You can sue against traffic signs here. The reason is that the legal logic presumes every road is either 50kph (inside town) or 100kph (outside town) - barring the autobahn, obviously. That's the max limit.
Anything lower than that is an infringement of your rights to drive your cat at 50 / 100kph. As such, you can sue the responsible government entity for putting up the sign.
As noted above, most speed signs and nearly all of them outside of town can only be put in place because a lot of people already crashed there. There's very little wiggle room in the law to put up a sign as a preventive measure, unless things already happened, and basically zilch of that for deer crossings, only exceptions would be things like declaring a 70kph limit infront of a school or nursing home.
Here's a fun one: There was a section of autobahn, standardly at unlimited speed, that had a max speed of 120kph put in, because people kept crashing there. A few years, just about a year ago from now, the signs were removed because there weren't sufficient crashes to justify having them anymore. Immediatly, crash numbers shot way the hell up.
god, no. 'nother fun fact: the aforementioned legislative logic is straigt up what the nazis implemented to facilitate more car traffic.
Yet I whenever I point out shit's never going to meaningfully improve if the core logic isn't adressed I still come of like gods strongest turbocrank, even to other activists. I think the most radical demand that has any organized capacity behind it is that towns get an exception written into the federal laws that they can decide 30kph limits within city bounds at will instead of having to make a legal case for it
You can sue against traffic signs here. The reason is that the legal logic presumes every road is either 50kph (inside town) or 100kph (outside town) - barring the autobahn, obviously. That's the max limit.
Anything lower than that is an infringement of your rights to drive your cat at 50 / 100kph. As such, you can sue the responsible government entity for putting up the sign.
As noted above, most speed signs and nearly all of them outside of town can only be put in place because a lot of people already crashed there. There's very little wiggle room in the law to put up a sign as a preventive measure, unless things already happened, and basically zilch of that for deer crossings, only exceptions would be things like declaring a 70kph limit infront of a school or nursing home.
Here's a fun one: There was a section of autobahn, standardly at unlimited speed, that had a max speed of 120kph put in, because people kept crashing there. A few years, just about a year ago from now, the signs were removed because there weren't sufficient crashes to justify having them anymore. Immediatly, crash numbers shot way the hell up.
That's a very stupid law situation, does anyone have at least a project to end it?
god, no. 'nother fun fact: the aforementioned legislative logic is straigt up what the nazis implemented to facilitate more car traffic.
Yet I whenever I point out shit's never going to meaningfully improve if the core logic isn't adressed I still come of like gods strongest turbocrank, even to other activists. I think the most radical demand that has any organized capacity behind it is that towns get an exception written into the federal laws that they can decide 30kph limits within city bounds at will instead of having to make a legal case for it
Wow, America needs to up its carbrain game! That's really top-shelf stuff.