daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy (aug.2, 2013) | DMCA policy | flipboard magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



View Poll Results: What should be the speed limit on highways?
no speed limit, limited only temporarily for some reason. 36 36.36%
140 km / h. As requested by certain groups in Spain. 18 18.18%
130 km / h. As in France and in other European countries. 38 38.38%
120 km / h. Current limit in Spain. 9 9.09%
I have no opinion on the matter. 1 1.01%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 99. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 16th, 2012, 03:29 PM   #81
Stahlsturm
Registered User
 
Stahlsturm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Regensburg
Posts: 179
Likes (Received): 30

Quote:
Originally Posted by g.spinoza View Post
You're German and driving Alfa? You must be one of a kind... I lived in Germany for 1 year and I've seen none (actually I've seen one, but he stepped down from his car and spoke Italian )
Must've been a while since there's quite a few Alfas on German roads now, at least here in the South

Quote:
Originally Posted by g.spinoza View Post
I can see your point either, but we're not getting very far: you drive very fast and never had an accident, I drive well below the limits and and one. I think the only thing would be looking at the statistics of speed, number and seriousness of accidents, and so on. Unfortunately I don't have such data.
I drive very fast SOMETIMES when conditions allow it. I do not drive recklessly or insane and the fact that I've never had a crash and avoided several potential ones speaks for the fact that whatever I'm doing can't be that bad that it needs to be criminalized by a speed limt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by g.spinoza View Post
Always remember that your freedom ends where mine begins, as Surel explained very well
I'm well aware of that but that goes both ways and as log as I don't run you off the road or get you into any dangerous situations you should allow me to drive as I deem right and I shall extend you the same courteousy. Driving on the motorway is always a together and as civilized persons we should be able to handle that without cops and speed traps and annoying rules.
Stahlsturm no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old April 16th, 2012, 03:41 PM   #82
g.spinoza
galactic cannibal
 
g.spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Torino
Posts: 5,668
Likes (Received): 367

You are a reasonable person but you are not going to change your mind. Let me just say this: rules are not annoying, they are meant to protect the weakest on the roads. Obviously you are a prudent and decent driver but not everybody is like you: either we forbid everyone to go faster than a certain speed or we allow everybody. I'd prefer to limit speed for everyone rather than allowing every moron with a V8 engine to go recklessly fast and endanger other people. If that means limiting the right even for prudent people to go 200+, well, I am sorry but I honestly don't care. Preserving life is more important, to me, than allowing someone to go fast in the name of "freedom".

That said, I think I will not reply because, I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, so this has no purpose.

Last edited by g.spinoza; April 16th, 2012 at 05:55 PM.
g.spinoza está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 03:43 PM   #83
italystf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,188
Likes (Received): 393

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stahlsturm
the fact that I've never had a crash and avoided several potential ones speaks for the fact that whatever I'm doing can't be that bad that it needs to be criminalized by a speed limt.
It's just a matter of probability. There are people who smoked for decades and never had cancer. It doesn't mean that if you smoke you have a 100% chance of getting a cancer in few years or if you drive fast you will surely have a bad accident. But off course such behaviors increase the probability a lot. And since we can choose to reduce risk probability...
__________________

italystf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 05:49 PM   #84
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 476
Likes (Received): 5

Personally, I consider the 80-100 kph interval sensible on urban motorway sections with reasonably modern junctions. On rural sections, 120 or 130 makes sense. Any higher, and the difference in travel speed between slower-moving traffic (HGVs, buses etc) and cars in itself becomes a hazard. In addition, both human and vehicular abilities to deal with extraordinary incidents deteriorate as speed increases - it doesn't really matter if you and your car is perfectly at ease doing 200+ if somebody else isn't. Hit someone or something at that speed, and you're just a number in the statistics.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 06:17 PM   #85
snowdog
Speed freak
 
snowdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Capelle ad ijssel
Posts: 675
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by g.spinoza View Post
Yes, it's very uncomfortable when, on a 2-lane autobahn, I am forced to stay on the right lane by a column of 200+ kmh cars on the left lane.

So you're sick of people who declare their comfort zone standard for everyone? We, 130 kmh drivers, could say the same about you.
So because of your discomfort everyone has to suffer ?

You want to force us to drive at 1980's speeds, we don't force you to do anything, it's your own phobia which limits you. You are not forced to stay in the right lane at all...

And you well know at night there is no such thing as ''column of cars'', the new A2 in the NL for example, 100km/h limit due to environmental reasons, in the middle of the night you have FIVE lanes for yourself, that means even if you're doing 200+ and overtaking a 80 km/h truck you can leave a gap of THREE lanes. It's well lit up, straight and flat, there are no large animals anyhwere near. I really don't see any good reason to have any speed limit there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by g.spinoza View Post
Preserving life is more important, to me, than allowing someone to go fast in the name of "freedom".
Definitely not, the roads are MORE than safe enough, they were 20 years ago imho. It's time to stop taking away freedom.
Quote:
I'm well aware of that but that goes both ways and as log as I don't run you off the road or get you into any dangerous situations you should allow me to drive as I deem right and I shall extend you the same courteousy. Driving on the motorway is always a together and as civilized persons we should be able to handle that without cops and speed traps and annoying rules.
Exactly.
snowdog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 06:29 PM   #86
italystf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,188
Likes (Received): 393

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdog
Definitely not, the roads are MORE than safe enough, they were 20 years ago imho. It's time to stop taking away freedom.
Roads are safer than in the past because we took away "freedom". Speeds and alchol controls are more serious than in the past and suspensions of licences more common (you don't prevent a rich businessman or footballer doing 250 with his Ferrari with a 100EUR fine). People fear legal consequences of illegal behaviors and tent to behave better. And it's not only for traffic rules, but all kind of rules.
Unfortunately often the primary aim of fines is earning money, but that's another story.
__________________

italystf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 07:43 PM   #87
g.spinoza
galactic cannibal
 
g.spinoza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Torino
Posts: 5,668
Likes (Received): 367

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdog View Post
Definitely not, the roads are MORE than safe enough, they were 20 years ago imho. It's time to stop taking away freedom.
Not worth replying to those who value freedom more than life.
g.spinoza está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 08:04 PM   #88
snowdog
Speed freak
 
snowdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Capelle ad ijssel
Posts: 675
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by italystf View Post
Roads are safer than in the past because we took away "freedom". Speeds and alchol controls are more serious than in the past and suspensions of licences more common (you don't prevent a rich businessman or footballer doing 250 with his Ferrari with a 100EUR fine). People fear legal consequences of illegal behaviors and tent to behave better. And it's not only for traffic rules, but all kind of rules.
Unfortunately often the primary aim of fines is earning money, but that's another story.
I disagree, I think it's mainly because of safer cars, roads and mentality change towards alcohol.
Nothing to do with speed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by g.spinoza View Post
Not worth replying to those who value freedom more than life.
Going fast doesn't nessecerily mean less deaths, that's a myth.

Compare the German state of Nordrein Westfalen with Holland, about the same density, population and infrastructure, yet they have less deaths than the Netherlands...
Quote:
Unfallstatistik So wenig Verkehrstote in NRW wie nie zuvor
Auto, 23.02.2011, xnr029

2010 starben knapp 3 700 Menschen auf deutschen Strassen. Dies waren 495 Getötete weniger als im Vorjahr. Foto: dapd
Düsseldorf. Die Straßen in NRW werden immer sicherer. Und auch im Vergleich schneidet das Land glänzend ab. Nur das Schneechaos trübt die neue Statistik.
Nach der am Montag in Düsseldorf vorgestellten Verkehrsunfallstatistik kamen auf den Straßen des bevölkerungsreichsten Bundeslandes 550 Menschen ums Leben. Das waren 11,6 Prozent weniger als im Jahr 2009. Den Höchststand hatte es in NRW 1964 mit 4 709 Verkehrstoten gegeben.
Auf historische Tiefstände sanken 2010 auch die Zahlen der bei Verkehrsunfällen Schwer- und Leichtverletzten. Mit 12 225 Schwerverletzten gab es 9,8 Prozent weniger. Bei den leichtverletzten Unfallopfern wurden mit 60 533 Personen 6,6 Prozent weniger gezählt als 2009.
Mehr Unfälle durch Schneechaos
Gefährlichste Kreuzungen
zurück
Nicht alle Kreuzungen, auf denen es häufiger kracht - im Foto ein schwerer Verkehrsunfall auf der Dieselstraße im Oktober 2009 -, ...
... werden von Polizei und Behörden als "Unfallhäufungsstelle" eingestuft (im Bild ein Verkehrsunfall auf der Friedrich-Ebert-Straße in Beeck Anfang März 2008).
An "Unfallhäufungsstellen" (UHS) ereignet sich innerhalb eines Kalenderjahres eine bestimmte Anzahl gleicher Unfälle (genaue Erklärung: siehe Artikel). Die Wanheimerstraße, auf der sich im Juni 2008 dieser schwere Unfall ereignete, wird zurzeit zum Beispiel nicht als UHS geführt. Foto: Stephan Eickershoff / WAZ FotoPool
Auch die Kreuzung von Koloniestraße und Sternbuschweg, auf der im Mai 2008 ein Fahrradfahrer schwer verletzt wurde, gilt aktuell nicht als Unfallhäufungsstelle. Foto: Stephan Eickershoff/WAZ FotoPool
Dennoch ging 2010 die Gesamtzahl der von der Polizei registrierten Verkehrsunfälle nach oben. Sie stieg im Jahresvergleich um 3,9 Prozent auf 582 110. Der Zuwachs resultiert der Statistik zufolge ausschließlich aus mehr registrierten Bagatellunfällen. Gründe seien zum einen die außergewöhnlichen Schneemengen im Januar, Februar und Dezember sowie zum anderen die Tatsache, dass auch bei leichten Sachschäden immer öfter die Polizei herbeigerufen werde.
Mit den Zahlen liegt NRW in puncto Verkehrssicherheit im Vergleich der Bundesländer in der Spitzengruppe. Mit umgerechnet 31 Verkehrstoten je eine Million Einwohner ist das Risiko, im Straßenverkehr tödlich zu verunglücken, so niedrig wie in keinem anderen Flächenland. Getoppt wird NRW nur von den Stadtstaaten Bremen, Hamburg und Berlin. Schlusslicht ist Mecklenburg-Vorpommern mit 93 Toten. Mit 4 102 nicht tödlich Verunglückten je eine Million Einwohner hat NRW sogar den bundesweit niedrigsten Wert (Schlusslicht hier: Hamburg mit 5 700 Verunglückten).
Junge Fahrer überdurchschnittlich oft Unfallverursacher
Nach wie vor sind zu schnelles Fahren, Alkohol und andere Drogen am Steuer sowie Nichtanschnallen die „drei Killer“, die für mehr als die Hälfte der Verkehrstoten verantwortlich seien, sagte Innenminister Ralf Jäger (SPD) am Montag. Gefährdet sind vor allem junge Fahrer zwischen 18 und 24 Jahren. Sie verschuldeten 2010 knapp ein Fünftel aller schweren Unfälle mit Toten und Verletzten, obwohl sie nur acht Prozent der Bevölkerung ausmachen.
Abhilfe soll hier das Vorbeuge-Konzept „Crash Kurs NRW - Realität erfahren“ bringen, das die Landesregierung bis Ende 2012 flächendeckend einführen will. Dabei wollen Polizisten, Rettungssanitäter, Notärzte und Angehörige von Unfallopfern 16- bis 19-jährigen Schülern in den Klassen „ungeschönt“ über die Ursachen von Verkehrsunfällen und deren Folgen berichten. Auf diese Weise sollen die jungen Leute „direkt und emotional“ für die Gefahren des Straßenverkehrs sensibilisiert werden, so Jäger. (dapd)
Only 550 deaths in 2010 for 18 mil ppl.
640 in holland in 2010 for 16 mil people.
Yet there, you can travel as fast as you like on rural autobahnen. 120km/h on Busy city highways like near Koln, that would be 80km/h in Holland, 100km/h on provincial roads instead of 60 or 80 in NL, normal fines of 10€ up to 10km/h to fast, 30€ up to 20 to fast there. No speed mafia. Yet their roads are still safer... Nothing to do with speed limits and enforcing...
Overtake a police car at 180 km/h and smile knowing you're in a country where people think normally about car travel unlike in Holland.

Last edited by snowdog; April 16th, 2012 at 08:16 PM.
snowdog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 08:08 PM   #89
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,752
Likes (Received): 610

Quote:
Originally Posted by g.spinoza View Post
Not worth replying to those who value freedom more than life.
Well. I dont know. I value freedom as well. And in many cases life without certain freedoms would be to me worse then not living, because it would be suffering. Or in other words it would be worth dying trying to get more freedom.

But I notice that people like snowdog seem not to consider anything else then their personal freedom and profit to matter. They tend to forget that the freedoms of others are the same valuable. And they definitely dont understand that when all the freedoms were unleashed, they would in fact have much less personal freedom than they have now. Also on the motorway. This is rather dangerous and in certain way psychopatic behaviour. I recommend movie Fishead.

Its more the argumentation that takes the midninght motorway example as an argument for no speed limits at no consequences that strikes me and makes me think whether this discussion has any sense. In fact we should first find out if we agree on the basic premisses. Like the premis on what bases should be determined the speed on a motorway. What should the decision mechanism to be.

snowdog: The decission mechanism is irrelevant. The only thing that matters i my choice and I chose to drive as I want. Therefore there should be no limit because my freedom to chose is the only objective criteria.

me: there should be decission mechanism for the speed limit. And it should be such mechanism that provides the most effective solution. That means, solution that tries to produce the highest utility.

To put it more practical. Yes to the no limit, if the discomfort caused to the rest of the drivers is small or not existing and if the costs of possible accidents etc are overweighted by the gains achieved due to the higher speed.
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 08:28 PM   #90
snowdog
Speed freak
 
snowdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Capelle ad ijssel
Posts: 675
Likes (Received): 34

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surel View Post
But I notice that people like snowdog seem not to consider anything else then their personal freedom and profit to matter. They tend to forget that the freedoms of others are the same valuable. And they definitely dont understand that when all the freedoms were unleashed, they would in fact have much less personal freedom than they have now. Also on the motorway. This is rather dangerous and in certain way psychopatic behaviour. I recommend movie Fishead.
Not all freedoms, all other traffic laws are fine, just the speed limit.

Quote:
Its more the argumentation that takes the midninght motorway example as an argument for no speed limits at no consequences that strikes me and makes me think whether this discussion has any sense. In fact we should first find out if we agree on the basic premisses. Like the premis on what bases should be determined the speed on a motorway. What should the decision mechanism to be.

snowdog: The decission mechanism is irrelevant. The only thing that matters i my choice and I chose to drive as I want. Therefore there should be no limit because my freedom to chose is the only objective criteria.

me: there should be decission mechanism for the speed limit. And it should be such mechanism that provides the most effective solution. That means, solution that tries to produce the highest utility.

To put it more practical. Yes to the no limit, if the discomfort caused to the rest of the drivers is small or not existing and if the costs of possible accidents etc are overweighted by the gains achieved due to the higher speed.
Very few % of the accidents are caused by to high speed, I have posted the stats somewhere on this forum before iirc (I'll look this up later if you want). I doubt increasing the speed limit will have a significant impact on deaths.
snowdog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 08:34 PM   #91
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 31,808
Likes (Received): 2878

Maybe accidents are not caused by speed(ing), but speed is certainly a factor in the gravity of an accident.
__________________

my clinched highways • highway pictures @ Flickr and Youtube
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 08:38 PM   #92
italystf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,188
Likes (Received): 393

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdog
I disagree, I think it's mainly because of safer cars, roads and mentality change towards alcohol.
Nothing to do with speed.
Safer cars and safer roads off course, but mentality change towards alchol I doubt. Drinking culture is very common among young people, not less than 20 or 30 years before.
__________________

italystf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 08:42 PM   #93
italystf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,188
Likes (Received): 393

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle
Maybe accidents are not caused by speed(ing), but speed is certainly a factor in the gravity of an accident.
Speed is even more significant on urban roads. If a pedestrian cut you the road or a car stops in the middle to turn left without indicators there is a huge different if you drive 70 instead of 50. You need more meters to brake.
__________________

italystf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 08:43 PM   #94
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,752
Likes (Received): 610

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdog View Post
Not all freedoms, all other traffic laws are fine, just the speed limit.


Very few % of the accidents are caused by to high speed, I have posted the stats somewhere on this forum before iirc (I'll look this up later if you want). I doubt increasing the speed limit will have a significant impact on deaths.
Well if we can make agreement on the methodology and we get results that would propose no general speed limit I am more then happy to see sections without limits. There is nowhere said that the dutch experiment with 130 km/h is the final frontier.

In my eyes is the only correct methodology to compare the utility (comfort) of the drivers if there is general limit and if there is not such limit (there would be other variables that would have to be compared... e.g. costs to the police, emergency services, motorways design, costs of accidents, savings on time etc, etc). We could proxy this by some general public comfort with the speed limits on the motorways and expert oppinions about the cons and pros based on hard data.

I keep repeating the same. The correct speed is neither 100 nor 140 not no limit. It should be tailored to the conditions taking the pros and cons into consideration.

And I have to add. Especially with the issue like the speed limit it is very important whether the individuals are able to self regulate or not. Does mainly the german discipline make the no limit possible? Or would it work anywhere in the world?
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 08:57 PM   #95
italystf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,188
Likes (Received): 393

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surel
And I have to add. Especially with the issue like the speed limit it is very important whether the individuals are able to self regulate or not. Does mainly the german discipline make the no limit possible? Or would it work anywhere in the world?
In Germany if there is an accident between one driving above 130 and another driving below that 'limit' results guilty who broke the reccomended limit of 130. For this reason many respect this limit and this explain the low accident rate.
__________________

italystf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 09:22 PM   #96
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,752
Likes (Received): 610

Quote:
Originally Posted by italystf View Post
In Germany if there is an accident between one driving above 130 and another driving below that 'limit' results guilty who broke the reccomended limit of 130. For this reason many respect this limit and this explain the low accident rate.
Yeah I know about the rule. But anyway its funny to see either Czech or Dutch drivers, also the Polish and Swiss how their speed in many cases instantly increases after crossing the border.

What I meant is more that implicit explicit rules are not necessary as long as the society is behaving according to the rules anyway, or at least takes the results of its actions into the consideration. Thus as long as there is wide majority of decent polite drivers in the german population the implicit rules may be given a rest. However, in the moment that the selfish driving style will protuberate on the german roads, the rules will have to be made implicit and strongly enforced.

It occurs to me that it is perhaps no accident that the higly individualistic british and us society have very strict road rules enforcement.

Last edited by Surel; April 16th, 2012 at 10:12 PM. Reason: used implicit instead of explicit as I see it now, that would not make much sense there
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 09:40 PM   #97
italystf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,188
Likes (Received): 393

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surel

Yeah I know about the rule. But anyway its funny to see either Czech or Dutch drivers, also the Polish and Swiss how their speed in many cases instantly increases after crossing the border.

What I meant is more that implicit rules are not necessary as long as the society is behaving according to the rules anyway, or at least takes the results of its actions into the consideration. Thus as long as there is wide majority of decent polite drivers in the german population the implicit rules may be given a rest. However, in the moment that the selfish driving style will protuberate on the german roads, the rules will have to be made implicit and strongly enforced.

It occurs to me that it is perhaps no accident that the higly individualistic british and us society have very strict road rules enforcement.
A society made 100% by honest people will never exists. Even if only 1% of people behave badly, rules are necessaries because that 1% is enough to provoke nuisance to the remaining 99%. The concept 'everybody will meet some behavior conventions even with no rules and punishment' is valid maybe within a family or group of friends.
__________________

italystf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 09:54 PM   #98
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,752
Likes (Received): 610

Quote:
Originally Posted by italystf View Post
A society made 100% by honest people will never exists. Even if only 1% of people behave badly, rules are necessaries because that 1% is enough to provoke nuisance to the remaining 99%. The concept 'everybody will meet some behavior conventions even with no rules and punishment' is valid maybe within a family or group of friends.
well yes and no. Such society doesnt exist, you are right, there will be allways wolfs that want to profit on the sheep. But the rules are not allways the best solution. There may be costs to the establishing the rules and enforcing them. Thus the system may as well converge into the state where there are anyway "free riders" because eliminating them would be more costly then having them. But in general you are right, the violations most often spread like a virus and are not contained if the rules are not established.

Dont also forget that culture and social behaviour are also rules, evolved through centuries. For example such rules as religions affect even civilisations not only nations, and they may be planted deep in your cortex through the family upbringing, community etc. Although modern society (especially since French revolution and Napoleon times) indeed works with explicit rules = the codified law.

Last edited by Surel; April 16th, 2012 at 10:00 PM.
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 10:11 PM   #99
italystf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,188
Likes (Received): 393

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surel View Post
But the rules are not allways the best solution. There may be costs to the establishing the rules and enforcing them. Thus the system may as well converge into the state where there are anyway "free riders" because eliminating them would be more costly then having them.
I guess you are referring to things like legalization of prostitution and soft drugs to reduce criminal activities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surel View Post
But in general you are right, the violations most often spread like a virus and are not contained if the rules are not established.
The famous 'broken windows theory'.

Anyway, I stop continuing this discussion. Differents points of view have already been shown and discussed enough and now we're going too much off topic. This thread is about speed limits on motorway, not sociology or behavior psychology.
italystf no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 10:19 PM   #100
ElviS77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 476
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by italystf View Post
Safer cars and safer roads off course, but mentality change towards alchol I doubt. Drinking culture is very common among young people, not less than 20 or 30 years before.
True, but I would say that the attitude towards drinking and driving has changed considerably in Europe over the past 15 years. The limits have been lowered, spot checks are more common and the general public's attitude towards the problem has changed considerably.
ElviS77 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
highway

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu