The Speedlimit on German Highways is only the one that is marked on traffic signs, if there are no signs, the limit is only what the car, traffic or common sense allows. It is also prohibited to go slower than 60 km/h on highways, if there is any reason for this, as it is also prohibited to go with vehicles that do not reach a minimum of 60 km/h. This, in view of the high speeds of others, is also logical.
On the other hand, in general German drivers are quite disciplined and the police are very attentive to violators, high fines and a point system (with 15 points you can ride a bicycle), where there is a speed limit it is sure that it is controlled by radar and at rush hour there are even helicopters controlling traffic, also with patrol cars with civilian or police cars, all of them high-end (BMW, AUDI, Porsche).
Those with 300 or more are mostly rich foreigners “Highway Tourists” who want to experience it with their supercars (Japanese, English, and others) because it is the only place where it is allowed.
Although in Germany there is no express speed limit on the highways, the lines where you can go 300 or more are quite limited and it is only feasible on certain days, since heavy traffic during the week prevents it anyway. On most highways there is a speed limit and it is usually 120 or 130, and these indications come in a red circle and often with radar control. But if not… piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=7BWE2ftcF4Q
Was gonna say, before the Dutch did that stunt with time dependent speed limits the ‘unlimited’ sign just meant 130kph. At the border would be a sign explaining this and that’s that.
The FDP target group are above average people that enjoy fast expensive cars and that’s exactly what there politics are about. They are pretty much the only party pushing Porsches e-fuels in whole europe and keeping all incentives for the car lobby up and running.
Brazil is far from lawless. In really small communities 12-year-Olds are driving scooters without wearing helmets, sure, but in all Metropolitan areas laws are pretty strict and there are expensive fines.
Yup, 10 over is my default unless I’m on a highway, which is then 15 to 20 over.
It’s funny, but those who actually go the speed limit are the ones that people get mad at for going too slow. Even though they’re technically the only ones obeying the law.
And the most dangerous are the extremes on both ends encountering each other. It’s crazy to me how normalized vehicles are considering the death that they cause, the behavior people exhibit on the roads, and the sheer absolute ignorance that seems to be paid to making them safer. Maybe it’s just apathy?
I agree with fuck cars but anywhere outside of Urban centers in the United States no personal vehicles would be absolutely untenable. It’s almost every month I have to drive on a dirt road that I am not biking.
On the other side, Germany has TÜV with a mandatory vehicle inspection every 2 years with some exceptions for new cars.
They check vital components for road safety and won’t allow the car to be on public roads when it’s not fixed within a month. And it’s not like your tires have no rest profile anymore, it’s like you have to change them when they’re at 1,6mm… recommended is to change at 4mms…
Some “Prüfer” are chill but sometimes you won’t pass because your winter tires you were drivimg for 5 years, are 0,3% bigger than the allowed ones in the registrationpapers… at least I heard.
Yeees. But some of the guidelines are confusing. So the basic rule is that you have to keep a “2-second distance”. This is the distance you vehicle would travel in two second without breaking. The Formular is 2x(v²/100). But at lower speeds its a completely different calculation. And when you are waaay faster you are supposed to leave half your speed in metres as a gap. Then there are separate rules for fog and long vehicles and multiple vehicles that drive in a row on one lane roads and all that.
There are also rules for the distance you should keep to the cars and especially bikes next to you and they are different depending on if you are in a “place” or outside of one :)
Wait no. So I’m Shure I got the Formular wrong, but there is one that is specifically for the distance covered per second. And of course time is a cariable because how else would you define speed.
I know, but sorry we’re miles apart from each other. I’ve seen “street legal” cars in UK which will get you in jail in Germany xD Tbh I don’t mind those restrictions but some are way over the top here
we have this every year in slovenia. you have to pass a technical inspection then register your car
my mom’s car failed bexause her handbrake was 11% less efficient than new (limit being 10%). she had to get it replaced and then the car passed perfectly with 0 issues stated
i’d rather do this shit than have some jerk driving around with a car thats about to fall apart and maybe not have a working brake
Speaking as an American here… could we NOT park cars in the left lane. I’ve seen enough habits of drivers in other countries where the left lane is exclusively for passing, it’s so simple and superior for traffic but Americans be dumb selfish shits behind the wheel.
You don’t understand, I have to turn left in 25 km and what if I can’t get back into my lane after I let you pass and I miss my turn. I’m not a confident driver so I am going to do what’s safest and best for me and everyone else can just accept it. I’m going fast enough at 5km over the posted speed limit and you can just slow down, life isn’t a race unless I need it to be.
I think the real trouble is that it’s hard to convict on that. It’s not like speeding, where you either are or you aren’t, it’s much harder to establish that you shouldn’t be in the outside lane. I mean, it seems pretty clear in most cases, but the lack of a clearly defined boundary makes it very difficult in law. This ends up making it feel like a waste of time to law enforcement, both police and courts, because they could be doing things that will be more likely to have the intended outcome.
It’s really annoying though, because advanced driver courses sometimes do define it: 10 seconds.
If you’re not overtaking within 10 seconds, you should move over. Personally, I find it easier to estimate a 7 second distance by eye - 10 seconds is quite conservative.
No, they let me go with a warning, but while the one was talking to me, the other cop was peering in all my windows, so I’m pretty sure it was all an excuse to inspect people cars…
Where i live it’s fucking madness. People change lanes randomly, sit in the far left going 10 under the limit, pass on the right or left at seeming random, and sometimes just drive in the middle lane doing 30 mph in a 70 mph zone with their fucking hazards on. Don’t even get me started on their merge technique, jealousy and resentment are what rule people’s decisions and nobody has ever even heard of zipper merging. It’s a shock there aren’t more accidents than there are.
I once watched someone sitting in the far left at the limit, come up against someone driving on the left going 10 under, decide to undertake, and then slow down to like 30 under to “punish” the person.
I’ve changed lanes to pass only to have people change in front of me to block me, then change back when i changed back.
But most of all, and it should be noted i drive a two seater sports car here, i’ve had people in their huge ass SUVs look over at me, MAKE EYE CONTACT with me, and then merge into whatever lane i was in at the time like they were trying to drive me off the road.
It’s a phrase some people use. Specifically prevalent in California. “Parking their Ass in the left lane” Means somebody driving in the left lane at 10mph below the speed limit.
A section of the A24 was limited to 130 kmph for 20 years to reduce accidents. Because the reduction the speed limit was lifted early this year. Now there are 8% more accidents with injury and 42% more injured. Politicians call now to make it possible to limit the section again.
For highway lowering the speed may be effective but lowering the speed limit from 50 to 30 won’t stop drivers from going 50 unless the road is designed for lower speeds. So long as lanes are wide and there are little obstructions for drivers to worry about hitting, such as bumpouts, boulevards, etc., they will go as fast as they feel comfortable unless there is a cop behind them.
Edit: 50kmh to 30kmh I don’t know what that is in freedom miles
In Germany the speed limit in Cities is 50km/h and in residential zones 30km/h, strong controlled with a lot of radar traps. If you exceed this they screw up your life, in case of hitting a pedestrian even possible with jail time. It cannot be confused by the lack of speed limit on some highway sections, that traffic regulations are very strict and controlled in Germany and any violation can be very expensive.
Well, respect radar control, it depends also in which city or village you are of the local administration, in some are existing only few and in others on every corner. Often also mobile radarstations in “civil” parking police cars.
It’s not actually. It’s quite an old network so it was built before cars could go as fast as they can go now. There are surprisingly sharp corners and very short off ramps. If it were built from scratch today it would be even safer. Speed limits are bs outside of particularly tricky areas.
Ah yep my bad, I was speaking generally. The image in the article is only a short section of highway but it does look like one of the 2 lane sections that are usually quite old. If they were more modern and built for higher speeds they’d have an even shallower curve and would probably be 3 lanes with a hard shoulder. If you drive on the Autobahn you’ll have a few moments where you notice the difference in road layout from those which more modern highways implement - the on and off ramps in particular can be a bit scary.
That is the problem, people with high end cars have enough money to pay an expensive fuel. Apart with an industry which mostly expensive high end E-cars, the high fuel prices only affect the people wich don’t have money for such cars.
Speed limits absolutely do work if there are cameras and consequences. Unfortunately everyone seems to have decided that suspending licences and siezing cars is a human rights violation.
Speed limits do work, but the road should be designed with the speed limit in mind. Just slapping a new sign up and reducing the speed limit is going to lead to non-compliance - even if the speed limit is enforced by police.
The UK recently released figures on speed limit compliance. For 20mph roads (30-35kph) they primarily measured roads that didn’t have traffic calming measures recommended for 20mph roads (ie the roads don’t “feel” like 20mph roads), and they found 85% of drivers exceeded the speed limit.
if there are speed limits i usually am forced to spend more time dicking around looking for signs or cops or checking the speedometer, instead of focusing on the road and how safe my current speed actually feels
This can be solved quite easily by introducing head-up-displays in cars showing the speed in front of the driver. HUDs were introduced years ago in some airliners allowing the pilots to maintain situational awareness while having quick access to the critical information about the aircraft. And introducing safety standards from commercial aviation is almost always a good step.
I think traffic calming is really interesting for this reason, building roads to make you feel most comfortable at the correct speed. The road design here is usually good, but when driving I feel really anxious on roads that have a design not matching the speed limit too.
100% agreed. If I don’t set cruise control, I usually speed on my commute due to me just focusing on the grip of my car, distance to/from other cars, and perceived speed. It’s just hard to gauge speed without checking often on my speedometer, which isn’t as safe. Even just trying to follow at a constant distance in the right lane is difficult because the semi trucks usually end up having wide speed differences at random times, meaning 60mph-80mph depending on the hill usually.
If your mental capacity is reached by checking your surroundings while all the traffic is going roughly the same speed as you, then no way youre capable of handling “no speed limit” where everyone is driving to their liking.
It’s not just you who’d be suddenly free to do whatever they want, but everyone else too.
Claiming “I know better what’s best for me” is the best sign of someone who absolutely doesn’t.
I think you’re misunderstanding their message. To me it reads that places where there’s low speed limits, are also places where you need to pay a lot of attention on the street and surroundings and wouldn’t want to drive faster anyways
Ist Michael Mittermeier Atheist? Bin jetzt nicht super mit seinem Programm vertraut, und er nacht sich glaub ich schon hin und wieder über Religion etc lustig, aber meine mich vage zu erinnern dass er zumindest christlich geprägt ist.
Meine Wahl lag einzig und alleine an seinem Gesichtsausdruck, dieses schelmische grinsen. Von seinen früheren Programm meine ich rausgehört zu haben das er nicht die gläubigste Tomate auf dem Strauch ist, aber was und ob keihne Ahnung.
As concerned as most christians seem to be with punishment of those doing some imagined wrong or another, wouldn't that sort of mean they're following in their supposed satan's ways and tenets.
you’re missing the point. There are a slew of contradictions in christian dogma that don’t make any sense at all. People who “punish” people are typically the good guys in stories. Take a sheriff in a western for instance. They chase the robber and throw them in jail as a form of punishment. The meme is just showcasing an example of how religion faulters under critical examination
They merely said that being separated from God means suffering, while following H…er.im means walking towards the establishment of H…er.is Kingdom/City unto Earth. They talked more about Hell as a state than as a physical place, but, well… who cares nowadays, right ? Parabola never taught us anything about the real world, the spirit doesn’t exist, and morals are relative, they were simply naive ignorants who never had anything to teach us, embrace modernity and reject 100% of the past.
I don’t entirely agree with my comment either, because there’s multiple interpretation of Hell.
One of them is interesting, it says that if our consciousness survives after our death, our mind will finally think clearly, we’ll remember our past better than if it happened today, and we’ll be overwhelmed by shame, this hell would be created by ourselves.
Another one would talk about a real place, but not in the afterlife but right here, on Earth(, it combines perfectly with this talk of afterlife if you believe in reincarnation), and says that if we all live our lives ‘searching for’/‘aiming at’ God, then our descendants/reincarnations will live in Paradise(, or in Hell if we don’t).
There’re other interpretations, as well as the thought that we’re not free since we’re determined, so God decided before our birth whether we would end up in Hell or in Paradise, a thought discussed in the Middle-Ages and rejected in favor of free-will(, i don’t think Spinoza would disagree with the conclusion that God predestined us for Hell, if he believed in Hell).
Obviously, the most common explanation is that police(wo)men didn’t existed back then, God-fearing people was the equivalent of virtuous people, even when nobody can see/stop them.
If we’re being truthful, Satan is supposed to be punished in hell too, its only modern works that portray him as the one ‘ruling’ and dishing it out to people in hell.
Well that concept isn’t in the Bible and even if it were then 1667 would still be somewhat “contemporary” compared to when the Christian scriptures were supposedly written. Of course I say all that as if any of it is real or matters anyway lol
They mention it a lot, but never say what it is beyond it having fire that never goes out, some passage in Matthew.
Christians have just ran away with some ideas, just like with pro-life, just like with the devil, just like with most of the religion. You decide what you want to believe and twist the Bible to back it up.
You can find it here. Along with a scathing rebuke to those who wear the name Christian and yet are so full of hate they refuse to do any of these things.
Matthew 25:41-46 (NKJV)
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Well, that’s embarrassing. I thought for sure that was one of those things that was created from extra-biblical sources.
This really makes me wonder about those Christians who claim that it’s faith, not works, that gets you into Heaven. This seems like a strong argument for the opposite.
The argument is that it’s faith that gets you into heaven, but the proof of true faith is found in works. If you claim to be faithful but do not do good works, your faith is dead.
Well unfortunately the majority of Christians believe that simply believing in Jesus grants them access. Who needs morals when you can just ask for forgiveness every time you do bad thing 🤷
Biblical Satan is a role, not a person. I’ve seen it translated as “opponent” or “rival”. Something like a “devil’s advocate” in catholic church - person or entity who tests somebody’s faith.
And Lucifer is again a completely different character, not related to Satan until much later.
The devils advocate in Catholicism is something very specific and not at all that. In order for someone to be determined a Saint there’s more or less a trial. One side presents arguments that say the individual has met the criteria by which one can be determined a Saint. The other side, which is called the devils advocate, attempts to poke holes in it and presents arguments by which the individual hasn’t met those conditions. They’ll do things like bring up sins and character flaws that persisted into the individual’s saintly period, as well as attempt to disprove any miracles the individual is said to have committed.
Actually, Satan is always described as being on earth. In Genesis, Lucifer is cast down to earth, not hell. In Job Satan tells God he’s passing by during his comings and goings on earth. In the Gospels, Satan tempts Jesus in the desert.
If you listen to the Yazidis he was sent to Hell for defying God by not bowing down to us humans, his greatest work, despite God telling Satan to never bow to anyone because he was made of God’s essence rather than us, made in his likeness.
So he went to Hell for 10 000 years until his tears put out the fires of Hell, then God forgave him. He also rewarded him for honoring his original pact with God and was given Dominion over Earth.
He took this Dominion and gave us Humans “Knowledge” like the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, only the Knowledge was of Farming.
Thing is, the Yazidis live awefully close to what is thought to be the birthplace of Farming.
When asked to describe Satan, they described him as a Peacock holding a sheaf of Wheat in it’s beak, the same image found in Gobekli Tepe, which is thought to be a shrine that taught Farming to the world.
Hail Satan.
Edit: this is just my understanding after reading an article or 2 on the subject, I’m probably wrong about loads of it, but it’s all just stories anyway so who cares?
feddit.de
Hot