Talk:German autobahns/Archive 1

Archive 1

   I removed the "copyedit" tag from "traffic laws and enforcement section" I didnt edit other sections because they were not tagged. please tag anything elses neccessary.

helo!

i just want to say that the correct plural of autobahn "Autobahnen" and not "Autobahns" is. I am a german, I have to know it ;)

I have corrected the first mistake in the text, but im too busy to look for other mistakes like that, so please forgive me an correct the others, if they are... ;)

Fabian Weibchen

!Hello, the official name is "Bundesautobahn", short: "BAB". Maybe somebody can fix it, my english is to bead to do it, sorry.

The article deals not only with the German BAB, but also with Autobahns in other countries, so no change there. IMHO it does not make sense to have separated articles for this. I'll add the official name somewhere in the article --Chrysalis 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In Germany, Autobahn and Bundesautobahn are terms with different legal meanings. "Autobahn" (motorway) means that the road is marked with , which invokes special rules from the German Road Traffic Code (Straßenverkehrsordnung), e.g. regarding speed limits, no parking, etc. OTOH, "Bundesautobahn" (federal motorway) means that it has been dedicated as such, which invokes certain laws on construction and maintanance. Usually, both terms apply to given a strech of highway but there are some roads that are a Autobahn but no Bundesautobahn and vice-versa. -- 3247 21:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we have it again: The myth that that Nazis invented the Autobahn...

The first Autobahn (called AVUS in Berlin) was completed 1921.

The term Autobahn was first used 1926 by Robert Otzen (the chairman of a Road constructiong company ?)

Source: wissen.de

The first real Autobahn (20 km long) connecting Köln and Bonn was completed the 6. August 1932.

Source: http://www.goethe.de/in/d/frames/gaz/didak1932.html

Deleted Paragraph ("10 km of every household")

I deleted the following paragraph from the article, because it was a vast exaggeration:

"During the 1980s, a goal was set in West Germany to provide autobahn access within 10 km of every household, but with the German reunification, most of the construction and funds shifted from the west to the neglected east."

I am not aware of any plans to build "Autobahns" within 10 km of every household - especially not in the 1980s, when financing infrastructure projects in Germany was already a problem. Furthermore, there wouldn't even have been enough demand for so many "Autobahns". The most enthusiastic plans came up in the 1970s and can be seen here: http://www.autobahn-online.de/karten/ - you'll notice that even those are nowhere near the "goal" of having Autobahns every 20 km. 195.226.183.31 12:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK plans did exist to provide all households in West Germany access to an autobahn within 10 km. These plans were conceived when Georg Leber was minister of transport (around 1965). Wolf

Capitalization

The article freely mixes "Autobahn" and "autobahn". It would be good to pick one or the other. I'm not changing it because I don't know whether it's more correct to follow the German convention or the English one. Erics 04:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems to be much more accurate to use English conventions. I'd go further and replace all instances of 'autobahnen' with 'autobahns'. After all, this article is written in English. If the article on Kaiser users 'Kaisers' as the plural, then the same should apply here. --Bletch 23:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just realized that the German plural of Kaiser is in fact 'Kaisers', so please forgive my ignorance. That said, my argument still stands. A Google search restricted to English language pages for 'Autobahns' yields 24700 results whereas 'Autobahnen' yields 11200 results --Bletch 01:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the plural of "Kaiser" is "Kaiser". "Kaisers" would be genitive singular. But you are right that the plural of "Autobahn" is "Autobahnen", so I changed it in the very first sentence. However, the argument that this is an english text and therefore you should use "autobahns" in the rest of the text seems plausible, so I didn't change anything else. --Flosch 22:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll look forward for you to use "Motorwayen" instead of motorways in German texts. --84.245.183.160 10:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Funny diskussion :)

As explaination that "Autobahnen" is german plural should be okay, in the text we can use "autobahns" as it has been taken into the english vocabulary. btw. "der Kaiser" is one "die Kaiser" are more, Google lies :D so long 84.129.46.149 02:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Autobahn is not a proper noun in english. It should remain autobahn.

Bus speeds

In Switzerland, buses are only allowed 100 km/h max on any Autobahn, anything else is plain illegal and if caught, costs way heftier fines than in Germany.

Construction

I believe the "Construction" section of the article needs correction and expansion.

PAVEMENT DEPTH

The comparison of pavement depth between 'Autobahnen' and U.S. Interstate highways does not compare like to like. 95% of the pre-war 'Reichsautobahnen' were built with Portland cement concrete, about 8-9" in depth. Most U.S. Interstates built in the 1950's and 1960's using the same material also had slabs 8-9" deep (depending on subgrade conditions), though this has since been increased to 12" to secure a longer life cycle. The main reason so many original concrete 'Autobahnen' are in excellent condition is the Nazis' insistence upon good drainage and granular fill for embankments, combined with light traffic and mild winters in the first years after the roads opened. (It was not uncommon to go for ten to fifteen minutes without seeing another vehicle in either direction.)

The quoted 27" construction depth sounds more characteristic of the 'Autobahn' asphaltic concrete pavement cross-section which was adopted in the Seebohm years following the war. 20-22" is a normal depth for asphaltic concrete in the U.S.A. In actuality there is little difference between U.S. and European procedures for pavement life-cycle cost analysis, although it is true that Europeans tend to use a longer life cycle (typically 40 years versus 20-25 years) in the first instance. Americans will typically build for permanency if a road is expected to have slow traffic growth, but the shorter planning horizon is designed partly to prevent overinvestment in roads which will need radical remodelling due to traffic growth.

GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS

Nothing is said about design speed classes. There were three in standards published in 1937 and four in standards published in 1942. These classes, which were based on terrain, dictated criteria for maximum grade and minimum horizontal and vertical curve radii. It is not quite correct to say that the maximum grade allowed on 'Autobahnen' was 7%; instead it was 8% for mountain locations under the 1937 standards, and 6.5% for "high mountain" locations under the 1942 standards. The 4% maximum grade applied only to flat-country locations (both 1937 and 1942 standards). The maximum grade on U.S. Interstates, by the way, is 6%, though design exceptions can be obtained for higher grades if adequate justification is provided.

Further information can be found in this post by "J N Winkler" (me writing under a different handle) at

http://www.ukroads.plus.com/archive/MotorwayVsAutobahn.html

(Message 30). The information given in the tables is sourced from a Road Research Laboratory publication, 'German State Motor Roads' (H.M.S.O., 1946), which in turn references the actual standards documents.

Nitpick: in English jurisprudence, "mechanically propelled vehicle" can now mean a bicycle. It would be better to say "Motor vehicle" and to mention that motorcycles were forbidden upon the 'Autobahnen'.

Yes, I'd like to see more of this. It's my understanding that part of the distinction of the Autobahn is the very high standards of design and construction that go into them versus the roads of other countries (at least, higher than those of the US) that make the higher (sometimes unlimited) speed limits feasible. Pimlottc`

fire extinguisher

I don't know any person in germany that carries one onboard. it's not a law here ;)

Merging with Motorway

E70 moved the page text to motorway, which I disagree with not because it was a bad idea, but because of how it was executed. The simple copy-and-paste merge made the article look very messy. If someone would be willing to merge the texts and make them flow smoothly, I would have no objections. Anyone up? « alerante ✆ ✉ » 14:57:32, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, each system seems to have its own article: motorway for the UK and Ireland, Interstate Highway for the US; Autobahn should be left as a German, Swiss, and Austrian page. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 15:00:41, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

This was because Peter Isotalo destroyed the article motorväg who means motorway/autobahn in Swedish. It should be all the foreign names or everything should only be at the same article motorway. /E70 21:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Please note that this has been discussed at Talk:Motorväg and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Motorväg. E70, you have been politely asked several times to desist with the personal attacks. I'm asking you again: please be civil in interacting with others. Please assume good faith on the part of other users. It's inherently more likely that they're doing what they believe is right, just like you are, than that they have some obscure reason to hate you personally. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Text is moved to Motorways in Europe

The text is now moved to Motorways in Europe. This is an article about European motorways and this is incuding Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The text is rewritten. /E70 11:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to quickly explain this to those who don't know the background of this major rewrite, this is about a disagreement of the definition of the Swedish word motorväg, an English loanword which is a direct translation of "motorway" used in Swedish since 1945 but. It is a general word for any kind of motorway in any country, but is not used as a proper noun similar to Autobahn or Autostrada and is completely non-notable in English. All other definitions of roads in Sweden are merely Swedish language counterparts of similar roads in other countries.

E70 feels that since motorväg shouldn't have its own article (as per the VfD), this argument should be extended to all other non-English words as well, no matter if their usage is notable and frequent in English or not.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand the situation. E70's position is rather silly because he fails to understand Wikipedia's notability policy. Motorvag was deleted because it is not well-known among English speakers, and it is not Wikipedia's job to make it notable. Autobahn is already well-known among English speakers, especially because English speakers find the concept of a freeway without speed limits to be quite fascinating. Autobahn, therefore, should continue to be the subject of its own article. --Coolcaesar 12:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Please have a respect for what is terms and not here. The articles are rewritten now and this is a compromise for everything. I really hope this means the end of this "wars" now. The new article is made to be an article about motorways in Europe. Please dont destroy this work because a had a hard job to made this. The new article is made to have information about motorways in more European countries. The new article is also giving information about the "autobahns" in Germany. /E70 12:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Page Move

I don't see what is a *MAJOR* move having been discussed anywhere. This article is now *WAY* too long and 'motorway' is not just a european term. Please revert this edit asap and put it up for discussion for a merge before taking such a destructive and major action. --Vamp:Willow 12:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep separate articles regarding Autobahn (and Autostrada, and Autoroute, and ...).

They do have different meanings than the more generic motorway, i.e. the lack of a general speed limit for the German ones or being toll roads for the Italian ones. If you have driven around in Europe I assume you have noticed that each of them has an individual style. And perception is certainly different -- try substituting motorway in "I want to drive on an autobahn". Same meaning? No way! -- Klaus with K 12:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep separate articles - I don't understand the merge suggestion here. People not familiar with the term will come here to look up what Autobahn means or to learn specifically about the German Autobahn, and they expect to be shown an Autobahn page. Redirecting them to a generic "freeway" article doesn't seem appropriate. Phil153 16:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep as is hmm this seems an old subject being reheated. Agathoclea 17:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 24.100.122.246

This IP user had deleted everything except the starting paragraph. This is not acceptable. On top of it, no comments are given, not a single word written here in the discussion pages.

I have now reverted to the version 22:28, 24 August 2005 Choster -- Klaus with K 14:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

drive faster - be safer?

"Another theory is that driving faster can increase concentration, leading to less accidents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autobahn&direction=next&oldid=29242215

This is a claim, often heard and supported with anecdotal evidence but unfortunately not true looking at accident statistics. Thus it cannot be called a theory.--Klaus with K 13:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe its not safer, but recent studies show its not more dangerous ether.

---

In my opinion it is very true that driving faster is safer. A few weeks ago I had to drive to Munich from Stuttgart, so I used the A8. I drove in the evening, the street was almost totally free. I needed for the 220 Kilometers 52 Minutes. So now you tell me wheter it is safe to be only 52 Minutes on an Autobahn or to drive two hours on it. Don´t forget that there are many maniacs driving very, very fast! Maradona01, 12.1.06

May your guardian angel always be with you.--Klaus with K 14:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And may the guardian angels especially be with the people that are on the road with Maradona01 at the same time! --Chrysalis 14:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Try driving on British motorways - death on wheels - people never think anybody could come from behind as they are already doing OVER 60mph. That combined with utter boredom which leads to lack of concentration. Agathoclea 20:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Think about it, if you are able to go over 200km/h there has to be enough space on the road! There are some Autobahnen and some times where they are totaly empty. Like the A95 in the morning. You want to know how fast your ride goes, perfectly safe, there is no one but you!

Leaving aside the issue of whether the claim is true, it doesn't have to be true be a theory! Theories are not necessary correct. Perhaps you are confusing "theory" with "theorem"? Best wishes, Cambyses 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"theory" should mean an explanation backed by facts, and saying "driving faster is actually safer" in the face of lack of facts/statistics supporting, maybe we should just call that a "hypothesis."  : ) Gaviidae 10:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Conversions KM => MI

Based upon the exact definitions I do the following calculation:

63,360 inches/mi * 2.54 cm/in * 0.0001 km/cm = 1.609344 km/mi

This gives (rounded to the nearest mile) a partial table of conversions from Km to Mi:

km    mi
20  = 12
40  = 25
60  = 37
80  = 50
100 = 62
120 = 75
130 = 81
150 = 93
160 = 99
200 = 124
250 = 155
300 = 186

I will correct the article to reflect these values. Too Old 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that speed limits are usually multiples of 5 and often 10, I see a case for round numbers in cases like

 130km/h   80mph 
 160km/h  100mph.
 200km/h  125mph

but for now I just put it up for discussion. --Klaus with K 11:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Klaus, the differences are negligible. If it's absolutely necessary to be semantically correct, we can use the word "about". æle ✆ 02:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

But I would do this rounding only for the three cases given above where the proper value rounded to the last digit is only one off. Prior to Too Old the rounding was even sloppier, too much to my taste. And for 300km/h at least keep the 186 and not go for 185 because often this value is transformed into 187 mph (using 1.6). --Klaus with K 19:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Motorway picture

Is it just me or is the picture just a thin line? Image:Autobahn_1-999.png Same on commons. Very puzzling. Agathoclea 20:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I see the whole thing Gaviidae 10:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rules

• Contrary to popular belief, it is illegal to flash headlights or left turn signals at a car moving slowly on the left lane. However, this directive is often ignored by motorists in a hurry.

That is wrong. Flash headlight or even pushing the horn (out of town) is in Germany an allowed overtaking sign.

Using the horn of flashlights (short use only) is only allowed to signal overtaking if it's possible (i.e. on a road where there is another lane left of the car to be overtaken, be it the same direction or two-way-traffic). If a car is moving in the left lane of the autobahn, it cannot be overtaken, so this could be considered coercion (Nötigung). On the other hand, using the left lane if the right lane is free is also an offense, so the slower car is also using coercion on the faster car. See StVO (German legal code for street usage) §5(5,6), §16 for (slightly unclear) details. --Chrysalis 05:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is legal to flash headlight 'out of town' (ausserhalb geschlossener Ortschaften) in order to signal the intention to overtake. This includes the autobahn. However, flashing light or left turn signal can be understood as coercion when there is no possibility to pull over to the right lane. But normally this behavior goes along with tailgaiting which is fined anyway. Still, you won't get fined for a single flashing light while keeping your distance and free right lane. This is legal according to §5.

Was the Autobahn ever damaged, destroyed, bombed?

I ask because my grandfather took photos during WW2 (aerial) of a portion crossing a river that was destroyed. I don't know who bombed it, any info?

Hello Unsigned, bomb damage might be possible. But lots of infrastructure was blown up by the retreating German troops, and that is my guess for your stretch of Autobahn as well.--Klaus with K 13:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the bridge on the Plauen Autobahn on the east-west border was blown up, leading the the death of a motorcyclist how drove that stretch of road and found himself suddendly in the air. Agathoclea 08:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's very likely that there was bomb damage. Infrastructure such as highways and railroads usually is a primary strategic target in wars. -- 3247 20:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

yes. i have read in a newspaper, that there was a bomb found that have rested (while millions of cars passing the spot) since WW2 under the pavement of an autobahn....

Ike's travels

The article says "President Dwight Eisenhower first adopted the idea in his visit to Germany during World War II." First, he wasn't president during the war, and second, he wasn't exactly "visiting" Germany -- he was blasting the hell out of it!

Sca 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Article has been corrected. He was based in Germany after WW2. Signor Eclectic 21:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

common speeds of 300km/h

The article states that it is not uncommon to see cars speeding at 300km/h. There is no source for that statement and I doubt its acuracy very much. In fact a study says that the 85percentiel for traffic in Germany in only marginally higher than in other countries where there is a speed limit. Agathoclea 08:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence in question; the original author probably got a bit carried away with their enthusiasm. Whilst these mysterious speeds do exist, it is usually hard to see cars actually travelling at 300 km/h, mainly because they're gone so fast. ;) --doco (☏) 08:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Speeds in excess of 200 km/h are common, but most of the cars that would offer the raw power to go beyond the quoted "gentlemen's agreement" of 250 km/h, mainly luxury cars in a sedan configuration, are not designed to be handled at extreme speeds. Those sports cars that do have higher designed maximum speeds (and no limiter) provide noticeably different handling, facilitating control under high speed conditions. -- Kiwaiti 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is an International License enough?

Can anyone just go to Germany and rent a car there or do you need to be a citizen/resident?

Generally, renting is possible by carriers of foreign drivers' licenses. If you move there, you have to go to the driving board and see if your license meets the requirements of International License (meaning they'll issue you a German one without test or lessons). This usualy works for people with other EU driving licenses, since the road signs and many of the rules are the same (not always). Maybe I shouldn't say this, because this is based on some research I did for getting a Dutch drivers' license, and there was some EU info in there that I'm applying to Germany. However, I know of Americans who've travelled to various countries in Europe and renting a car was no problem. Gaviidae 10:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally, an International license should be enough. But, please, take some time to know the different rules, especially if you plan to drive with high speed on the Autobahn. An unexperienced driver can get himself killed quite easily. MikeZ 13:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Laws section

This sentence:

1. "In a case of a traffic jam, the drivers must form an emergency lane to guarantee that emergency services can reach the scene of the accident. This lane has to be formed between the left lane and the lane next to the left lane."

I just have no clue what this means. What's the lane next to the left lane? The grass to the left of the left lane? In between the left and right lanes?? Or is this a road with three lanes, and "left lane" really means the middle?? Because there isn't a lane next to the left lane, just a barrier usually. In the US, the right breakdown lane (or the left breakdown if there is one) is usually used by emergency vehicles, and during a jam no-one is supposed to drive in said breakdown lanes for that reason (although some people invariably do anyway). I'd love to fix the above sentence for more clarity, but I can't until I know what it really means. Help Gaviidae 10:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement is, albeit confusing, absolutely correct. Typically German ;-) This is the clue: The emergency lane emergency vehicles has to be formed between the very left lane and the one to its right. That means: When there are only two lanes, it's simply between the left and the right lane. If there are three lanes, it's between the very left and the middle lane. If there are four lanes, it's between the very left and the second to left lane.

The reason why the shoulder lane is generally not used by emergency vehicles is that they would have to cross off-ramps which might be clogged by traffic wanting to leave the congested autobahn, or parties from minor accidents as a consequence from the congestion may have to use the shoulder lane. In short: The shoulder lane might be occupied. -- Ub 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Inserted clarification: between the two leftmost lanes -- Kiwaiti 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Great repetition between this and Autobahns of Germany

The whole arrangement is pretty messy. Also, this article seems to be too long. Maybe it should be split, indeed. --Ub 02:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1