast drivers to pass by. The question is then, is the comfort of fast drivers more important then the comfort of the slow drivers?

That is something that you, the proponents of no general speed limits at all costs, are not willing to answer...


----------



## Surel (May 5, 2010)

snowdog said:


> I'm a fast driver but hardly the fastest, especially in the east of Germany I can cruise along at 170 or so on Cruise control and get overtaken by cars every few minutes doing well over 220. It's not something I find remotely annoying, I just find it peculiar the culture towards driving is so messed up in Holland.


It is certainly so, many of them are not used to the autobahn speeds. But I also see very often how the cars instantly speed up after the german borders.


If someone is doing 100 behind a truck and wants to overtake and you are doing 170, there is 70 km/h difference. That is 20 m/s. Lets say that the tincan can speed up up to 130 in like 10 seconds and overtake the truck in around 15 or 20 sec. That would give you the distance of 300 or 400 meters. Good luck seeing and recognizing through your mirror the speed of car that is 300 or 400 meters behind you.

Again you gave the argument, but your arguments actually supports the other side... Since you would have to first argue, that the discomfort of the tincan driver because of no general limit is lower then the discomfort of the fast driver because of the speed limit.


----------



## Stahlsturm (Mar 30, 2012)

Surel said:


> I am glad that you note this. Because that shows how the slow drivers are being punished when the fast drivers are in fact rewarded. When the slow driver has to wait for the fast drivers to pass by. The question is then, is the comfort of fast drivers more important then the comfort of the slow drivers?
> 
> That is something that you, the proponents of no general speed limits at all costs, are not willing to answer...


I do not think they had this in mind when that law was passed. The reasoning behind this simply is that changing lanes is something you can only do when you don't hinder someone else and that is completely speed unrelated. You take the right of way whether you go in front of another car at 50 or at 250 kmh if the other car already is on the lane you are changing onto.


----------



## italystf (Aug 2, 2011)

Verso said:


> IMO Germany is not a good country to be without speed limit on motorways. Amount of traffic is way too high on most of them. A better country for that would be f.e. Poland.


Or rural areas of the USA, Canada, Australia and Russia.


----------

