General speed limit? Result of the vote.

Should there be a general speed limit on German motorways? The question moves and it divides the readers. We asked and started a vote. In addition, the question was how high the possible speed limit should be. It was also interesting to see whether our readers' opinions generally differ from the German population. One should assume that the blog is open to the future, but in case of doubt it is very petrol and turbo-savvy. And has a strong love for older, Swedish sheet metal.

General speed limit on German motorways? The readers are divided.
General speed limit on German motorways? The readers are divided.

Infratest Dimap surveys show a division of the population in terms of a general speed limit. It is striking that the opinion has not changed significantly over the years. In October 2012, Infratest launched a nationwide Befragung. At that time, a slim majority of 53% advocated the introduction of a general speed limit. Exactly 7 years later and after two extremely hot and dry summers the next one Befragung, this time in the ARD Germany trend, exactly the same picture. 53% for, 45% against. Climate crisis, Greta Thunberg, environmental discussion. Everything seems to leave the nation unscathed as soon as it comes to free travel for free citizens.

The readers are split when it comes to speed limits

The readers on the blog don't behave quite like the majority of the population. Interesting because it is primarily about cars. But the split is also noticeable here. If you followed the vote, you could see a back and forth between the camps. Sometimes the supporters of a limit were at the top, sometimes the opponents. Ultimately, the majority of readers are in favor of a general speed limit. But only with a small majority, and the division of society on this issue continues here.

A general speed limit on highways?

  • I am in favor! (54% 301 Votes)
  • I'm against it! (46% 255 Votes)

Total Voters: 556

Loading ... Loading ...

On the other hand, it seems clear what is preferred, it is introduced. Tempo 140 would be preferred, but 130 would be acceptable. Lower speeds are beaten. The introduction of the limit seems real in the next few years. The climate targets set by the government are shaking, the speed limit on German motorways would be an easy way to quickly reduce CO2. An introduction would only result in 1.2% of the emissions of the Transport sector save, but meet 6% of the CO2 reduction of the climate target. In addition, a speed limit could improve the lack of acceptance for electric vehicles. Their biggest disadvantage is manifested in rapidly melting ranges at an increased speed.

Which restriction would be reasonable?

  • 140 km / h - so that not everyone falls asleep (47% 120 Votes)
  • 130 km / h would be ideal (42% 109 Votes)
  • 120 km / h would be good (8% 20 Votes)
  • 100 km / h are completely sufficient (3% 9 Votes)

Total Voters: 258

Loading ... Loading ...

Another self-experiment comes

Our neighbors in Austria are more clearly positioned. On 120 kilometers of Alpine motorways, the maximum possible speed was raised to 140 km / h for testing purposes. The started in 2018 E is finished, speed 130 applies on the tracks as before. In contrast to the former FPÖ Minister of Transport, his successor to the Greens saw the increased speed as an increased burden on the environment.

The topic remains current and will continue to accompany us in the future. We're going to try again. After the pace 120 Selbstversuch with the 9-3 Aero, the least suitable vehicle, there will be another test in the next few weeks. Tempo 130 further away with the Saab 9000. The as Anna project known vehicle is 22 years old. Can intelligent Swedish lightweight construction still convince with efficiency today and keep up with the latest technology?

19 thoughts too "General speed limit? Result of the vote."

  • Even my family is divided on this question - everything is completely normal. I'm looking forward to the new self-experiment with the 9000. In my eyes one of the best cars of its time!

    Answer
  • The country is divided, so it can be called.
    Environmental, safety and consequential costs of injuries against individual freedom of decision.
    In times when the traffic density (unfortunately) continues to increase and general traffic rules in some regions are only observed rudimentarily, I would prefer a clear RULING for these additional reasons alone.
    Otherwise, I'm happy about the new self-test SAAB 9000!

    12
    3
    Answer
  • Thank you for the self-experiment, survey, evaluation and the articles ...

    What I don't understand is how 1,2% savings in traffic should bring us a full 6% closer to the national climate protection goals?

    In my mathematical understanding, this is not possible. Or maybe yes?

    It is at least in need of explanation or even correction.

    Answer
  • Those who are for a speed limit can start with it. But stay right 😉

    25
    16
    Answer
  • Thanks for the survey! Inspired by the blogger's “self-experiment”, I also underwent a voluntary speed limit test on my regular route in the past few weeks. Cruise control set to 120 and just let it roll. With this constellation, consumption drops significantly and I felt much more relaxed when driving. The bottom line is about 5-10 minutes, which I might get out of it, but can just as easily lose (despite full throttle on the BAB) in the subsequent city traffic. So saving time is not an argument. Therefore I am for a speed limit, 130 km / h are sufficient in my view.
    We live in a crazy time, I think: the same parents who move their SUV at 200 on the freeway (and make it 200 km / h as indispensable) force their children to wear a helmet on the playground "for safety reasons". It's crazy. The car lobby pretends that over 3000 traffic fatalities are still no problem. Imagine what would be done by train if 3000 people go there every year.
    Oh so: The test object was my 2002 9-3 Cabrio, which I feel is very well suited for this type of driving. I look forward to the further discussion!

    17
    10
    Answer
  • @ Herbert Hürsch

    That is 1,2% = 6% is only possible if the values ​​to which the information relates are not the same.
    Since there is a factor of 5 in between, it can be said that the national climate protection target apparently corresponds to 1/5 of the emissions from the transport sector, hence the reduction by an amount of CO2 that corresponds to 20% of the CO2 emissions from the transport sector.

    For example: If the transport sector emits 100t CO2, 1,2% of it is 1,2t. If the saving target is 20t CO2, 1,2t CO2 is 6%.

    5
    1
    Answer
  • @ StF,

    Thank you very much, but maybe I should have expressed myself differently ...

    I am less lacking in mathematical understanding than in understanding politics - provided that the numbers in the article are correct and are not accidentally interchanged ...

    If 1,2% savings correspond to 6% of our climate protection targets, we would only need to save 24% in the transport sector in order to achieve national targets of 120%.

    It doesn't make any sense. There is an error in the article.

    @ Tom,
    how exactly was it meant?

    4
    1
    Answer
  • I probably get little encouragement with my attitude on this topic. I am and remain a supporter of "no general speed limit" and also have a fundamentally different opinion of the general mainstream about the media-led environmental discussion, climate protection goals, including hyped e-mobility. Decisive for the purchase of my first Saab 9-3 in 2004 was its simple elegance paired with a unique design, the turbo power and the perfect cockpit with a perceived seating position like in a jet. Saab “Born from Jets” and then only 130 km / h on the highway ?? A jet with a lock in the fun or high performance range ?? No, not for me or I personally don't want that !! Despite this attitude, I am 90 percent more gliding with my vehicles and without general regulations, but I would also like to be able to really take off (if the path is clear). The traffic density already regulates these possibilities strongly and the ignorant of the general traffic rules will not change their behavior at a prescribed speed limit. As I said, it's an opinion, that's my opinion and nothing more.

    29
    9
    Answer
  • What I did last week was not a self-experiment, just a normal auto trip. Because of my job, I drove 2000 km through Germany. By which? With an 89 9000i. Awesome device, full without turbo. Everyday car. In fact, I drove 75% of the route at an average of 120 km / h and was completely satisfied with it. When I went home on Sunday afternoon and the highways became increasingly empty, I decided to travel at 150-160 (-170) km / h. And now? Do I have to be ashamed now, get a shitstorm as an environmental pig or a potential killer? 3000 traffic fatalities are almost exactly 3000 too many. But how many of these lost their lives because speeds above 130 km / h were crucial? And the environment? At approx. 120 km / h there was - “manually”, ie without speed control - a consumption of 8.3 l / 100 km, at 160 km / h one liter more. At around 500 km, this means around five liters more consumption. Does that tear the environment into the abyss? How much does that make up globally in the original sense of the word?

    God knows I'm not a nihilist, I take things seriously. However, I am afraid of the omnipresent unity of opinion of the omniasketic, fun-free ecotaliban and their visions of the good-human caliphate. Really scared.
    The environment can take a few fast drivers. And dead people are produced thousands of times a year in this country and not noticed or bored by the public at all. Incidentally, produced by a professional group that you would not expect a priori. In contrast, the number of fatalities is still small and is only accepted as an unfortunate collateral damage.

    This whole discussion about speed limit, etc. is completely superficial. IMAGE your opinion.

    If you are seriously interested in the topics of environment and sustainability, you should search the worldwide network for Michael Braungart or the cradle-to-cradle concept. Then we can continue talking substantially.

    19
    6
    Answer
  • This “cradle-to-cradle concept” is extremely interesting. We can only hope that the spread of this method will continue to gain acceptance.
    "The omnipresent uniform opinion of the omniasketic, fun-free ecotaliban and their visions of the good human caliphate" is a fitting characterization of the mainstream. People have always been like this and have not changed. That was already the case with the “68s”, which I had to “endure” in my youth. What were we discussing and debating back then! They actually rejected everything as "bourgeois" that was different / older. And they created a new kind of "philistine", which I called "neo-philistine" at the time. Times change, mankind never.

    8
    4
    Answer
  • Fully into the guardrail ...

    comments rarely go here. But the topic is obviously emotionally charged. Does every supporter of a speed limit really have to be insulted as a neo-bourgeois shit-storming and uneducated ecotaliban?

    Doesn't that go a bit far?

    I am fickle on the subject because I like to drive fast every now and then. But such comments tend to finally push me to the other side ...

    It's also silly that the consumption is always nicely talked about. If I drive fast, the range is drastically reduced. So much honesty must be.

    8
    5
    Answer
  • Pace & consumption

    For once, factually:
    Above 100 km / h all driving resistances with the exception of wind resistance can be neglected. This is already considerable and continues to grow exponentially.

    According to a valid and amazingly accurate rule of thumb, you need 30% more power to drive 10% faster.

    In other words, there is a delta of around 20% between the additional power and energy used for the additional distance traveled.

    If you look at the performance data of cars, you will find the rule confirmed. So a small car with 60 HP cannot drive about 30% faster than one with 45 HP and another with 80 HP not 30% faster. No, the maximum possible speed actually only increases by approx. 10% ...

    For example from 145 km / h (45 hp) to 160 (60 hp) and ultimately 175 km / h (80 hp).

    For some opponents (the loudest) of any speed limit, the opposite is the case. If anything, consumption only increases by 10% if you drive 30% faster - for example 160 instead of 120 or a good 200 instead of 160 ...

    All terrestrial laws of nature and physics are completely eliminated. Honestly people, I would like your cars. And if I had one of those, I would also be a decided opponent of any limit.

    Unfortunately, all the cars I have ever driven are meticulous about terrestrial physics and, as the speed increases, they drink exponentially more as the wind resistance increases. I have not yet found a vacuumed wormhole at the German BAB.

    Oh yes, almost forgotten. I had your cars long ago. For example a 2,3 i in the 9K. Great part. Not because he pried out physics, but because he was so in tune with it as if all natural laws had been formulated in Trollhättan.

    Exciting question also, why a speed limit in the country of origin of our cars should be okay, but in Germany should run contrary to the intended use of the vehicles ...

    6
    2
    Answer
  • @Herbert Hürsch: Thank you for your comment, which of course I can refer to myself.

    Of course, you are free to feel addressed by the term Ökotaliban without being addressed in the slightest. Just as little as all the other speed limit advocates. Likewise, I have never perceived you as EDUCATED in the past.

    Rather, the intention of my words - and I may have failed - to emphasize that the discussion about a general speed limit is, in my opinion, completely superficial in relation to ecology.
    You presented the terrestrial physics very nicely, which is not the case with my 9000i, possibly because the consumption display is not as exact as we know it from our cars. Accepted.

    In order to get a closer look at the C02 effect of higher speeds, the consideration of the plus output at one speed compared to another speed is initially only gray theory. So it could be argued that in relation to 43 million vehicles that drive 160 instead of 130, there is an additional burden of so many tons of CO2, ergo we need a speed limit.

    However, a serious and assessable assessment would only be possible if one were to know the actual (additional) emissions, i.e. the total amount of real additional emissions generated by a minority over the year. You will not be able to avoid agreeing that this value and only this value can be relevant and not an extrapolation for the total stock of all vehicles in Germany. My hypothesis is that this is not a relevant order of magnitude in the overall context. Should this be clearly refutable, this is of course to be accepted.

    Born on a very recent occasion, allow me to give an example in the field:

    Last night I did my (end) shopping for the week and while I was strolling through the aisles, my gaze in the fruit and vegetable area brushed a couple of fruit stairs with pretty red fruits to look at. You probably guessed it, they were strawberries and I had to ask myself whether the crocuses actually came from the earth or whether strawberries were ripe. On my 2000km trip through Germany described above, I never noticed strawberry fields anywhere. So the question arises where the fruits may come from. I suspect at least from the Mediterranean. Just like Andalusian greenhouse tomatoes and the like, more indispensable staple food (sorry, I can't do without tips).

    And now, for a moment, let's take a sober and fact-based look at the entirety of what is being done with Mother Earth. Damage to the roads caused by trucks, tire abrasion, hectoliters of diesel and last but not least the entire truck and everything including manufacturing, energy, resources and, and, and ...
    We accept all of this indifferently because we need strawberries in early March. And if we now take the total CO2 load, which results from a completely superfluous truck, unnecessarily manufactured diesel, unnecessary tires and unnecessary road repairs, what kind of balance sheet may there be?
    And we all know that the streets are full of such trucks.

    And that is one of the reasons why I consider the discussion about a general speed limit as superficial. Because if so, then everything has to be on the table.

    And it's one of the reasons why I don't let myself be cornered because of the speed limit rejection (of course not by you, I know that).

    Dear Mr. Hürsch,
    I hope that I have now made my position a little clearer and above all that neither you nor other speed limit supporters were and are objects of my deliberately pointed words. Those who I meant, the disciples of the do-good caliphate, do not drive SAAB and you will not find them on this blog.

    In this sense,
    best wishes

    12
    3
    Answer
  • If you really want to get going, then simply drive onto one of the Formula 1 rings and leave other road users alone with their play instinct.
    They seem like someone you want to take away your Matchbox car from.
    The freedom of a single road user ends with the safety of others.
    Nobody is interested in what kind of “jet * you want to fly on the highway, nobody wants to see that. It is important that drivers get to their destination, EVERYONE without disturbing speed junkies and other weak people on the train!

    5
    7
    Answer
  • @ fami,

    thanks for the explanation. I share your assessment that private and individual road transport is being addressed disproportionately by politics and the media ...

    You call it “superficial”. But is that enough as an argument against a speed limit?

    If this perpetual discussion ended, new space would be created for other topics. For example for your strawberries. Incidentally, this is also an eternal discussion and an old hat with holes and a very long beard.

    Do you know “Asterix the Gauls”? The story was published in 1959 and long beards such as strawberries at the wrong time caused excitement even then. At least among the Romans ...

    And of course you can agree to a speed limit with a certain regret and grind your teeth and at the same time do without flavor-free and ecologically questionable produced, transported and plastically packaged strawberries.

    For example, mine come exclusively from my own garden. Also a few wild strawberries. The best.

    You repeatedly demand holistic thinking in your comments. Very good demand. But it remains open and puzzling how it should serve holistic thinking to exempt a speed limit?

    Isn't that more selective than holistic thinking?
    Isn't it a little “superficial” too? ?
    A tiny bit? ? ?

    Answer
  • @ Herbert Hürsch
    "... but remains puzzling how it should serve holistic thinking to exempt a speed limit?"
    I Agree. There is no contradiction to this objection. Where you are right, you are right.

    Answer
  • @ fami,

    thank you and likewise. There is a great deal of potential for savings in goods and goods traffic on our roads, which is not sufficiently taken into account. Where you are right, you are right ...

    Answer
  • Also a little mustard from this side, it is an exciting discussion and many Saab drivers, myself included, also estimate speed ranges above 120/130/140 without having to drive them permanently. How would I vote, hard to say, I think if the majority uses it, I like to go with me, in towns I drive 30/50 if desired, at 70 almost 70 etc. Every time you return from Scandinavia you notice when entering the BABs that we are unfortunately "relaxed". 500Km through Denmark are very easy to relax, from the border it's over. What bothers me in the discussion are generalizations, I think if you leave the opinions here, there are a lot of different attitudes, i.e. diversity of opinion, which can lead to very different conclusions - and that's a good thing, because it creates a discourse. Which I find uncomfortable when people are dubbed "irony" because of one opinion or another with ironic exaggeration. Basically, someone is not bad because he is or wants to be a good man, that has to be respected and “… Taliban” is also completely wrong. We should start to accept different views, one likes meat and the other likes carrots, the third both, where is the problem. When making decisions, the better argument should be the decisive factor and be democratically accepted, ultimately it doesn't matter with or without a speed limit, and if you want to go faster you can alternatively go to a race track or not get caught, although it is not clear whether that is the case . What about the target speed 130? does that still apply or no one knows it anymore. What bothers me is that SUV owners are automatically greeted with great jealousy, while at the same time assuming that such cars are only driven by strange people - then there are actually many strange people now and SAAB was also available as 9-4 and 9-7 . I am for relaxed Saab driving without malice without hate without envy - and to the ecological discussion, every contribution counts, everything we can leave has a resource-saving effect. Why not start yourself, whether in the SUV or at home without defamation, but positively effective and sustainable ...

    3
    1
    Answer
  • But in Austria you have to say that it was just a political hack, because what an FPÖ politician introduced cannot possibly be done by a Green party. If other parties had done that, it might even have stayed. In Austria, the 140th section was very well received by the population.

    Answer

Post a comment

This website uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn more about how your comment data is processed.