
No More ‘Fun Fun Fun on the Autobahn’ Under Proposed German Laws - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-19/no-more-fun-fun-fun-on-the-autobahn-under-proposed-german-laws
======
rdiddly
Very next article on my version of the page: "Europe’s Most Important River Is
Running Dry" (because of climate change)

Grow up, could there maybe be an upside to limiting emissions? One this writer
with his childlike and provincial worldview can't appreciate? (Provincial
because it's FAHREN auf der Autobahn, and childlike because the chosen
substitute-word is "fun.") This isn't about your shallow "fun fun fun," it's
about everybody's "death death death." And I hate to break it to you, but
driving 100MPH on a German highway (which I'm pretty sure he's never done, or
else he might've seen one or two signs with the words Fahren or Fahrt on them
somewhere) might not be the only thing he'll have to say goodbye to. You
actually should probably STOP ALTOGETHER hauling 2 tons of dead weight around
with you everywhere, and do it TODAY, or be overrun with migrant refugees of
drought, war, famine, and fascism tomorrow. (Or maybe your place succeeds in
keeping them out, in which case you're probably in the fascist place from
which you'll be the refugee.) Gauge how likely that future is, by the number
of shallow and petulant downvotes this comment gets. I've pretty much accepted
it as a near-certainty. It will precede the much-needed, massive die-off of
_homo sapiens_ back to a more sustainable population size.

~~~
petermcneeley
"the much-needed, massive die-off of homo sapiens back to a more sustainable
population size."

Ah yes the Anti-human environmental movement! lets put those guys in charge!

~~~
RealityVoid
I fail to understand this human-hating stance. It's very confusing to me
especially seems it seems to be cheering the suffering and death of many
people but the feeling seems to be prompted by the suffering and death of many
people. It's simply confusing to me.

~~~
rdiddly
You guys are all missing the point. It doesn't matter who cheers, who "hates
humans" (which is a ridiculous oversimplification) or who's "in charge" (since
no one is). It doesn't matter if you like it or hate it. Is it "anti-rain" or
"pro-rain" to notice a heavy rain cloud? I dunno but the rain absolutely
doesn't care what you think. It doesn't even mind if you disingenuously reduce
the issue to the same old simplistic pro/anti binary.

If you have the basic powers of observation of natural laws, and aren't so
vain as to believe humans are exempt from them, you can see this coming. I've
already gone through my 5 stages of grief about it, that's what you're picking
up on. It's not anti-human; driving your car is anti-human. To the tune of
35,000 Americans killed every year by it, and that's just from crashes. Don't
blame me for how you feel when you hear the bad news for what I'm pretty sure
is not the first time. The pro-human approach would be to see this coming
ahead of time and actually manage the transition.

EDIT: ...like Germany is trying to do (a step in the right direction, but
probably not enough and not fast enough)

~~~
petermcneeley
Most European style countries are doing just fine (including japan and korea).
Small populations and moderate to negative birthrates. Great environmental
laws and various forms of recycling and waste management. Various
technological developments reduce overall resource consumption. In many of
these countries there even internalized personal beliefs that reduce urban
pollution.

Do you think nature can even hold a candle to these organized peoples? You
think these people are afraid of water?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands#/media/File:The_Netherlands_compared_to_sealevel.png)

~~~
rdiddly
I'm not sure what you mean with the fear of water. I brought up rain as an
analogy for something that happens no matter what your opinion of it. And if
anything the people along the Rhein may soon have to fear a relative _absence_
of water. But anyway yes, most of the European countries deserve compliments
for actually taking action on the climate issue. I fear it won't be enough,
but there's a chance it will be, and anyway at least it's something. The USA
where I am, can't even satisfy the prerequisites. To implement a solution, you
have to first reach a consensus about what reality is. Then you have to decide
what actions to take based on that consensus. Then you have to put some adults
in charge of implementing those measures. Then they implement them. The USA
can't even get past step 1 ("What is reality?") because a kind of psychosis
seems to rule the land.

~~~
petermcneeley
The facts are irrelevant at this stage this is purely politics. The poor and
middle class do not want to be penalized for climate change (French yellow
jacket protests are most visible example of this). This is just bluffing
between economic groups.

------
yayr
No worries, this isn‘t the first and also not the last time for such a
proposal by a minority oppositional party. Politically this is not going to
happen with most Germans relationship to their cars.

~~~
gaha
While you are right with the conclusion that it's not going to happen, you are
wrong about who made the proposal. I suppose by "minority oppositional party"
you mean the german green party (btw: more than 20% in recent polls) had
nothing to do with it. The proposal actually came from the
"Verkehrskommission" (English: transport commission), which is a commission of
the federal government.

------
KozmoNau7
Good, it really honestly needs to happen. Unlimited speed increases pollution
massively, and other countries do fine with 110-130kph limits on motorways.

The car industry has managed to turn it into a national pride issue, and will
fight tooth and nail to preserve the unlimited sections of the autobahn,
because it lets them sell more expensive more powerful cars, and market them
as "tested on the Autobahn".

In general, German driving culture needs a bit of a kick in the pants. While
they're generally quite courteous on normal streets, and very good at making
room for emergency vehicles, they still have some issues to deal with.

First of all, they drive _way_ too close at high speeds on the motorways, and
they brake very late when coming up on slower traffic, for instance a Porsche
going 200+kph coming up on an Opel at ~120kph overtaking slow traffic. The guy
in the Porsche will brake hard at the last possible moment. This often leads
to huge pileups in foggy or otherwise inclement weather.

Secondly, there is a very definite sense of entitlement based on the size and
price of your car. The bigger and more expensive your car is, the more you
expect people to just get out of your way, because they drive a "lesser"
vehicle. It's extremely obvious to compare reactions when you're driving a
small Citroën compared to even just a BMW 1-series. People will pull right out
in front of you if they deem your car "lesser" than theirs.

Abolishing unlimited speed will reduce the number of accidents, reduce
pollution and somewhat even the playing field on the roads.

E: For clarification, my girlfriend is from Baden-Württemberg and we spend a
lot of time on the roads when we visit her family, 2-3 times a year.

------
minsight
Fahren.

~~~
minsight
(Which means driving. So I'm going to have to dock the title a few points for
accuracy.)

------
mnm1
Why not limit just fossil fuel vehicles then? That would encourage adoption of
electric vehicles while keeping the freedom of the autobahn and reducing
emissions just as much.

~~~
mc32
Can you imagine the traffic hazard when electrics going 200 come up on ICEs at
120? That’ll not be fun to see in action.

~~~
kurthr
It can happen on the Autobahn today. Stay out of the passing lane.

~~~
jansan
Which in future will be called the "rich men lane".

~~~
eridius
What does gender have to do with wealth? And if we're talking cars going 200,
aren't we already talking wealthy people even today?

~~~
Xylakant
No, cars going more than 200km/h are widely available, even small or mid-range
models.

------
mimixco
Which will be next? Gerexit or Frexit?

------
Haga
Yet another fun ruined by a aristocratic bigots who want to reeducate and
control the unwashed masses while using jets and energy wasting hyper
capitalism without shame.

------
sonnyblarney
It's not fun it's utility.

For context, imagine if the US gov said 'no more 55mph' on the highway,
instead, everyone has to go 45 mph max.

Imagine how people would react.

~~~
marpstar
They tried it. It didn't work:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law)

------
milansuk
Having roads with no speed limit is one of the reasons why to make cars with
high maximum speed. Without that next generation cars can have 300hp and 90mph
maximum speed.

------
heyjudy
Tax carbon more. Then, if people want to pay more for the externalities of
their adventures, they can still have them rather than sucking all of the cool
out of the world with a "Culture of No."

 _" Anything fun in life is illegal, immoral or fattening."_ \- Anonymous

~~~
Wowfunhappy
In an ideal world, I'd be in favor of increased carbon taxes instead of
blanket bans. The tax would need to be both high and broadly enforced, and
should preferably offer some sort of subsidy to lower-income individuals to
ensure they aren't decimated by the changes.

In practice, I'm so desperate for countries to do _anything_ about climate
change that I'm disinclined to complain about implementation. Climate change
is an existential threat to humanity, and we need to actually treat it as
such.

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
Carbon taxes do seem regressive and problematic. On the other hand if we wait
for an ideal world, it will only be ideal for plants, insects, rodents, and
pathogens. Truthfully though, taxing consumers seems half-asses in the
extreme. Of course what we need is something the average person is terrified
of, which is to say we need nuclear power en masse, and we needed it
yesterday. That can give us some breathing room to push _hard_ on solar as
wind, as well as using nuclear power to produce hydrogen through electrolysis.

It’s not perfect, it’s expensive, it produces waste we need to deal with, but
the alternative is going to be waiting for too-slow progress on the renewable
end, only to realize it’s too late. That’s when the desperate geoengineering
attempts will be made, likely kicking off some very unintended consequences.

~~~
yholio
Well, carbon taxes are the way to get there by letting the market decide what
is preferable technology as opposed to some rando on an internet forum
decreeing that we need nukes (not that I disagree).

Poor people are actually the most price sensitive and lowest consumers of
services and manufactured goods, they would end up paying a smaller portion of
the tax. There is nothing stopping the government from reducing other taxes in
compensation or using the revenue to provide, say, a minimum level of free
health insurance for all.

------
jansan
This proposed law is bullshit. Just like the US, Germany should withdraw from
the Paris agreement.

~~~
Bayart
What Germans should withdraw from is coal.

~~~
AmericanChopper
A pity they withdrew from nuclear instead.

~~~
cmarschner
People already got washed in radioactive rain in 1986. Nuclear waste is
leaking from barrels in an old salt mine. In France, the sea in front of La
Hague is contaminated with plutonium. No thanks.

~~~
mavhc
How many people died from that vs co2+particulates+radiation from burning
coal?

~~~
cmarschner
The lobby for nuclear power on HN always surprises me. In Germany these points
are pretty undisputed - the question is not an OR, of course one needs to
leave coal as well [1]. Which is why there is all the investment in renewables
[2]. Nuclear power, however, has the potential for devastation of a whole
region for many thousands of years (ask people in Pripyat), and these costs
for future generations need to be internalized as well. We have no room to
spare in Europe. If you internalize the costs of disasters of nuclear power
they don‘t make sense anyway.

[1] Current status: exit has been underway for at least a decade, although not
as quickly as some would have hoped.
[https://medium.com/thebeammagazine/germanys-lignite-exit-
str...](https://medium.com/thebeammagazine/germanys-lignite-exit-
strategy-16359d047392)

[2] wind and solar have been growing consistently for the past 15 years and
have surpassed coal two years back. See
[https://twitter.com/dave0dave0/status/1081101220159414273?s=...](https://twitter.com/dave0dave0/status/1081101220159414273?s=21)

~~~
mavhc
Can renewables power everything though? Seems unlikely, we'd need 50%
renewables + all the batteries we can make forever, and 50% nuclear to replace
coal, gas, and oil.

Average EU human uses 4kW of energy 24/7, including everything they eat, buy,
heat, move etc. Assuming we move all use of engines to electricity and
generate renewable power so don't waste 50% heating water in power stations,
and get it down to 2kW, to store that power for just a day would be an
electric car sized battery for every human.

