[Joe-Z]

Well, to be fair, it's very very hard to take away any conveniences for cars because of the strong opposition by pro-car people.

Just recently there was a proposition in Germany to enact an absolute speed limit on the Autobahn. The german Autobahn is famous for having no upper speed limit (in reality you only have that in some parts though), so you can imagine how well that went...

It's one of the "drawbacks" of living in a democracy I guess: Revolutionary changes are basically impossible to implement, because the disadvantaged side also has a right to be heard.

[redprince]

> The german Autobahn is famous for having no upper speed limit

30% of the Autobahn have a mandatory speed limit for varying reasons, mostly safety (high incidence of accidents for example). On 70% there is an advisory speed limit of 130kph.

This means, it is inadvisable to exceed this speed even under the best of circumstances. Now in practice this has very little meaning. You may speed with impunity.

Until there is an accident. Then if a driver has exceeded the 130kph he will invariably be assigned a higher liability for consequences of the accident since the driver accepted the increased risk for accidents by operating the vehicle at a speed above the advisory speed limit. This is even true, if the other party to the accident is completely at fault. The only exception would be, if it can be shown beyond a doubt that the accident would have happened at the recommended speed of 130kph as well. In practice this is next to impossible.

There have been several attempts to change the advisory speed limit to a mandatory speed limit. Albeit the arguments aren't clearly on the side of the proponents. Regarding accidents, a statistic from the German autobahn ministry in 2018 stated that 71% of all deaths on the autobahn occur in places with no mandatory speed limit. Since 70% of the autobahn have no speed limit, one might wonder, what the expected result of a mandatory speed limit is expected to be.

In addition 33.6% of all kilometers are driven on the autobahn while only 12% of all deaths occur on the autobahn. 60% of all traffic deaths do occur on rural roads which have speed limits throughout.

Regarding climate change argument, the estimated reduction of total CO2 with a mandatory speed limit of 120kph would be 0.2% or even less if the mandatory speed limit were 130kph.

A visit to the neighbors Austria and Switzerland (both have speed limits on the autobahn) would also destroy the expectation, that smaller cars would be bought, if there were a mandatory speed limit on the autobahn.

[Joe-Z]

I don't really have a stake in the matter, but as your response clearly shows even just mentioning the topic triggers vehement defenses. You clearly have done your research though, so I respect your argument.

What I will say however, whenever I drive on the german Autobahn at some point it happens to me that I'm in the left lane to take someone over and another car comes speeding towards me from seemingly kilometers away at the speed of a damn rocketship. Whatever the hard numbers may be, this causes high amounts of stress and makes me feel very uncomfortable on the road every time. Not a good state to be in while operating high-velocity death machines!

[ryanlol]

> Then if a driver has exceeded the 130kph he will invariably be assigned a higher liability for consequences of the accident since the driver accepted the increased risk for accidents by operating the vehicle at a speed above the advisory speed limit.

Does that make any difference if you’ve got reasonably good insurance?

[CaptArmchair]

"revolutionary" doesn't mean what people think it means. There's always someone paying a price for change; and literally no-one is willing to be at the receiving end of the stick.

What people also tend to forget is that a healthy, functional democratic state doesn't protect individual interests, it protects the collective by majority vote, for better or worst. As an individual, the state will protect you in so far that your protection benefits the collective.

The main difference with other forms of governance, such as a technocracy, is that you, as an individual, at least have a vote every so often and the chance to participate in an open public debate.

If the majority of people are pro-cars, then a democratic society will spawn politicians and politics that are largely pro-car. That's just par for the course. The prerogative of the minority is the freedom to voice their dissent.

The main reason why pro-car politics lead to half-baked policies, is because no car driving individual likes to see how their peers run over their close friends and family members. Crosswalks or bicycle lanes don't just exist to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe, they also exist because a high number of traffic deaths is comes with political consequences on their part.

As such, the quality of public transport, pedestrian or cyclist infrastructure, or how the justice system deals with traffic incidents, is a reflection of how important the majority deems to the safety of those who aren't in a car when they are behind the wheel.

At the end of the day, I feel there's a ton of cognitive dissonance involved when you are used to driving a ton of steel hurtling 20, 30 or 40 miles an hour down the road. Car constructors have made cars so much safer... for drivers and their passengers. Sadly, it often takes an accident before one starts to realize the impact and the consequences of their behavior in reality. That doesn't mean this isn't true for pedestrians and cyclists as well: you can't reasonably expect that every driver is going to yield every single time.

The crux is to approach a workable balance in that shared responsibility through sensible policies. And that's an ever-lasting exercise. Throwing your arms up and giving up fundamental freedoms in order for a technocratic regime to make sweeping policy changes, that's just throwing the good away with the bad parts.

[Joe-Z]

I didn't mean to criticize living in a democracy in any way, just highlighting the effects of it. But you expanded quite nicely on that point, thank you!

Sadly, I think the goal of implementing policies in support of "the collective" largely got replaced with populism and catering to and never ever doing anything to anger our holy cow "the economy"[0]. IMO the politicians in my parent's time where held to a higher standard than the general populace and that's why they could implement policies that, while maybe frustrating to people in the short term (remember when seatbelts weren't a thing? I don't!), lead to a positive outcome in the long run and people instinctively knew this and trusted their elected representatives.

Today... well Donald Trump sits in the White House and populists are flooding european governments, so of course nothing can get done if nobody is willing to make principled decisions.

[0] Maybe I should make it clear that the people who speak for "the economy" are oftentimes a small minority of leaders of very big organizations not actually representing the bulk of what makes up the economy of a country.