3 ms·

There are good points to discuss on this topic, but my opinion is that this "debunking" is full of junk with twisted facts or "opinion" being confused with fact

There are good points to discuss on this topic, but my opinion is that this "debunking" is full of junk with twisted facts or "opinion" being confused with facts. From my own experience driving there, I noticed that the average speed on the left lanes are usually around 160 with faster cars around 180. But the truth is that with the traffic, it is very rare that you can go fast because when there start to be a reasonable amount of cars there is no way you can go too fast without doing slaloms. So speed is more low in real average. I also noticed that people were driving more seriously and safely than in other countries because of the no speed limit: In France for example, some people will go very fast in a dangerous way like an race, because of the thrill of being outlaw or something like that. Otherwise, everyone will try to be stuck to exactly 130 or a few km/h more to be exactly on the limit. Reluctant to slow down when needed and having difficulties to overpass cars that are just a bit slower without exceeding 130. Another surprising fact is that, in Germany, when there are speed limits, they are usually lower than in France and very strictly enforced. Like driving at 30 km/h on streets crossing villages.

saeranv 4y ago
> There are good points to discuss on this topic, but my opinion is that this "debunking" is full of junk with twisted facts or "opinion" being confused with facts. You should carefully reread your own post, its actually all opinion being confused for facts! It's very striking, since the original article not only supports its claims with data and cited sources, but specifically refutes the points your making. Did you just read the title and decide to refute it?
- greatgib 4y ago
  Hum what you write does not make sense. First I don't give you "opinion", but the fact of my personal experience driving there. I dare you to tell me what is not factual in what I said. To be noted that I did not formulate conclusion/opinion based on my observation. Second, I know that the article looks to be debunking with facts but if you read carefully you will see that a lot are biased or not really adequately justified. the costs from time lost with a limit of 130 km/h were more than offset by the economic benefits of preventing traffic accidents. Here for example, you compare apple and carrots. I don't doubt that a study somewhere tried to put an "economic value" to the time lost for a driver and to estimate an economic value of fatalities. But that is really shaddy. Another example, there are a comparison of accidents on speed limited highways vs non speed limited parts in Germany. But this is again comparing apple and carrots. Roads are not the same, it is not like we had 2 times the same slice of road and decided to have one with speed limit and the other one without to see which is the best one. As they are all in Germany, you can assume that the one that are speed limited already have a reason for that or they would be unlimited. Maybe the limit itself is a signal to drivers that the area is more dangerous and to be more cautious. And also, there is the possibility that as the drivers are free for unlimited speed on some parts of highways, they don't have frustration regarding that and then they are more serious in respecting speed limits where it is limited. But if all highways were limited, they would be a higher number of drivers driving dangerously slightly exceeding the mandatory speed limit, and that now could happen anywhere, even where there was already speed limits before. A last point is that there is not even a justification of why limiting to 130 and not 140 or 100. It is a totally arbitrary value.

saeranv 4y ago

> There are good points to discuss on this topic, but my opinion is that this "debunking" is full of junk with twisted facts or "opinion" being confused with facts. You should carefully reread your own post, its actually all opinion being confused for facts! It's very striking, since the original article not only supports its claims with data and cited sources, but specifically refutes the points your making. Did you just read the title and decide to refute it?

greatgib 4y ago
Hum what you write does not make sense. First I don't give you "opinion", but the fact of my personal experience driving there. I dare you to tell me what is not factual in what I said. To be noted that I did not formulate conclusion/opinion based on my observation. Second, I know that the article looks to be debunking with facts but if you read carefully you will see that a lot are biased or not really adequately justified. the costs from time lost with a limit of 130 km/h were more than offset by the economic benefits of preventing traffic accidents. Here for example, you compare apple and carrots. I don't doubt that a study somewhere tried to put an "economic value" to the time lost for a driver and to estimate an economic value of fatalities. But that is really shaddy. Another example, there are a comparison of accidents on speed limited highways vs non speed limited parts in Germany. But this is again comparing apple and carrots. Roads are not the same, it is not like we had 2 times the same slice of road and decided to have one with speed limit and the other one without to see which is the best one. As they are all in Germany, you can assume that the one that are speed limited already have a reason for that or they would be unlimited. Maybe the limit itself is a signal to drivers that the area is more dangerous and to be more cautious. And also, there is the possibility that as the drivers are free for unlimited speed on some parts of highways, they don't have frustration regarding that and then they are more serious in respecting speed limits where it is limited. But if all highways were limited, they would be a higher number of drivers driving dangerously slightly exceeding the mandatory speed limit, and that now could happen anywhere, even where there was already speed limits before. A last point is that there is not even a justification of why limiting to 130 and not 140 or 100. It is a totally arbitrary value.