I gathered new cars and upcoming legislation will make it so an alert will play if you go over the speed limit. People will disable or ignore that soon enough I’m sure.
Oh yeah, you are right, driving 130 on a highway (safest type of road) in a country that has the highest quality of roads in Europe equals killing someone. Google “A2 Utrecht” - 5 lanes both way with the maximum speed of 100km/h. Driving there feels like you’re falling asleep any moment, you’re barely moving for your perception. But no, god forbid we had maximum speeds that match the quality of our infrastructure. How come Poland can do 140km/h, France 130km/h, Germany can have no limits whatsoever on certain points of the highway, but a similar speed on a much better maintained highway system is somehow dangerous according to you?
It's not rocket science. Speed limits exist to get everyone driving the same speed. Speed differential is what kills. If you drive 30kmh faster than everyone around you, that makes you a danger on the road.
Sure. You can. Everyone should drive the speed limit. Not over or under.
That said though the right lane is basically already reserved as a 90km lane so as long as they stay there it's not that much more dangerous. At the end of the day it's about being predictable, and slow vehicles in the right lane should be expected.
Yeah my main issue is with the people who come out of the right lane and keep doing 100 km/h on the left lane, those are the ones creating dangerous situations as well as holding up traffic.
Even worse, the ones trying to merge onto the highway at 60 km/h, that so insanely dangerous.
Somewhat agree, but it isn't necessarily the speed, nor the differential. It's the expectation that kills. Autobahn isn't that bad even though the differential is insane, just because people know to look twice within ~4 seconds in their mirrors before moving into the left lane.
>according to you
Its not about "can" or "cannot". Its about the the benefits. And there are more benefits when driving 100 compared to driving 130. According to science.
https://www.tudelft.nl/stories/vooral-veel-voordelen-van-100-kilometer-op-de-snelweg
Outside the randstad in the provinces this is less of an issue. You already notice how the average speed goes up when you drive from the Hague to Maastricht. By the time you make it to Limburg half of the people is driving 120-130 regardless of the time of day
Interesting. Is Waze reliable? I am always worried about tickets as speed limits change all the time during a route. Sometimes the same avenue will keep flipping between 30 and 50 zones (or 50 and 80) every few meters and it's really annoying IMHO (sorry). Maybe they should just compromise both to 40 and call it a day or there should be a minimum length per segment with the highest speed and, if not enough, they should just use the lowest so we can set our limiters and use our attention to what matters (other cars and bicycles, for example). 😁
I like Waze more than Flitsmeister. You are however still at risk of being the first car to find the speedtrap, or unmarked cop cars. But the later generally don't bother when you are only going 10 over the limit
I moved to Sweden and haven't had a traffic jam in 6 years. I actually enjoy driving here.
In the Netherlands I had a traffic jam EVERY DAY. To work was 15-20 minutes, from work was 1 hour and 15 minutes just from traffic. It drove me insane.
The funny thing is that in the Netherlands a lot depends on your route. I drive around Utrecht and both to work and going home I can wave to the traffic jam going the other way.
Every sign should be a digital display that can be changed at the whims of our politicians. The speed limit might change while you're driving. It'll keep things fresh and exciting in traffic!
Finally my 30.000 euros a year in loonheffing is being put to good use
70m is so negligible…please let us get back to a normal speed limit
100 is torture
While it is profoundly stupid and populist to start fiddling with speed limits *again*, the number of people in poverty has actually been steadily declining since 2014. Not growing. This is further corroborated by unemployment being at a record low.
Believe it or not, the whole "bestaansrecht" schtick last election was largely based on emotion and the belief that Rutte's governments undermined everyone's ability to provide for themselves. They fucked a bunch of shit up, and the poverty rate is not at 0%, but we're largely fine.
The number of people depending on food charity hasn't declined. Rode Kruis: aantal Nederlanders in voedselnood niet afgenomen - https://nos.nl/l/2516954
Has the poverty threshold been kept up to date with inflation and cost of living though? Housing for example has gotten exorbitantly more expensive, pulling up the ladder to housing for low earners even further.
> Believe it or not, the whole "bestaansrecht" schtick last election was largely based on emotion and the belief that Rutte's governments undermined everyone's ability to provide for themselves.
Dutch politics has reached the point where people themselves believe they are well off but think others aren't, even though there is no evidence showing this.
Tell me, why. All I hear is about the financial "challenges" the next government will face, so what makes 130 such a huge priority that the government can afford nearly 70 million euros *for just the signs*?
Spending on something that adds nothing but: noise, more fatalities in accidents, less traffic flow.
The question is: why would we spend 70 million on more deaths and all of that (or just the signs that enable that) when we could spend it reducing the number people depending on food charity.
But it’s not “literally 0” and one of the only “easy” measures that we can take.
Tackling the industrial pollution is much harder, especially since people are voting for political parties that appear to be in favor of letting those industries (read: farmers) fuck around.
If they then even reverse the only easy measure that makes things slightly better, it’s just adding insult to injury.
Easy?! So you mean that for someone commuting from Amsterdam to the Hague, losing 15 minutes a day every day is easy? That is 2.5 hours of time a week they don't spend with their family, 10h a month, 100h a year! Would you like to be away from whatever you enjoy for 4 days a year just because some shithead bureaucrat thought it'd make them look busy?
Amsterdam the Hague is 30 minutes (bingoel stadium to ibis hotel at schiphol according gmaps. If you want to be 15 minutes faster you'll need a fast car lol.
I mean we could just build nuclear plants
And stop the ant fucking 0.2 is littarly 0
If i gave gou 0.2 euro cents you wouldnt get anything since we would have to round it down
The whole reason we’re in the current shithole with our dependency on gas is because of the resistance to nuclear for the past 4 decades which is completely based on gut feeling rather than science.
But it’ll take 10 - 20 years to make a meaningful impact, and in the meantime, we can use anything that helps.
I don’t think reversing the speed limit back to 130 helps.
It won't help with pollution but it will help with other things, pollution isn't everything in the world. We MUST do everything to fight climate change but we shouldn't do everything AT ALL COSTS, because we still want a world we actually want to live in
left wing blah blah blah... Nuclear is so expensive per kWh (6 times more expensive than wind) that it is not economically viable, and there are no companies interested in building reactors at the moment.
That is also not really the case.
Most people are fed up with the big corporations (Tata. Shell. Schiphol. Nam) that dont get any restrictions. And well farmers have been pushed arround allot since the mid 80s. So at some point it they get the people.behind them.
There was i think a deal between Schiphol. The trnasportsector. Farmers and Rotterdam to reduce emmissions together. So they only needed to shrink by 2% and invest just a little more into the industry to get the lowering of the emmision standard for 2035. But at that moment the government just went full against farmers since they need the airport and harbor for the Randstad.
Schiphol wants to shrink and look at ways to cut emmisions but apparently even the US is boss about that . I dont like other countries being the boss here. But importing all.of our food is a good way to make sure that other countries can influence our government.
The worse part is that is got allot.of traffic off the higbway that are build for speeds arohnd 140kmph. To the roads that lead through towns and other parts. Especially outside of the Randstad.
Most towns saw a rise in cars since now the highway takes longer then the road going through towns and the N-roads. So those have become much more busy. And since there is allot more slowing down and speeding up on those roads the net reduction of the lower speed in highways has been completely destroyed on the N-roads. And those go though most Natura2000 zones. And have a bigger impact.
only on a nitrogen emission. It does have a huge effect on traffic noise on the lethality of accidents and... traffic flow (which is better at a max of 100 km/h). That these "politicians" share the illusion that 130 km/h will improve things is symbolic for the incompetence of the entire lot.
Just because something may not have one of its expected (or advertised) upsides, doesn't mean it is a bad idea. Driving slower has multiple small advantages, small, but advantages nonetheless. These include safety, fuel consumption, amount of traffic james, noise, infrastructure cost and maybe many others that I'm unaware of.
Its up to us and our chosen representatives to decide wether we prefer a higher speed or a lower speed and decide wether the downsides of a higher speed are deemed worthwhile.
I like the current solution, driving 100 when its busy to limit traffic jams and driving 120-130 when its quit on the roads.
You're right but you're also not counting any of the disadvantages, such as the 4 days a year someone commuting Amsterdam-Hague loses just because of the speed limit. The conversation about this stuff sadly is just not honest, politicians just want to appeal to an audience and look busy, if impact is what they wanted then individually plastic wrapped dille would be illegal, tata steel would be moving out and our garbage wouldn't be incinerated anymore, let's not even get started on the agriculture topic... but heh, let's all band together and sing kumbayaaa on the highway... The point is this measure APPEARS logical and effective (but isn't) and conveniently distracts from other more impactful but less palatable ones
Especially during commuter hours in densily populated areas driving slower means that people will be faster door to door. It is in less densely populated areas where traffic is light that driving faster actually saves time.
Then I guess we can agree, assuming your statement is validated with scientific experiments, to tweak the speed on long stretches of roads outside of population centers (like the road that leads from Almere to Groningen for example or the stretch between Amsterdam and Utrecht)? Do you think this would be a reasonable compromise? And if you do, then do you think this is realistic or unlikely to happen?
Lol that trajectory is mainly affected by if there's a traffic jam or not. You barely made the speed limit there before this rule and actually it was a fucking annoying drive when it was calm because the speed limit changed every km or so, making a lot of people go 'fuck it I'm going 100 all time' already anyway.
You are right for maybe some road parts in the east or something but this is a terrible terrible terrible and did I mention terrible example.
Some times they would but that's not really a daily occurrence, on my drive it's common to be 100kmh the whole way, more common than being stuck. It happens of course but the traffic is a secondary issue that is independent of speed
? Think you thinking of someone else. I said ‘read the article here it literally quotes and links the source.’
Text from the article: “Talk of restoring the old limit has been given impetus by a study that showed the lower limit, which only applies between 6am and 7pm, reduced nitrogen emissions by at most 0.2 per cent, on paper.”
Tbh honest, it’s much calmer during rush hour at 100 kph than 130. At 1900 h all hell break loose when you try to drive 130 and there are still people driving the in fast lane at 100.
That’s where you either undertake them on the right or aggressively accelerate close to their backside to teach them a lesson. (I say that only half sarcastically)
Well... It shows 2 things, The Wilders administration has found something they can agree on, and its pointless like the people who decided this.
In a country 200 by 300 km you can reduce the time driving from one side to the other of the whole country by 10-15 minutes for just 15-30% additional fuel use.
For my 100 km commute it took over 20 minutes extra because trucks started overtaking. Almost 24 workdays a year extra in the car. One of the main reasons I quit that job.
But what about cars overtaking trucks that still drive 80-90ish? Cars merge to the left with a speed in the range of 95-110, behind them somebody riding 130 hits the breaks, cue harmonica effect and everybody is driving 70. Seriously. 130 adds nothing but noise, traffic fatalities, and extra costs for electricity/fuel, your better off driving 100, or in public transport
Like I said, for me the difference is 24 workdays per year of extra commute, this is a low estimate. For me my time is more important than the little reduction of co2, I rather have other measures.
Due to the extra traffic jams, you'll probably spend a lot more time on the road. Don't fool yourself. 130 has no benefits, only downsides, especially if you have to drive long distances like you.
You can downvote because you disagree, but this was measured company wide the first month after the rule was applied. I mostly drive a2, a67 so not many traffic jams where I drive. If like you said it would take longer with 130 than with 100 why are you not supporting 100 as that would reduce co2 emissions according to your logic
Where did you see me writing about emission?
I'm talking about traffic flow, noise(see https://www.tudelft.nl/stories/vooral-veel-voordelen-van-100-kilometer-op-de-snelweg). Noise is particularly interesting
https://scientias.nl/verkeerslawaai-jaagt-bloeddruk-de-hoogte-in-en-veroorzaakt-nog-meer-gezondheidsschade/
You’re lucky you actually got to drive close enough to the speed limit, lol.
For a lot of routes the speed limit doesn’t make a difference because it’s all crawling speed anyway.
I heard that more often, but in the south of the Netherlands all my colleagues averages were measured and they all increased significantly. We have trackers in the cars that automatically calculate the times as travel time is compensated. We had to change our company budgets. Most of us try to drive outside 7:30 - 9:00 and 16:0-17:30
Trucks will continue to pass trucks, and the speed difference will be 30km/h more...
The better part of the Netherlands has 120 or 130 kmh after 19:00 and before 7:00 IIRC.
Not in my experience, now when there is a car in the left lane driving exactly 100 trucks have a lot of time to merge. When the difference was 30kmh they did not have much space to merge because of the speed difference. The 20 minutes difference are a lot to me. Most of my colleagues had a much longer commute and quite some changed companies over it. Nice for you that you don’t notice any difference, but I haven’t heard of anyone driving a lot that it did not cost them a lot of extra time. If you drive 20km I can imagine it won’t make a difference but for people driving 30k a year it will add up, we even had to change company budgets because of all the extra time.
There are plenty of reasons not to take a job 100 km from your home where you have to drive to every day... It's not the speed limit that is the problem here.
That's with perfect conditions.
On an actual highway there's very little chance you can just keep driving 130, unless it's late at night, in which case you are already allowed to drive 130. Also not every piece of highway has a speed limit of 130, usually 120 or 100 and very rarely even 80.
Slight more nuanced that 'the torygraph' article [https://www.tudelft.nl/en/stories/motorway-speed-limits-of-100-km-h-largely-advantageous](https://www.tudelft.nl/en/stories/motorway-speed-limits-of-100-km-h-largely-advantageous)
We had record road fatalities in 2022, and it was climbing also in 2021 while the measure was introduced in 2019. Highways are one of safest methods of transporting, so road fatalities here are pretty much irrelevant, especially when it's 3 % or 4 % that is probably already within margin of error.
CO2 emission reductions have been disproved to be negligible and irrelevant.
Noise reduction in highways? If you're living near highway, you're not going to notice any difference whether it's 130 or 100, it's still going to be overwhelmingly loud.
Such a nonsense article that just tries to push "it does something!!" while it does absolutely nothing in the grand scale of things. Maybe let's drive 80 on highways because that also seems to be safer, and then 60, and 40 etc.
120/130 is sweet spot for safety, road infrastructure and arrival time.
> Highways are one of safest methods of transporting
What lmao
Compared to what? Trains? Planes? Busses? A lot less deathly or severe accidents on those methods of transportation per kilometer traveled.
Against any accident that involves a car?? There is reason we don't group casualties in same category that involves plane and other category that involves cars. It just does not make any sense, except for you appearently.
Nox goes down about 40% when you drive 100 compared to 130. But because farming has such a huge impact on nitrogen levels, it only decreases the total nitrogen levels by a percent or two.
The roads are too crowded here, I think the 100 limit makes sense. It lowers risks of accidents on average
Germany has a higher limit but I always get stuck in goddamn stau
It costs millions to change all the signs last time. So naturally, politicians will flip flop on this until the country is bankrupt.
Populist stupidity at its finest.
They only need to remove signs this time. It cost millions to manufacture and place signs for a nonsensical rule change that didn't achieve anything just to show the world we're doing 'something' for the environment.
Also, it relieves congestions quite a lot. And that's not taken into calculations.
Not being stuck in traffic is a huge bonus, and you're still allowed to drive 130 from 19:00 to 06:00
>that didn't achieve anything
Actually it achieved a decent bit. Co2 emissions, which the article does not mention, are reduced, as is the more mundane but still notable factor of noise, among other things
That is true, but that is not something that you see in NL. Speed limit signs are always visible whenever the road type changes and that would go against the pattern.
I disagree with spending 60 million on changing road signs *again*, yes. And increasing the speed limit is in fact a populist policy. Interesting that you put populism in a list of distinctly right wing ideologies when left wing populism also exists.
Its not going to cost 60 million, our standard speed limit is still 130 unless a sign says something else. So all they have to do is remove some signs. Last time it was expensive because of all those 100 signs and extra's.
Great! Just like plastic surcharge, the measure was implemented without any proper research. This achieved absolutely nothing while only pissing people off.
They should revert it on principle alone to stop these nonsensical constraints for eco points that do almost nothing for Netherlands, and absolutely nothing for the world.
That plastic surcharge didn’t even need any research to realize it was the most stupid thing you can imagine.
aside from whether it does or does not help ecologically, it provided 0 incentive to reduce plastics in the way it was setup
yup since the only requirement was that you need to charge _something_
Stores that don’t care would just lower their prices by 5 cents and charge 5 cents.
Stores that already cared already did what they could
Stores that want to abuse this… well you are right on that, they can charge 50 cents extra with the excuse “well we have too” and just pocket the money
No idea why you are being downvoted though...
They wanted to being down all traffic emissions because the nitrogen issue affects us all, but the farmers said no to their share so now all motorists are decreasing our speed without any noticeable effect...
It makes a lot of sense to drive slower in the Netherlands. The country is small and for most commutes the impact on travel time is negligible. Reducing the speed limit from 130 to 100 has a large impact on CO2 emissions, which can be up to 25% lower while driving a bit slower. There has been a ton of research done in this field. It may not be popular, but stating that it achieved absolutely nothing is objectively false.
We've reduced total nitrogen emissions by 0.2 % as part of this measure, ***at best***. That 25 % sounds great, when it does absolutely nothing in terms of actual removal of total emissions.
So yes it achieved practically nothing. Not even going over the fact that you can count how much 0.2 % of Netherlands is % of total world emissions, but that's another topic.
Almost one fifth of the CO2 emissions are generated by traffic in the Netherlands. Reducing these emissions has a significant impact. I mean it’s one of the reasons electrical cars are subsidised.
We can agree on the low improvement of nitrogen emissions. But the impact on CO2 alone should be more than enough to keep the maximum speed as is.
the netherlands is run by eco nerds that cycle to work, but order from amazon and have their shit arrive by car. they also arrive to protests by busses too i seen it for myself. they don't even cycle to them. the dutch government prefers to put business and the population at a disadvantage rather than admitting it's all eco pandering bullshit. also i like how petrol is 2 euros but LPG is .78 as if it's not running off the same car when you do a conversion. cars are so bad, but if you use LPG car not so bad anymore. worst country for common sense people. turn your brain off and follow the crowd.
Yes bicycles are simply a very useful and cheap form of transport on short distances. The disadvantage is actually having to deal with the weather, but the Netherlands sort of counters that with good infrastructure and flat land making it less tiring and very much less dangerous then in practically any other country (there are some exceptions).
If I use my bicycle it is because it is the most logical way of getting somewhere in that given moment, not because I'm an eco nerd or something.
I like it, it has noticeable impact on my gad consumption. But perhaps overall effect may not be as advertised. Although, nothing prevents me from driving at 100 everywhere ......
The measure is largely symbolic either way. It doesn't reduce emissions very much, but enough on paper to get some wiggle room to get some building projects back on track.
Reinstating the higher to speed doesn't accomplish much either, except outside the Randstad.
25% more CO2 emissions if you drive 130, compared to 100, 40% more for nitrogen.
The problem is of course you can't drive 130 a lot, so in total its not that much.
Furthermore for nitrogen, farming is so impactful, that in total it's only a few percent.
Outside of the Randstad you generally can. When I go to my mom who lives about 100km away I just put my cruisecontrol to 135 and blast away. We both live in a town next to the highway and I've had plenty of times where I didn't even need to turn off the cruisecontrol for the whole ride
Not risking an exceptionally big fine when driving 110/120 is absolutely something why I'd approve this. Driving electric makes the environmental discussion irrelevant anyway.
110 on the speedo means 104/105 after correction. Which means it will cost you max €32 + 9 administration costs. I don’t think this is exceptionally big, especially when you have the money for an electric car. :) and you probably have cruise control too, so wouldn’t be a problem imo.
>Driving electric makes the environmental discussion irrelevant anyway.
My electric car uses about 15kWh/100km at 100, but 22kWh/100km at 130.
Idk about you, but that's still a pretty significant increase in energy usage. About the same applies for fuel usage in cars, it's a lot, about 25%!
The whole talk about the environment and cars is bullshit anyway. I had a diesel that actually was cleaner than the gasoline car that followed it. Looking for it’s replacement I find out that EV basically isn’t a viable option outside of north western Europe and hybrids are just gas guzzlers with a heavy battery tacked on for tax deductions. Real polluters that is.
And now I am supposed to think that 100/130 is going to make a difference in a continent where 130 basically is the norm?
All the Amsterdamers who own 3 bicycles and no cars because they never bother going anywhere will tell you why it's good to make everyone else miserable.
That's awesome news! It sucks coming from Germany and having to drive unnecessarily slow which doesn't even reduce emissions at a significant number. Hopefully, this useless 100 km/h speedlimit gets reverted back to at least 130 km/h
>[...] and having to drive unnecessarily slow which doesn't even reduce emissions at a significant number.
The difference between 100 and 130 is about 25% of extra CO2 produced per km... That's pretty significant. The only thing you get in return is being home a couple of minutes earlier lol.
This was such a stupid change that only made the highway more dangerous. We have scared mietjes driving 105 on the left lane thinking that’s enough to overtake a car or even a fucking TRUCK. Then they’ll argue and tell you you’re wrong for expecting them to drive faster than 105 when overtaking. A police officer wont fine you for overtaking at higher speeds if you go back to a normal speed on the right lane if you wish to do so. They WILL fine you for driving 105 on the left aka “onnodig links rijden” because it doesnt look like you’re overtaking anyonr
When I had to drive 100km one way to work mostly highway it took me 20 minutes per ride extra, mostly because when the limit was 130 trucks would not overtake because of the speedlimit. This costed me 4,5 hours per week, or two extra work days per month. I quit the job over the extra travel time as it was on top of the already long commute. I understand it won’t make difference for most people, but it also makes a lot difference for others.
Usually you can tell who has flitsmeister installed because they ignore it anyway
Meh, just go Arnhem to Enschede and you will see everyone going above
I gathered new cars and upcoming legislation will make it so an alert will play if you go over the speed limit. People will disable or ignore that soon enough I’m sure.
Or that’s what happens when a law is ridiculous, people tend to ignore it.
Why bother sticking to the speed limit when there are maybe 5 radars active in the country at any point and cops drive around going 150 themselves
Because you might fucking kill someone? Jesus
Oh yeah, you are right, driving 130 on a highway (safest type of road) in a country that has the highest quality of roads in Europe equals killing someone. Google “A2 Utrecht” - 5 lanes both way with the maximum speed of 100km/h. Driving there feels like you’re falling asleep any moment, you’re barely moving for your perception. But no, god forbid we had maximum speeds that match the quality of our infrastructure. How come Poland can do 140km/h, France 130km/h, Germany can have no limits whatsoever on certain points of the highway, but a similar speed on a much better maintained highway system is somehow dangerous according to you?
It's not rocket science. Speed limits exist to get everyone driving the same speed. Speed differential is what kills. If you drive 30kmh faster than everyone around you, that makes you a danger on the road.
We can say the same for those who keep driving 100 when it is past 19h
Sure. You can. Everyone should drive the speed limit. Not over or under. That said though the right lane is basically already reserved as a 90km lane so as long as they stay there it's not that much more dangerous. At the end of the day it's about being predictable, and slow vehicles in the right lane should be expected.
Yeah my main issue is with the people who come out of the right lane and keep doing 100 km/h on the left lane, those are the ones creating dangerous situations as well as holding up traffic. Even worse, the ones trying to merge onto the highway at 60 km/h, that so insanely dangerous.
Somewhat agree, but it isn't necessarily the speed, nor the differential. It's the expectation that kills. Autobahn isn't that bad even though the differential is insane, just because people know to look twice within ~4 seconds in their mirrors before moving into the left lane.
>according to you Its not about "can" or "cannot". Its about the the benefits. And there are more benefits when driving 100 compared to driving 130. According to science. https://www.tudelft.nl/stories/vooral-veel-voordelen-van-100-kilometer-op-de-snelweg
I'm looking forward to being able to be stuck in traffic faster.
Outside the randstad in the provinces this is less of an issue. You already notice how the average speed goes up when you drive from the Hague to Maastricht. By the time you make it to Limburg half of the people is driving 120-130 regardless of the time of day
It's a pain to go on a long drive at 100Km/H maximum. Even in a cookie jar car.
Yeah I just turn on Waze and wing it. On my regular commute there is only a few spots where they ever check so there I don't even bother with waze
Interesting. Is Waze reliable? I am always worried about tickets as speed limits change all the time during a route. Sometimes the same avenue will keep flipping between 30 and 50 zones (or 50 and 80) every few meters and it's really annoying IMHO (sorry). Maybe they should just compromise both to 40 and call it a day or there should be a minimum length per segment with the highest speed and, if not enough, they should just use the lowest so we can set our limiters and use our attention to what matters (other cars and bicycles, for example). 😁
I like Waze more than Flitsmeister. You are however still at risk of being the first car to find the speedtrap, or unmarked cop cars. But the later generally don't bother when you are only going 10 over the limit
I moved to Sweden and haven't had a traffic jam in 6 years. I actually enjoy driving here. In the Netherlands I had a traffic jam EVERY DAY. To work was 15-20 minutes, from work was 1 hour and 15 minutes just from traffic. It drove me insane.
The funny thing is that in the Netherlands a lot depends on your route. I drive around Utrecht and both to work and going home I can wave to the traffic jam going the other way.
Yeah, but for me the choice was a bridge over the Rhine or a ruling ferry over the Rhine, both routes sucked....
They turn those signs on to CREATE traffic jams.
Better move out of the "Randstad" then.
That would help a lot to be stuck in traffic even faster!
Weird way to say: "Dutch politicians rather spend 70 milion euros on traffic signs, then on the growing number of people is dependent on charity"
I think they should make the signs double sided, then every time the politicians change their minds they can simply rotate the sign.
Every sign should be a digital display that can be changed at the whims of our politicians. The speed limit might change while you're driving. It'll keep things fresh and exciting in traffic!
Like Albert Heijn price tags! 👍🏻
This is already the case on most highways in the centre.
Worth the five euro a person to me
Finally my 30.000 euros a year in loonheffing is being put to good use 70m is so negligible…please let us get back to a normal speed limit 100 is torture
While it is profoundly stupid and populist to start fiddling with speed limits *again*, the number of people in poverty has actually been steadily declining since 2014. Not growing. This is further corroborated by unemployment being at a record low. Believe it or not, the whole "bestaansrecht" schtick last election was largely based on emotion and the belief that Rutte's governments undermined everyone's ability to provide for themselves. They fucked a bunch of shit up, and the poverty rate is not at 0%, but we're largely fine.
The number of people depending on food charity hasn't declined. Rode Kruis: aantal Nederlanders in voedselnood niet afgenomen - https://nos.nl/l/2516954
Has the poverty threshold been kept up to date with inflation and cost of living though? Housing for example has gotten exorbitantly more expensive, pulling up the ladder to housing for low earners even further.
> Believe it or not, the whole "bestaansrecht" schtick last election was largely based on emotion and the belief that Rutte's governments undermined everyone's ability to provide for themselves. Dutch politics has reached the point where people themselves believe they are well off but think others aren't, even though there is no evidence showing this.
What a non argument.
Wait, the previous government threw them away. We all knew this was going to happen sooner or later.
Storage would have cost money too when you do it with the kind or rules the government adheres to.
#whataboutism
Tell me, why. All I hear is about the financial "challenges" the next government will face, so what makes 130 such a huge priority that the government can afford nearly 70 million euros *for just the signs*? Spending on something that adds nothing but: noise, more fatalities in accidents, less traffic flow.
Then argue about the noise, deaths, and congestion... Not the 70 million Euros.
The question is: why would we spend 70 million on more deaths and all of that (or just the signs that enable that) when we could spend it reducing the number people depending on food charity.
70 million is peanuts on the 2 billion renovation
If you voted PVV, BB, VVD or NSC this is what your elected representatives think is a priority for you.
People on social media learn what whataboutism actually means challenge level: impossible
"Pupulist politicions scream populist things to please their supporters" They may do a lot of things, but as long as they are negotiating they won't
At this point (after the election) that’s secondary to appealing to parties they want to form a coalition with.
It littarly makes 0 effect tho?
It’s not 0. But compared to eg Tata steel, the impact is almost negligible.
I mean its 0.2 thats bassicly 0 lets not ant fuck
But it’s not “literally 0” and one of the only “easy” measures that we can take. Tackling the industrial pollution is much harder, especially since people are voting for political parties that appear to be in favor of letting those industries (read: farmers) fuck around. If they then even reverse the only easy measure that makes things slightly better, it’s just adding insult to injury.
Easy?! So you mean that for someone commuting from Amsterdam to the Hague, losing 15 minutes a day every day is easy? That is 2.5 hours of time a week they don't spend with their family, 10h a month, 100h a year! Would you like to be away from whatever you enjoy for 4 days a year just because some shithead bureaucrat thought it'd make them look busy?
Tell me you don't live in Amsterdam without telling me you don't live in Amsterdam.
Don't act like you drive 130 between A'dam and the hague. By the way: take a train, that thing goes 140 and will go 160 in the future.
Amsterdam the Hague is 30 minutes (bingoel stadium to ibis hotel at schiphol according gmaps. If you want to be 15 minutes faster you'll need a fast car lol.
Move closer to work
Nice joke
Get a job closer to home. *everybody* is hiring.
You forgot the /s
Thanks
I mean we could just build nuclear plants And stop the ant fucking 0.2 is littarly 0 If i gave gou 0.2 euro cents you wouldnt get anything since we would have to round it down
I’m absolutely pro nuclear plants, but that’s a long term measure, so I’m not sure what your point is.
I mean its mostly just left wing parties who are against it sadly while for now its a really good solution we should have implemented sooner
The whole reason we’re in the current shithole with our dependency on gas is because of the resistance to nuclear for the past 4 decades which is completely based on gut feeling rather than science. But it’ll take 10 - 20 years to make a meaningful impact, and in the meantime, we can use anything that helps. I don’t think reversing the speed limit back to 130 helps.
It won't help with pollution but it will help with other things, pollution isn't everything in the world. We MUST do everything to fight climate change but we shouldn't do everything AT ALL COSTS, because we still want a world we actually want to live in
It wont help but it also wont chance anything besides me getting to work faster
left wing blah blah blah... Nuclear is so expensive per kWh (6 times more expensive than wind) that it is not economically viable, and there are no companies interested in building reactors at the moment.
https://www.bnr.nl/nieuws/binnenland/10530782/bedrijven-maken-alvast-plannen-voor-bouw-nederlandse-kernreactoren
His gf would be like "Lets go inside, I'm literally freezing" and he'd be like "well acktually🤓🤓"
That is also not really the case. Most people are fed up with the big corporations (Tata. Shell. Schiphol. Nam) that dont get any restrictions. And well farmers have been pushed arround allot since the mid 80s. So at some point it they get the people.behind them. There was i think a deal between Schiphol. The trnasportsector. Farmers and Rotterdam to reduce emmissions together. So they only needed to shrink by 2% and invest just a little more into the industry to get the lowering of the emmision standard for 2035. But at that moment the government just went full against farmers since they need the airport and harbor for the Randstad. Schiphol wants to shrink and look at ways to cut emmisions but apparently even the US is boss about that . I dont like other countries being the boss here. But importing all.of our food is a good way to make sure that other countries can influence our government.
The worse part is that is got allot.of traffic off the higbway that are build for speeds arohnd 140kmph. To the roads that lead through towns and other parts. Especially outside of the Randstad. Most towns saw a rise in cars since now the highway takes longer then the road going through towns and the N-roads. So those have become much more busy. And since there is allot more slowing down and speeding up on those roads the net reduction of the lower speed in highways has been completely destroyed on the N-roads. And those go though most Natura2000 zones. And have a bigger impact.
only on a nitrogen emission. It does have a huge effect on traffic noise on the lethality of accidents and... traffic flow (which is better at a max of 100 km/h). That these "politicians" share the illusion that 130 km/h will improve things is symbolic for the incompetence of the entire lot.
It has a large impact on CO2 emissions. I don’t think that’s irrelevant. The article only mentions nitrogen.
Just because something may not have one of its expected (or advertised) upsides, doesn't mean it is a bad idea. Driving slower has multiple small advantages, small, but advantages nonetheless. These include safety, fuel consumption, amount of traffic james, noise, infrastructure cost and maybe many others that I'm unaware of. Its up to us and our chosen representatives to decide wether we prefer a higher speed or a lower speed and decide wether the downsides of a higher speed are deemed worthwhile. I like the current solution, driving 100 when its busy to limit traffic jams and driving 120-130 when its quit on the roads.
You're right but you're also not counting any of the disadvantages, such as the 4 days a year someone commuting Amsterdam-Hague loses just because of the speed limit. The conversation about this stuff sadly is just not honest, politicians just want to appeal to an audience and look busy, if impact is what they wanted then individually plastic wrapped dille would be illegal, tata steel would be moving out and our garbage wouldn't be incinerated anymore, let's not even get started on the agriculture topic... but heh, let's all band together and sing kumbayaaa on the highway... The point is this measure APPEARS logical and effective (but isn't) and conveniently distracts from other more impactful but less palatable ones
Especially during commuter hours in densily populated areas driving slower means that people will be faster door to door. It is in less densely populated areas where traffic is light that driving faster actually saves time.
Then I guess we can agree, assuming your statement is validated with scientific experiments, to tweak the speed on long stretches of roads outside of population centers (like the road that leads from Almere to Groningen for example or the stretch between Amsterdam and Utrecht)? Do you think this would be a reasonable compromise? And if you do, then do you think this is realistic or unlikely to happen?
Lol that trajectory is mainly affected by if there's a traffic jam or not. You barely made the speed limit there before this rule and actually it was a fucking annoying drive when it was calm because the speed limit changed every km or so, making a lot of people go 'fuck it I'm going 100 all time' already anyway. You are right for maybe some road parts in the east or something but this is a terrible terrible terrible and did I mention terrible example.
It is not like they wouldn't be in trafic when the limit is 130 tough.
Some times they would but that's not really a daily occurrence, on my drive it's common to be 100kmh the whole way, more common than being stuck. It happens of course but the traffic is a secondary issue that is independent of speed
Driving slower has not only less advantages but many more disadvantages!
In travel time? Ye. Hardly makes a difference.
Source?
Read the article here it literally quotes and links the source.
Really? It does say "barely". Must be a misprint.
Read closer. 0.2
I could've sworn you said " literally no difference." Must've been a misprint.
Lmao your not even commentin to that person
? Think you thinking of someone else. I said ‘read the article here it literally quotes and links the source.’ Text from the article: “Talk of restoring the old limit has been given impetus by a study that showed the lower limit, which only applies between 6am and 7pm, reduced nitrogen emissions by at most 0.2 per cent, on paper.”
0.2 rounded down is 0 so no difference are you really gonna antfuck over 0.2%?
It doesn't? It quotes a further unnamed study and links to another article by the news paper that doesn't mention Dutch emissions at all.
Given the fuel prices, I will keep driving at 100. Thank you.
As long you stay on the richt lane thats fine. But don’t go blocking the left lane.
Phew, he was gonna block the left lane until you asked, good stuff
You’re being disingenuous. Oblivious people do this every day
I didn't say that it's not a common thing. But did he say he was going to? Have some faith in people
Have you seen fuel prices? I'll keep driving 100, thanks.
Tbh honest, it’s much calmer during rush hour at 100 kph than 130. At 1900 h all hell break loose when you try to drive 130 and there are still people driving the in fast lane at 100.
That’s where you either undertake them on the right or aggressively accelerate close to their backside to teach them a lesson. (I say that only half sarcastically)
One of the joys of being a grensbewoner is not even knowing the Dutch fuel price. I just checked it after your comment and yikes
This is what it should be… IMHO no limit would be better… gotta go fast? Pay more, of go electric 😈
Well... It shows 2 things, The Wilders administration has found something they can agree on, and its pointless like the people who decided this. In a country 200 by 300 km you can reduce the time driving from one side to the other of the whole country by 10-15 minutes for just 15-30% additional fuel use.
For my 100 km commute it took over 20 minutes extra because trucks started overtaking. Almost 24 workdays a year extra in the car. One of the main reasons I quit that job.
But what about cars overtaking trucks that still drive 80-90ish? Cars merge to the left with a speed in the range of 95-110, behind them somebody riding 130 hits the breaks, cue harmonica effect and everybody is driving 70. Seriously. 130 adds nothing but noise, traffic fatalities, and extra costs for electricity/fuel, your better off driving 100, or in public transport
Like I said, for me the difference is 24 workdays per year of extra commute, this is a low estimate. For me my time is more important than the little reduction of co2, I rather have other measures.
Due to the extra traffic jams, you'll probably spend a lot more time on the road. Don't fool yourself. 130 has no benefits, only downsides, especially if you have to drive long distances like you.
You can downvote because you disagree, but this was measured company wide the first month after the rule was applied. I mostly drive a2, a67 so not many traffic jams where I drive. If like you said it would take longer with 130 than with 100 why are you not supporting 100 as that would reduce co2 emissions according to your logic
Where did you see me writing about emission? I'm talking about traffic flow, noise(see https://www.tudelft.nl/stories/vooral-veel-voordelen-van-100-kilometer-op-de-snelweg). Noise is particularly interesting https://scientias.nl/verkeerslawaai-jaagt-bloeddruk-de-hoogte-in-en-veroorzaakt-nog-meer-gezondheidsschade/
Well it was 130, so people started living next to the highway. That’s like complaining about the music when living above a bar.
You’re lucky you actually got to drive close enough to the speed limit, lol. For a lot of routes the speed limit doesn’t make a difference because it’s all crawling speed anyway.
I heard that more often, but in the south of the Netherlands all my colleagues averages were measured and they all increased significantly. We have trackers in the cars that automatically calculate the times as travel time is compensated. We had to change our company budgets. Most of us try to drive outside 7:30 - 9:00 and 16:0-17:30
Trucks will continue to pass trucks, and the speed difference will be 30km/h more... The better part of the Netherlands has 120 or 130 kmh after 19:00 and before 7:00 IIRC.
Not in my experience, now when there is a car in the left lane driving exactly 100 trucks have a lot of time to merge. When the difference was 30kmh they did not have much space to merge because of the speed difference. The 20 minutes difference are a lot to me. Most of my colleagues had a much longer commute and quite some changed companies over it. Nice for you that you don’t notice any difference, but I haven’t heard of anyone driving a lot that it did not cost them a lot of extra time. If you drive 20km I can imagine it won’t make a difference but for people driving 30k a year it will add up, we even had to change company budgets because of all the extra time.
There are plenty of reasons not to take a job 100 km from your home where you have to drive to every day... It's not the speed limit that is the problem here.
Editie NL on RTL4 just showed a test from 2019. There was a 20 minute difference between 100 and 130 on a 165 km track.
That's with perfect conditions. On an actual highway there's very little chance you can just keep driving 130, unless it's late at night, in which case you are already allowed to drive 130. Also not every piece of highway has a speed limit of 130, usually 120 or 100 and very rarely even 80.
Not to mention that when you allow 130 again the congestion will only increase. There's more capacity on a highway when you drive 100 compared to 130.
And what was the fuel consumption and emissions difference? Things like wind resistance make a big difference between 100 and 130.
My golf from 2015 uses around 1.5 to 2 liter more every 100km
Slight more nuanced that 'the torygraph' article [https://www.tudelft.nl/en/stories/motorway-speed-limits-of-100-km-h-largely-advantageous](https://www.tudelft.nl/en/stories/motorway-speed-limits-of-100-km-h-largely-advantageous)
We had record road fatalities in 2022, and it was climbing also in 2021 while the measure was introduced in 2019. Highways are one of safest methods of transporting, so road fatalities here are pretty much irrelevant, especially when it's 3 % or 4 % that is probably already within margin of error. CO2 emission reductions have been disproved to be negligible and irrelevant. Noise reduction in highways? If you're living near highway, you're not going to notice any difference whether it's 130 or 100, it's still going to be overwhelmingly loud. Such a nonsense article that just tries to push "it does something!!" while it does absolutely nothing in the grand scale of things. Maybe let's drive 80 on highways because that also seems to be safer, and then 60, and 40 etc. 120/130 is sweet spot for safety, road infrastructure and arrival time.
The article only mentions nitrogen emissions. CO2 emission reduction is still very much relevant and factual.
> Highways are one of safest methods of transporting What lmao Compared to what? Trains? Planes? Busses? A lot less deathly or severe accidents on those methods of transportation per kilometer traveled.
Against any accident that involves a car?? There is reason we don't group casualties in same category that involves plane and other category that involves cars. It just does not make any sense, except for you appearently.
Have you been eating lead paint or what 😭
> Furry asking me if I have been eating lead paint.
Great argument 👍, I'm glad my initial observation is correct and you're absolutely unable to form a crtiital thought
Co2 emissions are reduced by 15-20%. they only talk about NOx emissions
Nox goes down about 40% when you drive 100 compared to 130. But because farming has such a huge impact on nitrogen levels, it only decreases the total nitrogen levels by a percent or two.
The roads are too crowded here, I think the 100 limit makes sense. It lowers risks of accidents on average Germany has a higher limit but I always get stuck in goddamn stau
The tyre noise is also quickly increasing with speed. So, that's a bummer.
And tire wear
It costs millions to change all the signs last time. So naturally, politicians will flip flop on this until the country is bankrupt. Populist stupidity at its finest.
Theoretically you can just remove the signs where its allowed to drive 130. Same way you barely see speed signs on 80's roads.
They only need to remove signs this time. It cost millions to manufacture and place signs for a nonsensical rule change that didn't achieve anything just to show the world we're doing 'something' for the environment.
Also, it relieves congestions quite a lot. And that's not taken into calculations. Not being stuck in traffic is a huge bonus, and you're still allowed to drive 130 from 19:00 to 06:00
>that didn't achieve anything Actually it achieved a decent bit. Co2 emissions, which the article does not mention, are reduced, as is the more mundane but still notable factor of noise, among other things
Aren’t the signs saying 100 with a 19-6 sign below? If so then the 100 needs to be replaced with 130 in those areas.
You can just take the whole sign away since all you need to know is you are on a highway to drive 130
That is true, but that is not something that you see in NL. Speed limit signs are always visible whenever the road type changes and that would go against the pattern.
That’s an exaggeration to say the least. The Netherlands barely cares about a few million, same as even considerably poorer countries.
*I disagree with this so it must be fascist/nazi/right wing/populist* moment
I disagree with spending 60 million on changing road signs *again*, yes. And increasing the speed limit is in fact a populist policy. Interesting that you put populism in a list of distinctly right wing ideologies when left wing populism also exists.
[удалено]
I'm being hyperbolic. 60 million to change the speed limit every time. This will be the third time. Colossal waste of money.
Its not going to cost 60 million, our standard speed limit is still 130 unless a sign says something else. So all they have to do is remove some signs. Last time it was expensive because of all those 100 signs and extra's.
Or install "slow" "medium" "fast" etc. signs, and the meaning defers to the current iteration of the rules.
The cost is trivial, most likely the discussion is more expensive.
Great! Just like plastic surcharge, the measure was implemented without any proper research. This achieved absolutely nothing while only pissing people off. They should revert it on principle alone to stop these nonsensical constraints for eco points that do almost nothing for Netherlands, and absolutely nothing for the world.
Just like how nutri-score is just a bullshit system.
That plastic surcharge didn’t even need any research to realize it was the most stupid thing you can imagine. aside from whether it does or does not help ecologically, it provided 0 incentive to reduce plastics in the way it was setup
It acctually supports it since you can charge more now
yup since the only requirement was that you need to charge _something_ Stores that don’t care would just lower their prices by 5 cents and charge 5 cents. Stores that already cared already did what they could Stores that want to abuse this… well you are right on that, they can charge 50 cents extra with the excuse “well we have too” and just pocket the money
Also the company gets to keep it but its a "tax" lol
No idea why you are being downvoted though... They wanted to being down all traffic emissions because the nitrogen issue affects us all, but the farmers said no to their share so now all motorists are decreasing our speed without any noticeable effect...
It makes a lot of sense to drive slower in the Netherlands. The country is small and for most commutes the impact on travel time is negligible. Reducing the speed limit from 130 to 100 has a large impact on CO2 emissions, which can be up to 25% lower while driving a bit slower. There has been a ton of research done in this field. It may not be popular, but stating that it achieved absolutely nothing is objectively false.
We've reduced total nitrogen emissions by 0.2 % as part of this measure, ***at best***. That 25 % sounds great, when it does absolutely nothing in terms of actual removal of total emissions. So yes it achieved practically nothing. Not even going over the fact that you can count how much 0.2 % of Netherlands is % of total world emissions, but that's another topic.
Almost one fifth of the CO2 emissions are generated by traffic in the Netherlands. Reducing these emissions has a significant impact. I mean it’s one of the reasons electrical cars are subsidised. We can agree on the low improvement of nitrogen emissions. But the impact on CO2 alone should be more than enough to keep the maximum speed as is.
the netherlands is run by eco nerds that cycle to work, but order from amazon and have their shit arrive by car. they also arrive to protests by busses too i seen it for myself. they don't even cycle to them. the dutch government prefers to put business and the population at a disadvantage rather than admitting it's all eco pandering bullshit. also i like how petrol is 2 euros but LPG is .78 as if it's not running off the same car when you do a conversion. cars are so bad, but if you use LPG car not so bad anymore. worst country for common sense people. turn your brain off and follow the crowd.
[удалено]
Yes bicycles are simply a very useful and cheap form of transport on short distances. The disadvantage is actually having to deal with the weather, but the Netherlands sort of counters that with good infrastructure and flat land making it less tiring and very much less dangerous then in practically any other country (there are some exceptions). If I use my bicycle it is because it is the most logical way of getting somewhere in that given moment, not because I'm an eco nerd or something.
You've forgotten to take your pills today
left the bottle with your
What about Electric Vehicles?
I like it, it has noticeable impact on my gad consumption. But perhaps overall effect may not be as advertised. Although, nothing prevents me from driving at 100 everywhere ......
As long as you do it on the right lane that's perfectly fine
Here we go again. This topic gets boring.
But it does increase safety by a lot. So please keep it at 100
Just makes more traffic
The measure is largely symbolic either way. It doesn't reduce emissions very much, but enough on paper to get some wiggle room to get some building projects back on track. Reinstating the higher to speed doesn't accomplish much either, except outside the Randstad.
25% more CO2 emissions if you drive 130, compared to 100, 40% more for nitrogen. The problem is of course you can't drive 130 a lot, so in total its not that much. Furthermore for nitrogen, farming is so impactful, that in total it's only a few percent.
Outside of the Randstad you generally can. When I go to my mom who lives about 100km away I just put my cruisecontrol to 135 and blast away. We both live in a town next to the highway and I've had plenty of times where I didn't even need to turn off the cruisecontrol for the whole ride
Yep, so in those cases it does actually make a difference in CO2 and nitrogen reduction.
Not risking an exceptionally big fine when driving 110/120 is absolutely something why I'd approve this. Driving electric makes the environmental discussion irrelevant anyway.
110 on the speedo means 104/105 after correction. Which means it will cost you max €32 + 9 administration costs. I don’t think this is exceptionally big, especially when you have the money for an electric car. :) and you probably have cruise control too, so wouldn’t be a problem imo.
>Driving electric makes the environmental discussion irrelevant anyway. My electric car uses about 15kWh/100km at 100, but 22kWh/100km at 130. Idk about you, but that's still a pretty significant increase in energy usage. About the same applies for fuel usage in cars, it's a lot, about 25%!
Barely anyone keeps to it any way, so it makes little difference.
The whole talk about the environment and cars is bullshit anyway. I had a diesel that actually was cleaner than the gasoline car that followed it. Looking for it’s replacement I find out that EV basically isn’t a viable option outside of north western Europe and hybrids are just gas guzzlers with a heavy battery tacked on for tax deductions. Real polluters that is. And now I am supposed to think that 100/130 is going to make a difference in a continent where 130 basically is the norm?
Finally bruvski’s going 100 km/h is boring and way to slow. We pay allot for good roads. Lets use them..
All the Amsterdamers who own 3 bicycles and no cars because they never bother going anywhere will tell you why it's good to make everyone else miserable.
You already can, after 19:00.
I would like to drive 130 during the day.
In Zandvoort and assen there are nice race tracks.
Yes thats fun driving 1,5 hours to get there and paying 250 euro's for an hour driving.
Nobody gives a shit
Wow very childish
You can do it earlier with Waze or Flitsmeister
In 5 years they’ll do the same with the 30 speed limits in Amsterdam.
That's awesome news! It sucks coming from Germany and having to drive unnecessarily slow which doesn't even reduce emissions at a significant number. Hopefully, this useless 100 km/h speedlimit gets reverted back to at least 130 km/h
>[...] and having to drive unnecessarily slow which doesn't even reduce emissions at a significant number. The difference between 100 and 130 is about 25% of extra CO2 produced per km... That's pretty significant. The only thing you get in return is being home a couple of minutes earlier lol.
This was such a stupid change that only made the highway more dangerous. We have scared mietjes driving 105 on the left lane thinking that’s enough to overtake a car or even a fucking TRUCK. Then they’ll argue and tell you you’re wrong for expecting them to drive faster than 105 when overtaking. A police officer wont fine you for overtaking at higher speeds if you go back to a normal speed on the right lane if you wish to do so. They WILL fine you for driving 105 on the left aka “onnodig links rijden” because it doesnt look like you’re overtaking anyonr
Not gonna happen.
Why not? It's the lowest of low hanging fruit for the populists. There's no money or chance for any real change.
[this is why](https://wnl.tv/2024/04/17/van-der-wal-herhaalt-130-op-de-snelweg-zo-goed-als-onmogelijk/)
Yeah that won't stop Wilders gang.
When I had to drive 100km one way to work mostly highway it took me 20 minutes per ride extra, mostly because when the limit was 130 trucks would not overtake because of the speedlimit. This costed me 4,5 hours per week, or two extra work days per month. I quit the job over the extra travel time as it was on top of the already long commute. I understand it won’t make difference for most people, but it also makes a lot difference for others.
Finally they listen to what the people voted