Privately owned express roads in the US concept - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 03:44:01 am
content: I want to make it clear that this is a personal concept, not something that exists.I had an idea, and I've been wondering how feasible it is and why it has not been tried yet.The idea is for a series of privately owned and maintained highways, build for the purpose of having a partially speed unlimited highway, similar to Germany's highway system. In my mind, the advantages would be numerous.For a toll, you can drive at express speeds, not normally allowed by the local deciding government. In exchange the road would be repaired, controlled, and policed by the owner.To my most likely incorrect legal knowledge, the cars utilizing the road would not need to confirm to traffic laws including licenses and registration (even though it would still be needed, assuming the highway starts and stops on public roads.)I do not know the legality of such endeavors, or any of that, but I would like to see what people think about the idea.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 03:53:57 am
content: Blueskull beat me to this.Private toll roads exist, and have a long tradition here in the US, dating back to before we were a country. They are pretty thin on the ground these days. Unlimited speed may not be an option since at least some entities will claim that you are violating pollution laws. Others will be waiting in the wings to sue for negligence after the inevitable accidents happen.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 04:10:12 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on June 13, 2017, 03:44:01 amI can't think of anything, that could possibly go wrong with that idea

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 04:52:50 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on June 13, 2017, 04:10:12 amGermany has managed just fine. However they are a hell of a lot less forgiving when it comes to being allowed to drive.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 05:04:00 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on June 13, 2017, 03:58:43 amPre Jimmy Carter days, many States doesn't even impose a speed limit. Drivers are trusted to not drive faster than what they feel comfortable with. 55mph nation-wide during the Carter era or loose federal highway moneyI thought Montana was speed-unlimited daytime, but I can't confirm it after web search.Actually there is two sides to that "safety" coin. Sometimes, going slow (55mph) for hours and hours and hours put people to sleep. Sleep or not, it certainly extends your exposure. While typical was 75mph, using an easier-math 110mph. 110mph means (approx) half the time comparing to 55mph. One is exposed to danger only half as long. So, lower risk with longer exposure, or higher risk for a shorter time, a trade off.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 05:18:42 am
content: Well, of course the idea is being pushed now because trade deals make privatization virtually irreversible.It begun with the 1994 WTO "GATS" agreement, which makes privatization and globalization ofcommittedservices mandatoryif they are partially commercializedalready,(for example, schools going private because of charter schools and for profit colleges make a educational commodity commercial, eliminating the 'right' to education) its advocates claim its opt in (for example the US committed to privatize/globalize health insurance - actually, health insurance being a financial service, changes are being rolled back, because we committed to freeze regulation of financial services at 1998 levels.)SOME OF THE FOLLOWING IS SARCASM...--------Toll roads only open to expensive self driving cars would be an "au natural" way to restrict travel between poor and wealthy areas in the job-sparse future.See below..This text is from an article archived on the IATP website. The graphics are from apresentationgiven to PSI by Jane Kelsey (of New Zealand).They all use the following problematic definition of what their scope can be.(Basically "everything you cannot drop on your foot".)---------The GATS "governmental authority" exclusionArticle I:3 of the agreement states:"For the purposes of this Agreement...(b)'services' includes any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise ofgovernmental authority;(c)'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' means any service which is suppliedneither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers."The "governmental authority" exclusion is very narrowThis exclusion is far narrower than it may at first appear.Firstly, in order for a service to be excluded,bothcriteria must apply.That is, in order for the exclusion to apply, a service must be supplied on a non­commercial basis and its delivery must not be in competition with another service supplier. Thus, the exclusion does not apply to services that are supplied on a non­commercial basis but which aresupplied in competition with another service provider.Similarly, the exclusion does not apply to services that are supplied on a commercial basis even where these services are supplied in the absence of competition with any other service supplier. Hence, only a small sub­set of services ­­ those that are provided by completely non­commercial,absolute monopolies ­­ appear to be protected by this exclusion.Secondly, the exclusion is narrow by virtue of the ordinary definition of its terms. The agreement does not define thephrases "on a commercial basis" and "in competition with one or more service suppliers". However, the ordinarydefinitions of these terms are broad, making the set of services that they describe very large, and the set of servicesthat falls outside them ­­ and hence outside the scope of the agreement ­­ quite small."Commercial" is defined variously as: "Engaged in commerce; trading" 5 ; "Of or pertaining tocommerce or trade" 6 ; "Of, engaged in, or concerned with, commerce" 7 ; or "concerned withcommerce" 8 (emphases added).The definition of "commerce" includes: "financial transactions, esp. the buying and selling ofmerchandise, on a large scale" 9 , "the exchange of goods" 10 or "buying and selling together; trading;exchange of merchandise" 11 .The definition of "trade" includes: "the business of distribution, selling and exchange" 12 , "buying andselling ... buying and selling conducted between nations etc.; the exchange of goods betweenpeoples" 13 and "the buying and selling or exchange of commodities for profit; commerce, traffic,trading" 14 ."Competition" is defined as: "Rivalry in the market, striving for custom between those who have thesame commodities to dispose of" 15 ; "the act or an instance of competing or contending with others (forsupremacy, a position, a prize, etc.)." 16"Compete" is defined as: "to try to get what others also seek and which all cannot have, to competefor export markets". 17Source:http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htmIn short, privatization of roads is an ideal way to make society more unequal and less mobile.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 05:19:57 am
content: Montana succumbed to Federal pressure and now has speed limits. As did Nevada.Germany has limits on many roadways, though I have driven on roads with 200 kph (125 mph) posted speed limits. High speed can be comfortable and relatively safe, but it depends on the car, the road, and traffic. I have been terrified at 114 mph (185 kph) in one compact car I was testing, and have cruised for hours at 120 mph (195 kph) comfortably in a large sedan designed for that. But it is rare for me to find a road these days which makes that comfortable. Limited curves, good road surface and little or no traffic is an unusual combination. The ones with little traffic usually have terrible road surfaces and/or are twisty narrow things.It is also impossible to deny the physics. The square law on kinetic energy means that when something goes wrong (which will happen from time to time either due to random acts of god, the idiocy of other people, or dare we say it, a mistake on the drivers part) the consequences will be much worse.

author: CopperCone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 05:21:28 am
content: this looks annoying.What's going to end up happening is that you will need RFID to drive on those roads.. hello surveillance.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 05:21:38 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on June 13, 2017, 04:52:50 amHow can I phrase this, so I don't offend anyone, especially from the US ?Germany, spend money, and engineer a quality Motorway (autobahn) system, along with high quality, well trained and disciplined drivers. So I think it is said, that statistically, the German Autobahn system, is significantly safer than the US's similar roads. For the reasons above and other reasons.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 05:26:43 am
content: People will not be driving, the cars will be driving. The passengers, who will mostly be wealthy people, will be catching a nap or surfing the net. Or whatever. Many vehicles probably will be autonomous so wont have people in them. Old fashioned cars, bicycles, motorcycles, etc, will be limited to back roads and antique car shows. Most classic cars that hold their value will probably be sold to people in other countries where people can still drive them.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 05:47:14 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on June 13, 2017, 05:00:41 amWhich explains why you're so uncomfortable at 75+ mph on highways. You haven't been driving for enough years that your subconscious fully handles the routine parts of driving. e.g. Scanning the mirrors, looking ahead and remaining aware of cars around me is not something I have to think about...I just do it automatically.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 06:03:34 am
content: Quote from: Nusa on June 13, 2017, 05:47:14 amI believe in being a very safe driver, and obeying all applicable laws. I make especially sure that I'm never distracted by anything or do anything inappropriate like texting or using a phone in my car. Like now, I'm in full control of it, and can see perfectly in the mirrors and windows. Wait a minute my pesky laptop computers crashed again while I was making this post, and I was watching that movie on it. What's that coming up in my rear-mirror, ^&^*(^%&&*&(&()(&)(crash bang...

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 06:06:22 am
content: Self driving cars are very sophisticated. They use multiple redundant technologies to navigate. Plus, since its an urgent priority for American business the manufacturers will probably be exempt from legal action. Subrogation of winnings will of course apply so insurers will be able to sue one another based on the insured's one's lost income and expected remaining lost wages/ though. And of course if they suffered. It varies by state and country now but those rules will probably be harmonized.Also, who knows, we may not need cars, we may have quantum teleportation.Remember "The Fly"?Quote from: CopperCone onYesterdayat 23:21:28

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 06:25:01 am
content: Quote from: cdev on June 13, 2017, 06:06:22 amBut, but ...It is a form of COMMUNICATIONS, not physical teleportation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportationQuoteAnyway, I would not advise you to hold your breath on it being invented, implemented and cheaply available, in the near future.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 12:43:20 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on June 13, 2017, 03:58:43 amIt's personal preference. I find low-speed driving to be far more tiring.Highway driving in general is far less tiring for me (as with many people), because there are far fewer things to keep track of - no intersections, lights, oncoming traffic, pedestrians, etc. The worst is side streets where kids can pop out of nowhere at any moment.My mom is the opposite, she finds the "high" speed of highway driving stressful (though she now tops out at 55mph…).

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 01:42:00 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on June 13, 2017, 04:52:50 amHave you driven in Germany ? On long highway stretches ?Quote from: MK14 on June 13, 2017, 05:21:38 amI much prefer UK roads. Clear and abundant signage on both roads and panels, cat's eyes, clear round-abouts, clear road works, low density except a few bottlenecks, fine drivers, most major roads in great condition. By far my favourite network.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 02:22:10 pm
content: Everything changed on Jan. 1, 1995 with the creation of the WTO.The agreement that changed everything is the General Agreement on Trade in Services, or "GATS".It makes all "privatizations" (I think a more accurate term is "disinvestment".) irreversibly costly to reverse (countries (in GATS) or corporations (in the newer US style agreements) must be paid compensation based on the value of their expected future lost profits, no matter how badly the privatization has turned out.Its my opinion that we should "first, do no harm".Its insanity to spend trillions to build things - and then give hem to corporations. We should consider the falling rates of car ownership and he fact that if roads are privatized, the logical outcome is a freezing in place of lives and a reduction in opportunities.More than anything else, it was the privatization and decimation of public transit that created the US underclass.We will repeat that future if we forget it. (or are prevented from learning it) An uncertain economic future and a ending of public educational subsidies will pull theladders to opportunity up, making it unaffordable for more and more people to travel.Thanks to GATS mandates to steal, Corporations get to take over immensely valuable, often irreplaceable public resources for free or via "eminent domain". And they are getting the greenlight to do this for reasons which are totally unsavory. In no small part to hide a big lie. (that the WTO requires public works jobs be globalized)This is nuts.Also, the fact is, the reasons why we had the infrastructure we had in the past are different enough from our needs today to really require a rethinking of our entire way of doing them.Big industrial complexes and a need for huge infrastructure in some areas was a product of the need for large numbers of workers to man the machines of industry and large numbers of office workers to man the typewriters and telephones and now computers of services firms.But a great deal of that work is shifting overseas due to cost pressures and a perceived need to funnel certain kinds of jobs to developing countries- its framed as a way of helping the developing world while increasing profits at home (by shedding high wage workers who would be cheaper in other countries, turning their jobs into subcontracts. the shift gives the developed countries increasing bargaining power in trade negotiations to get things, for example, stronger IP protections for Rx drugs, and the elimination of cheap generics, that previously had eluded them.At the same time, although some manufacturing is returning o the developed countries like the US, its returning because it now can be automated. (The norm is now to have huge factories that are almost completely automated.)Look at the main selling point of "unlimited highways". More traffic being able to use existing highways where they have bottlenecks, typically in the approach to central cities. By shifting to computer control, we would be able to allow a signficantly higher volume of cars. They would be able to take advantage of current highway rights of ways in urban areas and that's true, automation would be able to do that.But at the cost of personal control over vehicles.It makes more sense to re-invest in better public transportation, especially for for those last few miles.Also, the business case for them is based on a model which is changing - the original model was that millions of people needed to get up early in the morning every morning and travel - in many cases for more than an hour, to "work" in central cities, hubs. A case in point is the US, at one time, the US, had the best public transit system in the world. Then it was dismantled, truly a huge mistake. Now its being rebuilt at tremendous cost.The needs of society are shifting. We have to avoid a cargo cult or target fixation mentality that associates certain activities with productivity. Also, as the economic and technological needs of the future are increasingly unpredictable, (that's the only thing wecanpredict with certainty) we should be very careful about doing anything that is carved in stone, as GATS and its progeny intentionally make all deregulation of any kind incredibly well nigh impossible to reverse except at tremendous costs. The reason jobs are vanishing is because jobs are vanishing everywhere. Armies of people in businesses running back and forth are just needed in fewer and fewer situations.For this reason, the GATS needs to be dumped, and we should dump the "US style" agreements that attempt to do similar things - except be even more radical. From what I know about RCEP, it should be dumped too.The Indian TFS proposal in so much that it also seems to be attempting to carve the clearly illegitimate GATS in stone before people realize its there, is also a bad idea.GATS and its ilk was and are nothing less than an attempt to steal the entire future world from its people, silently.This push to privatize everything is poison to society, and its been the cause of so many disasters already, and knowledge of this has been hidden by the media and government from us.Lots of effort is being devoted to hiding the very existence of this programme from the people everywhere until its changes are made irreversible.For example, on health care in the US. how many people realize that it wont be possible to reverse any of the GOP's "deregulation" and that international rules will lick in that will tell us where we have to buy whatever is paid for by government money even if the subsidy is only a few pennies. (Likely it will have to be minimally trade restrictive as defined by the OECD in its STRI index.)That means that public highways when built will be built by public bidding with many countries firms participating. US firms, despite the much higher costs they have (When US firms employ workers they will have to be paid at least the US minimum wage, and I suspect Federal contractors may need to be paid prevailing wages. This is good because US minimum wages are very low, but in the services liberalization context, they will not be allowed, in a debate that goes back more than two decades, other countries have successfully framed them as a trade barrier to their firms entry into our markets, a form of protectionism practiced by the US to strip them of their main advantage.) So its likely that engineering firms from other countries will successfully underbid them and get the work, and they have successfully been able to frame this sea change as a sort of entitlement.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 02:42:38 pm
content: Quote from: Koen on June 13, 2017, 01:42:00 pmI agree that the UK road system, has many good features. But what I find annoying (which is NO fault of the road system itself), is how crowded UK roads are, a lot of the time. Over many decades it has got worse and worse (which I've experienced), it was much quieter, a long time ago. Making long journeys much more fun, than they are today, in my experience/opinion.This is partly because the UK is a limited sized island, and has got increasingly more crowded over the years. But I agree, the road systems are good, and generally the drivers are well behaved as well.Part of it may be human psychology, which may be making me think that things were a lot better, a long time ago. Whereas things have not really changed that much, it is just that the good part of my memories have remained intact, and the bad (experience) parts have diminished over the years. This mechanism is maybe present in most people.I'm not sure about this either way, as it is difficult to be truly impartial about it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 03:08:34 pm
content: I don't know about the speed limits aspect helping or hindering, but we have private toll roads here in Sydney and it's nothing short of a disaster for the taxpayer.The idiot politicians sign these ridiculous lucrative agreements with the private companies, some of which include a "no compete" public transport clause.They'll sign anything so they can appear to be "getting things done" by building new roads at no expense.So we (the taxpayer) have to pay the private companies a penalty if we want any public transport infrastructure installed that can in any way compete with their business.The politicians who agreed to this crap should be sacked, but instead they get a pat on the back and a lifetime pension, whilst the tax payer foots the bill to all involved.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 04:14:43 pm
content: Quote from: Koen on June 13, 2017, 01:42:00 pmWhat does it matter where and for how long s/he's driven? It's not subjective opinion that Germany has tough requirements for drivers, and that its highway fatality rate is very low. Those are simple facts.As for me, I earned my chops driving in USA in one of the areas with the worst traffic. And I've driven in Germany. German driver discipline is just dreamy. It's not the free-for-all that it is in USA.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 05:15:35 pm
content: (Note: I'm sorry about the typos here, this issue gets me angry, and I lose continuity of thought sometimes..)This is truly the most outrageous thing.Dave says:>The idiot politicians sign these ridiculous lucrative agreements with the private companies, some of which include a "no compete" public transport clause.These "non-compete clauses" which limit improvements a government can make to other needed infrastructure, are a huge problem with these so called"Public Private Partnerships"or PPPs.By capturing an entire function- in a defined area, they attempt to force the relinquishment of local control, basically private companies, gain an ability to veto or even set policy, and it is an inherently unequal situation with, thanks to trade agreements, the corporations hold all of the cards.In the case of toll roads, its been the effect in Australia that they have gotten to block improvements in non-toll roads!Similar issues impact services of all kinds because of the GATS agreement and others that use its definition of"services supplied as an exercise of governmental authority"or similar...(Unless a service is completely free and stays free.)Its even possible that by creating toll roads, a situation may emerge like the one in health insurance (because its a "committed service") where all new roads would have to become toll roads in order not to devalue the rights, compete with the owners of the rights to the market.This is an unprecedented shift that nobody is aware of.Its not sane for a government which is supposed to be of by and for the people, to guarantee a future revenue stream for corporations.Corporations don't have to be so, but the trend in these agreements also seems to be to attempt to force a gutting of regulatory protections - pushing them down to the lowest common denominators, with no concern for the people or human needs whatsoever.How do trade agreements like GATS and its progeny (TiSA is going to be part of GATS, but its much more aggressive in what it includes, basically everything that is not explicitly excluded in advance!)Can people see how these deals function as hugeinternational"non-compete clauses"?Here is a link to an article that discusses the flawedG ats Article I:3(c) definitionof scope.If you want to read more, an author who has written a lot on this is Markus Krajewski. In the US, Lori Wallach's work is the most US specific.. In Australia, Matthew Rimmer of ANU and Jane Kelsey in New Zealand. Also, Sanya Reid Smith of Geneva based NGO Third World Network has a bunch of informative videos on YouTube.If you want to read a pro-WTO/FTA perspective, I would suggest Rudolph Adlung (of the WTO)'s work.This 20 year old video is informative on this capture of the commons issue.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 05:48:36 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on June 13, 2017, 05:21:38 amI whole heatedly agree with you, but this is why I think a private road would be necessary. A company can come in an produce a quality road, control licensing and registration on the roads, and have them up to spec with Germany's road network. This could even improve traffic in other parts of the US, since there would be incentive to train and become a better driver, while now people just take a few tests and get through.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 06:24:11 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on June 13, 2017, 05:48:36 pmI like and agree with your concept, intentions, and enthusiasm, in order to create some of the high quality and very safe roads, based on how they work in some other countries of the world.But sadly, I think that in practice, it would be unpopular, and not really work out as intended. For a number of reasons. Such as needing to have a second, considerably harder to get driving licence, just for these new road(s), would be both highly unpopular (especially for people who already have driving licences), and cause all sorts of legal headaches, because normal private individuals, who make the new roads "Police force", would NOT have the powers of arrest, etc etc. Potentially needed to enforce the new rules and stuff.I have quite a lot of respect for the hard working German population. Simply building a similar road, to what they have, is only PART of what would need to be done, to get similar levels of safety. Changing the characteristics of major populations, is NOT that easy.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 07:15:30 pm
content: I'm sure people realize that toll roads function as a highly regressive tax. One which impacts the working poor the highest, proportionately.They arent always economic successes, either. Sometimes they end up being colossal failures.This road in Texas is a good example..http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/Texas-seldom-traveled-toll-road-9887527.php

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 07:21:21 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on June 13, 2017, 04:14:43 pmWait what ? I asked if he drove in Germany. Why make up a new question while quoting mine just above. There's a good reason I'm asking this question.

author: NottheDan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 07:46:57 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on June 13, 2017, 05:48:36 pmThen some executive comes up with the idea how best to earn shareholder approval and a bigger bonus and maintenance will be cut down to the bare minimum, qualified engineers will be replaced by half-trained monkeys, the market will be cornered minimising access to rival routes and the toll will be increased.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 08:20:32 pm
content: My experience in Sydney is those who commute daily to and from work in their private vehicles avoid the privately operated toll roads as much as possible mainly due to the cost. For example: If you were to take the roughly 20 kilometre journey along the M7 motorway in Sydney, entering from the M4 and exiting to the M2, it would cost AUD$7.76 each way. That's over $77 per week in tolls just to get to and from work.To add to the problem, journeys to/from your primary place of employment are not tax deductible as a work related travel expense.The other issue is, road projects aren't keeping up with demand. In a place like Sydney with a population of over 5 million people, we are only just now getting motorways of 3 and 4 lanes (which still isn't enough). Even when they Sydney Harbour Bridge opened in 1932, it had 4 lanes of traffic (later expanded to the current-day 8 lanes). Even new roads are being designed with little forethought and future-proofing in mind.Traffic in and around Sydney is essentially at a standstill during peak periods, which these days start as early as 0530H in the morning and again at 1500-1530H in the afternoon.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 09:19:10 pm
content: I was travelling across germany last week. A total of 700 KM, Autobahn. We went sometimes 150-160 kph, but the average speed was only some 90. There were constant constructions, traffic was in the way (peugeot drivers at 120 overtaking trucks overtaking trucks). You rarely have more than 3 lanes, not 6-7 like US road network.And most the cars are actually made to be able to drive that fast. An average american would drive their stupid muscle car there, only to end up in the ditch the first corner. Also, I think we had a dozen cars going 200-ish by us.No, I dont think unlimited speed would work there, nor in China nor Belgium. In the US, on a private road, you would need to pay unlimited money for liability insurance. Build trains.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 09:19:45 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on June 13, 2017, 04:14:43 pmIt does matter when the person extolls the supposed virtues of unlimited speed on German Autobahn - and have obviously not been there. It is not about driver discipline.While there isn't an universal speed limit, many stretches of the motorways are limited to 120kph or less by traffic signs, both permanent and variable. Especially in the East-West direction it is almost impossible to find a stretch without a posted limit, sometimes down to 80 (or even less) because of the frequent construction sites, poor shape of the road surface, noise abatement through/near cities, etc.And I am not even speaking about the volumes of traffic that make it often difficult to maintain even 100kph during the day - most of the network is only two lanes in each direction, with the right lane permanently clogged by endless lines of trucks going bumper to bumper.Compared to that I have found the Austrian and French motorways much easier and comfortable to drive on, even though they are paid and have 130 speed limit (and plentiful radars!).The lack of speed limit is really a red herring of a little practical advantage when driving in Germany today. Go 200 and I will catch up with you going my 120-130 few kilometers down the road at the next construction site or traffic jam. But your high speed has a much higher chance of provoking an accident because a lot of people don't expect a car show up in their mirror that fast (or don't look in it in the first place!). There is nothing more "fun" than having a truck pull out in front of you in your lane - I have seen several "racers" that had to go 200+ end up buried under the truck in front of them thanks to this.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 09:27:33 pm
content: There is a good book I found a chapter in online about public private partnerships that talks a bit about non-compete agreements..Public Sector Decision Making for Public-private PartnershipsBy Jeffrey N. Buxbaum, Iris N. OrtizA lot of the time privatization turns out to have been a big mistake.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 09:33:42 pm
content: Janoc,the situation you describe is likely an ideal one for a GPS application that people could use to optimize their travel time.Do you have radio traffic info broadcasts there on FM channel subcarriers? I'm pretty sure you do and unlike in the US its free. It would be simple to use a GPS to evaluate the traffic for a driver in real time and let them know when driving fast makes sense because the road is fairly open ahead and when it doesn't.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 09:37:57 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on June 13, 2017, 09:19:10 pmThe cars could certainly go faster, the bigger Audis, VWs or BMWs certainly have no problems with driving 200+ safely. But most people don't drive them like that because it is both dangerous and not economical - considering the prices of gas in Europe (and especially around motorways!) vs price of gas in the US, few could afford to run one of the American gas guzzlers here.$2.4/gallon - that's about $0.63/l Normal gas prices are around 1.60EUR/l ~ $1.8/l on the motorway pumps - 3x higher.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 09:40:19 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on June 13, 2017, 09:33:42 pmLOL. I have actually both the radio and my TomTom satnav with real time traffic info. What I was describing is actuallythe fastestroute the satnav gave me already. I am making a long trip France-Slovak republic and back every summer, so I get a good taste of German motorway driving because I am crossing it in the East-West direction (around 3000km total for the trip).The network really is that congested in Germany. Just look at the traffic info on Google maps during day hours in Germany, you will see.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 09:41:35 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on June 13, 2017, 09:19:45 pm100% agree, however in Australia, there are places where this works.In the Northern Territory, there is something like 1000+ kilometers of road in the middle of nowhere with open speed limits and it works just fine. They've found that most people drive to the conditions and sit under 140km/hr, otherwise Australia has a national speed limit of 110km/hr. A few years ago, they actually trialed speed limits on a stretch of road out there and road accidents actually increased in numbers, however they were due to alcohol/drugs and fatigue, not speed. For those who haven't driven in Australia, a lot of our motorways have very long stretches of roads at 110km/hr. The 190km drive from Sydney to Goulburn or 280km from Sydney to Canberra is boring as bat shit and is enough to send anyone to sleep at that speed.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 09:47:42 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on June 13, 2017, 09:41:35 pmRight, but that is not really comparable. Hundreds of kilometers over sparsely populated areas with not a lot of traffic - by all means. But it wouldn't work in Europe - your 280km could be crossing several countries with fairly different laws here already and areas with a few millions of people living there.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 09:55:24 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on June 13, 2017, 09:40:19 pmWell, safe journey... I hope your TomTom guided 3000km trip will be without unpleasant suprises.And make sure you obey the speed limit as long as your TomTom is on, since it will spill the beans on you!Article: Tom Tom sold driver's GPS details to be used by police for speed trapshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8480702/Tom-Tom-sold-drivers-GPS-details-to-be-used-by-police-for-speed-traps.html

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 10:16:02 pm
content: Quote from: janoc on June 13, 2017, 09:37:57 pmShould have wrote: Only like a dozen cars.Anyway, my trip of 700 km (one direction) was an exception. I fly whenever I can, it is more environment friendly, and safer, faster. A typical Airbus A320 has 2.2L/100km/seat fuel economy.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 10:29:58 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on June 13, 2017, 05:04:00 amStating it as the "Jimmy Carter days" suggests a political motive that is unsupported. It doesn't really matter whose administration it was, as it was an attempt to reduce oil consumption in a time when supplies were heavily limited by the 1973 OPEC embargo - when OPEC raised the price of crude 70% and cut output 25% overnight .The worldwide oil shortage was so severe that in the UK petrol rationing vouchers were issued. They were never used. A blanket speed limit of 70mph was introduced and that, and other measures, were just sufficient to reduce fuel demand enough that rationing was not actually introduced.

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2017, 10:59:07 pm
content: janoc and NANDBLOG messages are the reason I asked if OP had driven in Germany. I live next to an american airbase and on arrival, lads hope they'll be able to hit the magical and wonderful world of unrestricted speed in a Mustang. So they plan a trip and reality quickly becomes disappointing. Drive two minutes at 180, then 120-80-60 because bridge, 180 then two minutes later 120-80-60 because roadworks, 180 then two minutes later 120-80 because city exits then yipee yee, 180 again to be stuck minutes later behind a column of SUV going 140.I drive from Belgium to Austria and Belgium to Poland often and there's only a 50km stretch somewhere in the center, surrounded by forests, where limits don't change every few kilometers and density is low enough to enjoy it.Ultimately, I don't wish for it. If anything, I'd hope Belgium took lessons from the UK and started renovating the signage, adding roundabouts (and legal provisions for multi-lanes round-abouts), cat's eyes (especially now that we don't illuminate the highways anymore...) and everything making the roads clearer and safer. Ho and subsidising new drivers formation instead of the useless "don't drive drunk/drugged/tired, think about your kids, buckle your seatbelt" media campaigns.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 02:40:46 am
content: Quote from: Koen on June 13, 2017, 10:59:07 pmGenerally "good" driving roads are either picturesque:http://www.hostelworld.com/blog/5-epic-roads-to-drive-before-you-die/Or ridiculously technical requiring driving skill but sadly in Australia each time people find a road thats fun to drive at the speed limit the authorities come in and reduce the speed limit further.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 02:53:09 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 13, 2017, 10:29:58 pmIt was his idea and by his executive order that it was done, so he was very closely attached to the brief duration when the nation was limited to 55mph. Yes it was very unpopular. However, I did not use that term to signal any thing political, pros or cons. So, you could be reading too much into that "Jimmy Carter days" reference this time around.At least around my area and my circle, it is rather common to use president's name as a quick way to identify a period. In just saying "Reagan Era", that described a time frame, a set of national conditions, and the national mood of the time. More often than not, that is used apolitically.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 08:27:09 am
content: Quote from: Koen on June 13, 2017, 07:21:21 pmI didn't make up any new questions. If I'd wanted to obfuscate your question, would I have quoted it? Sheesh...Ok, so what is your "good reason" for asking? You haven't answered that, and I still dispute that it matters, since the statement you are questioning is simple fact. You're questioning the credibility of the speaker, which is a classic attempt to distract from an inconvenient truth. Why?Quote from: janoc on June 13, 2017, 09:19:45 pmUmmm... no, whether the person making the statement has driven in Germany is not relevant to facts. Facts exist independently of the speaker. Fact is, the highway fatality rate in Germany is substantially lower than in most countries. This is a fact regardless of who is saying it.Driver discipline is absolutely relevant: it is the primary reason for Germany's low highway fatality rate. Lack of driver discipline is why the US has a much higher highway fatality rate.If you think Germany's road surfaces are bad, go to Pennsylvania or Ohio.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 08:33:58 am
content: Quote from: Someone on June 14, 2017, 02:40:46 amHalf the problem is the authorities have to cater for the lowest common denominator. Mister Man on his provisional licence goes and kills himself because he is uneducated, unskilled, takes risks, drives drunk or drives a shit box of a car (or any combination thereof); their solution is to throw up a fixed speed camera (which does next to nothing but force people to drive at or below the limit for approximately 50 metres), rather than address the real problem of what actually caused the crash in the first place. Why kids aren't taught basic driver education at high school is beyond me.Also, we need tougher penalties for driving on your phone, driving with alcohol and/or drugs in your system, those who choose to drive unlicenced etc.... To be honest, 14 demerit points in NSW is too much in my opinion, why are we giving people 5, 6... 10 chances?. Want to talk on your phone and drive a car? Get caught once, a fine and one strike. Second offence, you cop a fine and your phone gets seized by Police for 48 hours. Third offence, your licence gets cancelled and you need to start over on your learners permit.Ignorance and stupidity aren't excuses. The roads should be reserved for those who haveearneda licence and have demonstrated that they can drive skillfully, defensively and safely. It might even help ease Sydney's traffic congestion.I work in an organisation where as an employee, we areexpectedto know each policy that applies to us. Not word for word, but essentially know and understand "the rules". Not knowing is not an excuse and you will be reprimanded if you breach any. We aren't spoon-fed them in some lengthy, death-by-Powerpoint induction day, we're shown where to access them and as adults we go and read them and take the time to understand them in our own time. Being expected to know the road rules should be no different.

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 10:54:29 am
content: tooki, you are strange.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 11:01:02 am
content: Quote from: Koen on June 14, 2017, 10:54:29 amIf calling people on their bullshit is strange, then I proudly wear that badge.You still didn't answer my question, by the way, leading me to assume you don't have a valid argument.

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 11:09:29 am
content: So you can't ask someone praising Germany's network if he ever drove on it ? Anyway, you should read before writing, the post above starts with "janoc and NANDBLOG messages are the reason I asked if OP had driven in Germany. [...]"

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 11:12:40 am
content: Quote from: Koen on June 14, 2017, 11:09:29 amI didn't say you couldn't. I asked what difference it makes. Because facts are not dependent on who is stating them.

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 11:15:45 am
content: That's an excellent question : "What difference is there between reading about something foreign and actually experiencing it ?". You have four hours. 2cm margins. Times New Roman 11. Good luck to you all.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 11:16:30 am
content: Quote from: Koen on June 14, 2017, 11:09:29 amAlso, you asked before janoc and nandblog had replied. So they couldn't have been why you asked.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 11:17:32 am
content: Quote from: Koen on June 14, 2017, 11:15:45 amGermany's highway fatality rate is lower than USA's. Whether you have experienced either is 100% irrelevant to the truth of that statement. How do you not understand this??

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 11:23:03 am
content: Well, I didn't put that in question did I ? I asked if OP had ever driven in Germany... Move on.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 11:27:25 am
content: Quote from: Koen on June 14, 2017, 11:23:03 amWhatever, you're obviously not interested in actuality discussing, just in being difficult.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 12:12:20 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on June 14, 2017, 08:33:58 amI know why it happens, even in areas with no history of crashes the newer risk assessments are applied and speed limits lowered. All the while pedestrian safety is ignored and the risk to pedestrians appears to be increasing year on year but the money and works go to putting up "safer" barriers on rural roads, dropping speed limits, and mandating cars be safer for the occupants (which risk compensation then eliminates and possibly even reflects back onto those outside the cars).Quote from: Halcyon on June 14, 2017, 08:33:58 amI'll disagree on more severe penalties for drug affected driving. Recall that amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine, etc were widely dispensed in WWII (and well after) to increase the cognitive abilities of the troops and industrial workers and are known to improve the ability of people to drive, but lets throw science out the window and be tough on drugs because thats politically easy. The limits for drink driving were arrived at by careful study of risks, different countries applied different thresholds, if mandatory drug testing is going to be put on drivers it should be with limits set with sound evidence.But yes, personal responsibility is the key. Ignorance isn't an excuse under law, but a lawyer will spin a lovely story to add believable mitigating circumstances if you have the money.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 12:19:42 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on June 14, 2017, 11:12:40 amBe glad you aren't directly exposed to US politics. Donald Trump would disagree with you!

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 12:41:24 pm
content: Quote from: Nusa on June 14, 2017, 12:19:42 pmSadly, as an American living abroad, US politics affect me directly.But yeah, Trump's relationship with facts is... tenuous. :/

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 12:55:37 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on June 13, 2017, 07:15:30 pmI lived in San Antonio when this was built. It is most definitely a joke. It is roughly 40 miles from San Antonio to 130. Austin is ~70 miles from San Antonio via I 35. It's a roughly 50+ mile trip from Interstate 10 (the start 130) to Austin via 130. You do the math.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 01:01:11 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on June 13, 2017, 05:15:35 pmYep, it's quite bad, and it gets almost zero press coverageQuoteHow this is even possible is beyond me.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 01:04:26 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on June 13, 2017, 09:55:24 pmThanks.Quote from: Rick Law on June 13, 2017, 09:55:24 pmWell, that I am not worried too much about, never got a ticket for speeding.The worse problem is that the TomTom speed limit data are terrible, outdated or not even close to reality, often alerting me that there is 50 where there 130 on a motorway (e.g. because it got confused by a nearby road) and similar. My old Garmin satnav was much better in this regard.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 01:05:01 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on June 13, 2017, 07:15:30 pmWe had one famous one in Sydney called the Cross City Tunnel:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-14/cross-city-tunnel-owners-blame-government-for-debt-woes/4958084https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_City_Tunnelhttp://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/geoffp/melfin2.pdf

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 01:19:39 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on June 14, 2017, 08:27:09 amTooki, the problem is that you are making a strawman argument here. When someone who has obviously never driven in Germany and is claiming that "Germany has managed just fine" with unlimited speed it is necessary to point that out. That "managed just fine" statement is misleading because the majority of German network does indeed have speed limits (and they would have known that if they have actually driven there). So where, exactly, did Germany "manage just fine" without them? On that infamous cca 200km stretch from the Swiss border?Then the entire debate about driver discipline and what not is not relevant. Yes, it is true that there are fewer fatalities in Germany than in the US and that US drivers in many cases won't get their licenses recognized in Europe and may have to pass a driving test, because the US exams are not considered up to the local standard. But that is not relevant to the point that the premise of the entire debate is incorrect.So be careful about "calling bullshit".

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 01:22:15 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on June 14, 2017, 11:27:25 amIf, for argument's sake, he is, you're aiding and abetting...

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 01:26:02 pm
content: This is all moot, at least as to the OP. Even if a road is private in the US, once public access is allowed, state and federal driving laws come into play for public safety. It wouldn't be possible to have a public access private road without a speed limit. Now, on your own property without public access, do what you want.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 01:31:31 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on June 14, 2017, 12:12:20 pmIn the UK, if a given stretch of road has an accident rate abovex* accidents/mile then the speed limit is ratcheted down. All well and good but there are several flaws with how it is done in practice. 1) whether speed was actually contributory is usually ignored or exaggerated, 2) the limit isn't reassessed if changes are made to that section of road, 3) in practice speed limits only ever go down, I have never seen them lowered and later raised again no matter what improvements have been put in place.* I don't know the actual figures used as criteria and am too lazy to go and ferret them out.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 03:33:40 pm
content: I've mentioned this before, but it is so common and so stupid it bears repeating.Here in the US fatal accidents often result in a review. And if speed was involved, often result in a lowering of the speed limit. The silly part comes when you realize that the fatal accident involved speeds far above the existing posted limit. I don't know why there is any belief that the new lower limit will be obeyed when the existing sign had no effect.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 05:13:11 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on June 14, 2017, 03:33:40 pmReally good point.Reminds me of when pit bulls (and a whole slew of other "fighting dogs") were banned here in Zurich after a child was mauled. Turns out that the three dogs involved werealreadyknown to the authorities, and under existing law, should already have been seized several incidents ago. So if the authorities already didn't enforce the existing laws, how does adding another one for them to ignore help anything?Meanwhile, responsible owners of the banned breeds, and the affected dogs themselves, became subject to draconian rules. All because the authorities didn't enforce the previous laws adequately.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 05:18:59 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on June 14, 2017, 05:13:11 pmBecause "Something must be done!" and it's much easier to create new laws and punish the innocent rather than punish inefficiency/laxness/corruption on behalf of officials, some of whom are your good friends. In the vein of "You can judge a society on how it treats its most vulnerable members" I propose "You can judge a government by how effective they are at punishing wrongdoing within their own ranks".

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 06:39:44 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on June 14, 2017, 12:12:20 pmYes and medicine used to give people lobotomies for various "illnesses" and ailments. I have no argument that illicit drugs were used in WWII, however you can't compare the substances from then to what is available now. The crap out there on the street is a concoction of who knows what and if you listen to the science, it shows that it's terrible for your health, not to mention itimpairsdriving and ability to think clearly, not the other way around. I wouldn't say it's politically easy either, we aren't exactly winning the "war on drugs".Drug testing is where alcohol testing was where it was first introduced. There were no BAC levels or a device which gave you a concentration, you blew into the bag and if the chemical turned a different colour, you had alcohol in your breath, regardless of your level of impairment.The drug driving thing is a double-edged sword, firstly, you're driving with a substance known to affect your driving and decision making ability in a detrimental way and secondly you have a substance in your system which shouldn't be there because by virtue of law, it's an illegal substance.You can't replace driver education and aptitude with a pill. If you want to be more alert, have a strong tea or coffee or get a good night's sleep.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 06:47:02 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on June 13, 2017, 03:44:01 amSeveral countries in Europe have such systems. For example France where you can drive 130km/h (81mph) throughout the country. Driving faster really isn't a problem. Trough Germany I'm steadily at 160km/h (100mph) when it is quiet. It also helps to have gotten a real driver's education and thus some experience before climbing behind the steering wheel of a car.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 08:18:15 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 14, 2017, 01:31:31 pmYes, that is really stupid. Reminds me to the complains Top gear was making all the time about UK traffic. Speed does not kill people, stopping very quickly does. Lots of countries, they just put a sign there, stating that this strip of concrete is 130 kph. That is bad. In a nice car, good weather, good driver, low traffic can probably drive there 200, without issues. If any of the conditions are not met, then you cant. Now, a lot of places in west europe has also variable speed limit, where there is a digital sign, stating what the max speed is. Sounds nice in theory, much better than just painting a sign. Still. I think I saw a statistic, where speeding was only like 5-7% of the cause of accidents.Relative speeding, tailgating, not using turn signs, elderly people, people who should not drive in general...

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 10:21:15 pm
content: From the perspective of government, speed limits are the easiest way to go. Being over the limit is a strict liability offence, the "crime" is easily provable and easy to collect evidence for - and the most corrupting aspect - easy to profit off. However, being a strict liability offence, it makes no distinction based on the environmental circumstances of the road. I can think of a stretch of road that is as wide as a freeway, 2 lanes both ways, where the limit was lowered to 80kmh/50mph. Depending on the time of day, the road can be packed or almost empty. Naturally, at the times when its almost empty, and traffic naturally flows faster, is exactly when the gubbermint likes to put out its privately contracted speed vans.The spectre of money really poisons everything. Its been an ongoing debate here in Australia. There is a very sordid web when it comes to lowering speed limits, the increasing use of private companies for speed enforcement, and the use of taxpayer money to propagandise the issue. For example, Monash University Accident Research Centre has ongoing controversy surrounding it. It produces studies to support lowering speed limits, whilst having financial ties to the private companies that operate speed cameras.

author: Koen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 14, 2017, 11:07:39 pm
content: In Belgium, statistics made from police reports in 2015 [1-2, in french] claim speed to be among the reasons for 9.3% of accidents on highways. Behind poor driving skills, overtaking, inattention and errors made following others or merging into dense traffic. :http://www.ibsr.be/publications/Statistisch%20Rapport%202015%20-%20Verkeersongevallen/Rapport%20Statistique%202015%20-Accidents%20de%20la%20route.pdf :http://www.bivv.be/publications/Doden%20op%20de%20snelweg/Les%20tu%C3%A9s%20sur%20les%20autoroutes%20-%20Analyse%20approfondie%20des%20accidents%20mortels%20sur%20les%20autoroutes%20belges%20pendant%20la%20p%C3%A9riode%202009-2013.pdf