Talk:German Autobahns
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The correct plural in German is "Autobahnen". 84.227.140.74 15:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Very true ... but this is the English Wikipedia and all the British I know are dying to get their cars onto the German "autobahns" Agathoclea 16:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Construction
I just saw a special on PBS about the nature of how the German autobahn is constructed. It seemed to me that part of the unique nature of the autobahn is not just the high speeds and safety laws, but also the advanced level of engineering used to sustain safer roads with less constructions sites. I don't know a lot about this, but the spacial said they use porous concrete that can resist extreme weather better and cost three times as much as an equivalent length of US highway. This seams appropriate for this article if anyone feels like researching it.
Also, they have rapid response accident units that cover the whole country to make sure accidents are cleared for the road quickly. This includes some helicopters always on standby for medical evacs. Again, seems pertinant to the unique nature of the autobahn. Dkriegls 17:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The type of construction and materials found in Germany is possible in the US too. Except the US motorist would have to be subjected to the same fuel tax as the Germans requiring the Americans to pay the same price as the Germans (presently circa 1.30 €/L). I personally can't see the Americans paying such a high price, thus they will have to suffer with inferior roads. Eventually as the dollar continues to weaken and oil producers move away from dollar pricing towards a basket of currencies, the inflation that hits the US will cause gas prices to rise far above what the world now pays.
It is also possible for you to inform your government representative that you don't mind paying a higher price for fuel to offset the costs of better roads.
[edit] Name Change
I would like to suggest changing the name of this article from "Autobahns of Germany" to "German Autobahns".
My reasoning for this, the new name sounds more precise. The current name would in any case, NOT be used by someone who uses English as a first Language.
As an example: We don't say "Motorways of Britain" or "Abbey of Westminster" but Westminster Abbey and British Motorways.
I would appreciate your views on this subject.--IsarSteve 21:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
support name change too.
Name changed to German Autobahns --IsarSteve 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend that you change the name into "Autobahn". The word "Autobahns" is not exisiting.
- I think it should be changed in the way you suggest. German_Autobahn sounds way better. It probably should be changed throughout the text too. The Autobahn is sounds at least for me (german) better than The Autobahns are. In german I would only use the plural when talking about two or more specific ones, like The Autobahns A1 and A7 are..., there you can't avoid it. (Unless you say The A1 and the A2 are.., what I would do.) -- Kphwin 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge to Autobahn
Why was this article forked from Autobahn in the first place? Are there any other articles dealing with Autobahn roads that require this separate article here? As I understand, Motorway is the main article on high speed roads in general, so there's no need to have two on Autobahn roads. -- Matthead discuß! O 16:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- as they are the original "Motorways" and have a much longer and varied history than say the English Motorway system, I think the German Autobahnen (Autobahns) are/is entitled to their/its own page or at least be the basis of any Autobahn/Motorway page.--IsarSteve 12:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lenth
Under "Current Density", it says that Germany's autobahn network is the third longest after the United States' Interstate Highway System and the National Trunk Highway System (NTHS) of the People's Republic of China.
I doubt that this is true considering that Canadian, Australian and Russian motorways should all be longer considering the size of these countries. France also has 12,000 km in length. Japan has probably more. -- Rodemont2
Size has little to do with the length of a total highways system, populations and economy have more to do with it. However, the country of Germany is only slightly larger then the state of Minnesota. Even with 80+ million people and a great economy, there isn't that much space to cover with highway. The Trans-Canadian Highway with both the main Trans-Canada route and Yellowhead route is 10,781 KM. Thats almost as much as the 11,980 km cited in this article as the whole German system. Now I have driven both highway systems, and I can say that the Autobahn makes parts of the Canadian highway system look like parkways or even small roads instead of freeways, so maybe the author read some statistic that had strict criterion for defining the Highway system. So the author needs to cite their source. Dkriegls 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- "the country of Germany is only slightly larger then the state of Minnesota." wrong, that's only West-Germany; united Germany is slightly smaller than Montana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.251.116 (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh! I spoke a little to soon. I did a little more reading and have some more to say. The Canadian system is not federal. It is administered and maintained by each province. So it can not be considered a unified system even though some shared federal laws exist. Just as the German and French system are not a unified system even though they share some EU governing laws, because each country administers and maintains theirs systems separately. Also, things like the US interstate system and the Autobahn are limit access federal highways. The trans-Canada, the Australian Highway 1, and the Trans-Siberian Highway are not limit access highways. Also, reading more about these three systems of highways, they are not exactly finished and unified systems like the autobahn. Still, all my blabbering still means we need a source. Dkriegls 18:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Distances
Distances in "mi"
What ever happened to km? I'm from a metric English speaking country and I don't understand mi. I understood the practice in Wikipedia to be 100 km (62 mi) for example.
Here is the some of the text showing this Development of the overall length (at the end of): 1935: 67 mi 1936: 675 mi 1937: 1,249 mi 1938: 1,893 mi 1939: 2,051 mi 1940: 2,322 mi Compared to 7,565 mi "Bundesautobahn" in 2005
I corrected that error. There really is no need for miles. One system (SI) for the whole world is sufficient. Even adding prehistoric units that only a very few pretend to understand is just plain clutter. If some really need to know it, which they don't, they can calculate it for themselves. The German Autobahn system is completely SI, so there is no need to mention prehistoric measures.
I agree with getting rid of non SI units (except for USA and UK things). I would have said that before but thought it would upset too many people.
I would see no reasons for exceptions. The purpose is to have a clear and concise article without the need for clutter that only a very small minority understands. Metric is taught in US and UK schools and is understood by anyone working in industry. Even the UK is predominately metric except for road signs and beer.
You shouldn't worry about upsetting people. If they are intelligent, they will understand the need to use only one system and that is SI. Look at the other languages. You don't see articles cluttered with secondary units in parenthesis. If someone doesn't know SI, then maybe it is time for them to learn. Cluttering up articles with extra units doesn't lead to understanding but greater confusion.
Don't you think the article looks better after the clean-up?
- Actually, I don't think it looks better; an article's look is only as good as its transmition of information. Since this is the English language version of Wikipedia, it would stand to reason that the mileage equivalency should be included in parenthesis (if not even the other way around, with km in parenthesis). This isn't an argument over which system of measurement is better (metric, in my opinion), but simply that an article should be readily understood (it is an encyclopedia, after all) by the majority of its' readers.--Egghuntpbs 17:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Die Luegen und Betrueger Solidaritätszuschlag 1990 bis 2008 der Bundestagsfraktionen Strassenbau in der DDR 1990 bis 2008 21.02.2007
- Das Grosse Steuergeldverschenkprogramm an die Baukonzerne der BRD und Europäischen Kommission durch die Bundestagsfraktionen 1990 bis 2008
- http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/073/1607394.pdf
- Helsinki 193.208.90.130 (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Was hat Dich denn gebissen?! Unglaublich... TomGaribaldi (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

