Punishable? At 417 km/h on the German autobahn

[bmwz4coupe]

Driving at 417 km/h on the autobahn is never safe. Never. The autobahn is not a closed circuit, it is a public road and you never know what will be in front of you. Especially when going at 417 km/h…

 

[Deleted member 57437]

And there is another factor - fear. The reaction of people when they are scared is unpredictable. Trying to make a manouvre and realising the speed of the car in the mirror leads to otherwise avoidable accidents.

I recall that precisely this was the major factor resulting in the death of the young Renault Twingo-driving mother and her infant when that M-B (Daimler-Chrysler back in 2003) test driver homed-in from the rear, headlamps flashing frantically, at an estimated 300+ km/h.

 

[Bridster]

There is no question that driving at 417km/h is more dangerous than driving at 130km/h. It's not like there are people driving that fast every day, though. He's done it once and probably will never again. So then if you compare the increase in danger from one super high speed run to the increase in danger from driving, let's say 150km/h (instead of 130km/h) every day of your life, then driving 150km/h would almost certainly end up being more dangerous overall - and yet nobody is bothered by that.

Also, there seems to be a growing obsession with all things safety these days - or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the obsession with safety is eternal and ever growing, no matter how safe things already are. In the 60s when cars were all deathtraps with no safety belts, or crash-zones or airbags, with terrible brakes, etc, did people sit into a car every day and prayed to make it through the traffic? No, they just got on with their business without a second thought because even then the chances of dying, over your whole lifetime were very small. These days, the cars are safer than ever, passively and actively, speed limits are lower, the amount of deadly accidents is the lowest in history, but that' still not enough! This is also the reason that once self-driving cars work, human driving is gonna get outlawed soon after. And it's gonna be the same argument where on one side there'll be people showing how many more accidents human drivers cause and on the other with "just some abstract ideas about freedom", probably painted to be just a bunch of dangerous maniacs that want to selfishly unleash themselves on the road to the detriment of all others. That's despite the fact that human driving has been done for ages and nobody had any problems with it and despite the fact that this change is gonna improve the safety by 1.058% at the cost of completely removing your ability to enjoy driving.

So the question is, at what point will the quest for safety be satisfied and what is the one thing that you won't give up to satisfy it? The answer at the moment seems to be that there the quest will never be over and that there isn't anything that you won't be asked to give up. The EU literally has a plan to get to zero road fatalities by 2050. How do you think that is gonna be achieved? It's not, that's the only answer, but these psychos will certainly try and all sorts of rights and freedoms you now take for granted will be on the chopping block to try to get to that point. Same with Covid, same with anything. It's as if the expectation is that you are not actually a human, but instead some sort of a bot that shouldn't be damaged because then it can't generate product for the state. If maxing out your hypercar once in your life, legally, on a near empty, straight stretch of road with perfect visibility can't get a pass on a car enthusiast forum, what's even the point. Just shoot yourself in the head when you wake up tomorrow, you are clearly done with living anyway.

 

[Matski]

Surprisingly often the true underlying motive for someone to get angry or annoyed at someone else is envy. The person might not even be aware that the real reason he finds someone annoying is that they feel envy towards them. People are very good at coming up with seemingly credible and even virtuous excuses for being annoyed such as “it is unsafe” or “it is morally wrong” when the reality is that they are just envious.

I see, so you are envious of Professor Dudenhöffer's status as the "Auto Pope" then, as someone that regularly gets to comment in the actual media on automotive issues based on a long career in the auto industry, as a researcher and professor at several universities? Guess you might not even be aware that's the real reason you got mad at him.

Ask yourself: why is the net worth of the driver in any way, shape, or form, relevant to this case? Was it not about driving too fast on the autobahn? Why is it relevant that the driver is a multi-millionaire? Does he mean that it would have been OK to drive 417 km/h if the driver was poor? Of course not. It is completely irrelevant for this case. But the fact that Professor Dudenhöffer brings up the driver’s wealth reveals that the real problem he has is that someone has lots of money and, I assume, he himself does not. Therefore it comes down to envy.

Actually it's a topic that comes up in our media fairly often, and has done today in fact. There's a lawyer here known as "Mr Loophole" (Nick Freeman), he regularly gets celebrities and well off people off the hook for motoring offences, and has today offered to get Boris Johnson off the hook for breaking Covid restrictions. He reportedly charges as much as £10,000 a day... the law does not apply equally to multi-millionaires because fines are somewhat less relevant and their legal defence is far, far beyond the means of the average person.

... also, if you can find someone on minimum wage, or surviving on welfare, driving whatever car they can afford at 260mph on the autobahn, I'd be impressed - but lets be honest, when talking about driving the fastest road legal cars on the planet, you're quite likely to be talking about millionaires.

Just shoot yourself in the head when you wake up tomorrow, you are clearly done with living anyway.

Can't... those psychopaths running our nanny state took away my right and freedom to own a gun.

 

[Big Sam]

Also, there seems to be a growing obsession with all things safety these days - or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the obsession with safety is eternal and ever growing,

When technology changes to the extent that a member of the public can drive a road legal car at 417km/h on the autobahn, then yes, this "obsession with safety" has to grow with it.

 

[Giannis]

Speed limits are kind of relevant. 130 km/h in a brand new S-Class is not the same as doing 130 km/h with a Fiat Seicento. Not only in terms of comfort, or ease of achievement, but in terms of safety. Changing lanes at 130 km/h with a Seicento can be your last experience on Earth, but the same thing with an S-Class is just a non event.

Basically, it's this:

- Quote ADAC: "If the track is free and dry, there's nothing wrong with 200 km/h, in heavy traffic or fog, 80 km/h can be too fast."

So, driving a Daewoo Matiz @130 km/h at night during a heavy rainfall is legal, yet socially irresponsible. At the same time, in any other place on earth, driving @ 160 km/h in a Ferarri, during an early Sunday morning with no other car in sight, is definitely illegal, yet is it actually socially irresponsible?

Personally, I'm no saint. I've reached 220 km/h with the S60 and a bit less with the E39. I'm not comfortable maintaining those speeds, though, both due to the cars and my abilities. But I can't see what's the problem with traveling at a steady 160 - 180 km/h in a relatively new well maintained highway, with a well maintained car (as in good tyres, suspension, brakes and steering).

 

[CrunchSlaughtered]

Speed limits are kind of relevant. 130 km/h in a brand new S-Class is not the same as doing 130 km/h with a Fiat Seicento. Not only in terms of comfort, or ease of achievement, but in terms of safety. Changing lanes at 130 km/h with a Seicento can be your last experience on Earth, but the same thing with an S-Class is just a non event.

Basically, it's this:



So, driving a Daewoo Matiz @130 km/h at night during a heavy rainfall is legal, yet socially irresponsible. At the same time, in any other place on earth, driving @ 160 km/h in a Ferarri, during an early Sunday morning with no other car in sight, is definitely illegal, yet is it actually socially irresponsible?

Personally, I'm no saint. I've reached 220 km/h with the S60 and a bit less with the E39. I'm not comfortable maintaining those speeds, though, both due to the cars and my abilities. But I can't see what's the problem with traveling at a steady 160 - 180 km/h in a relatively new well maintained highway, with a well maintained car (as in good tyres, suspension, brakes and steering).

On our highways the speed limit is 140 kmh, the police set their radars at 12 kmh more, so 152 kmh and when the deviation of the speedometer is considered one can normally drive with indicated 160 kmh at the speedo. It's the speed the most people drive, except the EVs driving behind the lorries.

 

[Speedtail]

Bloody madness should be locked up

Absolute bullshit. You're clueless kid.

 

[Giannis]

Absolute bullshit. You're clueless kid.

Don't resort to personal insults please!

 

[BMW3GT]

Absolute bullshit. You're clueless kid.

GTFO Kid

 

[Giannis]

GTFO Kid

Don't resort to personal insults please!

 

[Deleted member 57437]

Speed limits are kind of relevant. 130 km/h in a brand new S-Class is not the same as doing 130 km/h with a Fiat Seicento. Not only in terms of comfort, or ease of achievement, but in terms of safety. Changing lanes at 130 km/h with a Seicento can be your last experience on Earth, but the same thing with an S-Class is just a non event.

Basically, it's this:



So, driving a Daewoo Matiz @130 km/h at night during a heavy rainfall is legal, yet socially irresponsible. At the same time, in any other place on earth, driving @ 160 km/h in a Ferarri, during an early Sunday morning with no other car in sight, is definitely illegal, yet is it actually socially irresponsible?

Personally, I'm no saint. I've reached 220 km/h with the S60 and a bit less with the E39. I'm not comfortable maintaining those speeds, though, both due to the cars and my abilities. But I can't see what's the problem with traveling at a steady 160 - 180 km/h in a relatively new well maintained highway, with a well maintained car (as in good tyres, suspension, brakes and steering).

I recall 130 km/h in a Steyr-Puch 650 TR as being absolutely scary. The car was based on the FIAT 500 Cinquecento and those were scary at 90 km/h.

 

[Mick Briesgau]

I can't see what's the problem with traveling at a steady 160 - 180 km/h in a relatively new well maintained highway, with a well maintained car (as in good tyres, suspension, brakes and steering).

Exactly. As a matter of fact, this is my prefered window of speed on the German autobahn (if weather and traffic conditions allow it). It's not too fast, that your level of concentration fatigues you and you still manage to make some miles.

 

[Mick Briesgau]

I recall 130 km/h in a Steyr-Puch 650 TR as being absolutely scary. The car was based on the FIAT 500 Cinquecento and those were scary at 90 km/h.

I know that feeling. Did once 200 km/h in a Renault 5 Turbo. Still get the creeps thinking about it. Long time ago...

 

[bmwz4coupe]

I did 120 km/h in a Citroen 2CV many years ago in a motorway in Norway where the limit was 90. Took a long time to reach this crazy speed and the car wasnt excactly rock stable at this speed…

 

[Speedtail]

When technology changes to the extent that a member of the public can drive a road legal car at 417km/h on the autobahn, then yes, this "obsession with safety" has to grow with it.

GTFO Kid

Make me? You father doesn't own this space? LOL!

 

[PanterroR]

^Way to start your "contribution" to this forum...

 

[Speedtail]

Go look after you Panther boy??

 

[PanterroR]