Talk:Autobahn

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the German transportation task force.

Highways: Europe High‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the European Highways Task Force.

German Autobahnen

The correct plural in German is "Autobahnen". 84.227.140.74 15:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This makes no sense. The article is in English, not German. English speakers use the plural "autobahns", not "Autobahnen". If you're going to insist that "Autobahnen" is used, you should be consistent and have the entire article in German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.95 (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

glad to see that these nationalistic, not factual arguments have been overcome at least in the introduction :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.27.150 (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German Words in the Article

I am from Germany and when reading this article, I wonder why this lot of German words is used. Not only do they disturb the process of reading, they also do not contribute to the topic at all. Of course, the term "Autobahn" itself is relevant, but what the heck about "increased operating danger" for "Erhöhte Betriebsgefahr" or "flash headlights" for "Lichthupe" or coercion for "Nötigung" etc. etc. ? You might argue that they are fixed terms used in official context, but still this is not relevant to the article. As an example, when I read a German text about the American Chief Justice of the United States, I am, of course, perfectly able to understand the text without ever having it use the American term "Chief Justice of the United States". The German equivalent of "Oberster Richter" (or something) will do the job.

I guess, a lot of German people are involved writing articles about German topics. This is easy to see, because they tend to overestimate the importance of their topics all the time. As an example, read a Wikipedia entry about any German university and compare it to the entry about the MIT, Stanford etc. Concerning the university's reputation, the tone in the MIT etc. articles is very modest, while those of the German universities are filled with praise. However, (everyone knows) the reverse is the case. Coming back to this article, this also reflects in the heavy (but ridiculous) use of German words in Non-German texts . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.35.251 (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I myself (a German) would take German words in an English text as a sign that it has not been written by a German... --91.34.237.187 (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

support name change too.

Name changed to German Autobahns --IsarSteve 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Length

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Could someone please verify the "third longest motorway network in the world" part? As far as i know, Spain has been doing some instense building in the last years and it's motorway network may have passed Germany's. 12:28, 9 May 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.180.86.151 (talk)

At the moment, the article is contradictory. In the introduction it says it's the fourth longest motorway network (after the US, China and Spain), but later on it states that it's the third longest (after the US and Spain). I don't know what's true; maybe the Spanish network outgrew the German and someone changed in only in the introduction? Der lubi (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone beat me to it and deleted Spain from the introduction while I was typing! False alarm... Der lubi (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil has 38188km of interstate highways. http://www.portalbrasil.net/brasil_transportes.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.94.171.153 (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Was hat Dich denn gebissen?! Unglaublich... TomGaribaldi (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autobahn/Bundesautobahn

First of all, excuse my pretty bad english. I just want to say that in Germany Autobahn and Bundesautobahn isn't the same, there are for example "Autobahnen" that aren't "Bundesautobahnen". [[1]]

Autobahn refers to the traffic rules, Bundesautobahn refers to property and who has to maintain. -MCH- 195.145.245.92 (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Autobahn length tables in History section

Just wanted to make sure my reasoning about these edits is clear. The formatting of years 1935-1940 seems more appropriately matched to the table that followed it. The years 1950-present contained "." as a thousands separator, which is confusing for readers from some locales that use ",", and " " is a standard compromise that is not ambiguous in this context. Finally, I could not see any rationale for including individual years for 1995-2005, they are not notable, the changes are easily interpolated, and adding 1995, 2000, and 2005 to the 1950-1990 table improved consistency. In case some are concerned about loss of some detail, I'll remind that WP is not simply a collection of statistics - there should be some notable reason for inclusion of detail. --Scray (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I think the recent page move to "German Autobahnen" should have been discussed here first; the reason given was that the plural of Autobahn is Autobahnen. That may be so in German, but the English Wikipedia article should probably be named "German autobahns"; see wikt:autobahn. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do admit I should have done that. From all the sources I see the plural is "Autobahnen" and not "Autobahns". If you think this is English wikipedia we should be saying "vehicle rails". I have not seen a source that says it's "Autobahns". TheGeekHead (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have been looking very hard. Here's one, here are more. Umlaut is also an example. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't sepecificly look for "Autobahns", I looked for "autobahn plural" and I found many more results on English pages that said "Autobahnen". I did a few searches online and found many more results for "Autobahnen". The main article on English wikipedia on "Autobahn" says the plural is "Autobahnen". Please find some offical source that says it's "Autobahn" in English, only then will you have a valid argument. (Sorry if my tone sounds aggressive, I do not mean to offend anyone, I'm just trying to share my view on things) TheGeekHead (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference lies in the word's usage; as a German word, the plural is "Autobahnen", as an English loan word, it's "autobahns" (notice the lower case "a"). See also wikt:Autobahn and wikt:autobahn. The main article you mention, Autobahn, uses "autobahns" 39 times, "Autobahnen" 7 times and each of those, bar one, makes it clear that that is German usage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic laws and enforcement

Forcing slow drivers on the left-hand lane to change the lane (even if they are occupying it illegaly) by flashing or tailgating may be considered coercion.

This is not correct. It is not allowed to flash your headlights again and again and of course you have to keep the minimum distance to the car in front of you. But outside of built-up areas you are allowed to announce your intention to overtake by hooting the car horn or flashing. Someone should correct that.

Source: German Road Transport Regulation (Straßenverkehrsordnung, StVO)

§5 StVO: Überholen

(5) Außerhalb geschlossener Ortschaften darf das Überholen durch kurze Schall- oder Leuchtzeichen angekündigt werden. Wird mit Fernlicht geblinkt, so dürfen entgegenkommende Fahrzeugführer nicht geblendet werden.

85.16.162.127 (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autobahn vs autobahn

The current spelling of Autobahn/autobahn is inconsistent in this article. The majority of cases uses the lower case spelling (58 times), Autobahn is used 17 times, including in the title (2x), once as a German quote, once at the beginning of a list item, once as part of a game title and twice as track names in those games, and twice in titles of referenced works. That leaves 8 capitalised occurrences and the title itself which should be spelled in lower case if the majority is correct. Otherwise, 58 occurrences should be changed to upper case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article treats it as a strictly German word then it should be capitalised. Since the German plural has been used then it should be capitalised to be consistent. I personally prefer lower case and the use of autobahns for the plural. Until I read this article I'd never seen the German plural used in English. Ozdaren (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling issue

Last sentence should be revised:

"In the winter months winter tyres are compulsory. M+S tyres (mud and snow or all-season) are acceptable. Non-compliance may result legal consequences in the event of an accident and will result in problems with insurance cover."

-spelling of 'tire' (2x) (also I who usually prefers BE to AE must admit that the spelling with 'i' should be more appropriate.)
-'result in legal cons.' (1x mistakenly used as transitive verb)

Term choice

The term `single vehicle' is more than ambiguous. Having only one vehicle on a stretch of road seems highly inefficient. Does it mean a single lane? a single lane in each direction?  I don't want to make a guess.

2602:304:B390:8FB0:E409:8122:C133:F17D (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC) 2602:304:B390:8FB0:E409:8122:C133:F17D (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current Density

I drove up and down the german Autobahnen, in the eastern states as well as on regional, less important ones, I have never seen one without emergency lane in a long time. An up-to-date reference is missing here. Mind the difference between Autobahn and Schnellstraße. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.214.245 (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know of at least two Autobahn instances that lack an emergency lane: A8 between Stuttgart and Ulm ("Drackensteiner Hang"). Two lanes per direction, very curvy and slow going, but a substitution for that section is under construction, I think. The other Autobahn without emergency lanes I drive regularly is the A5 near Frankfurt am Main with 4 lanes per direction, but a sign says to use the (physically existing) emergency lane as a regular lane, so near Frankfurt the A5 is 5-laned but without emergency lane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbo82 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Sorry for forgetting to sign Morbo82 (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move (formal request)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German Autobahnen → German autobahns – The plural of the English (loan-)word "autobahn" is "autobahns", not "Autobahnen". Meriam-Webster shows no plural, meaning it's regular. Wiktionary has "autobahns" or lower-case "autobahnen". "Use English". There has been a non-formal discussion of this before. The page about Austria is at Autobahns of Austria. ospalh (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support English language automotive magazines seem to use "autobahns" from what I remember their articles saying. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly support; contrary to what I would have thought, English dictionaries treat this as a loanword that is now part of English. Powers ^T 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support English. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well-naturalized loanword. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support following earlier discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Overtaking rules

In theory, trucks are not allowed to overtake others unless they drive 20 km/h faster than whomever they are overtaking, but truck drivers are generally under pressure to arrive in time; therefore, such laws are rarely enforced for economic and political reasons, especially since a lot of trucks are from other countries. The right lane of a typical autobahn is often crowded with trucks, and too often, trucks pull out to overtake.

1. Should this not be listed under Law section, instead of speed limits section? 2. I have looked for a source for some time now, and did not find any other reference to the theoretical 20km/h difference rule. Can anyone with good knowledge of German traffic law confirm that? 3. The too often reference sound like a complaint rather than a formal description.

Official Law:

StVO § 5 Überholen

(2) Überholen darf nur, wer übersehen kann, daß während des ganzen Überholvorgangs jede Behinderung des Gegenverkehrs ausgeschlossen ist. Überholen darf ferner nur, wer mit wesentlich höherer Geschwindigkeit als der zu Überholende fährt.

"wesentlich höherer Geschwindigkeit" = significantly faster

this has been defined by court about 20km/h and should prevent Trucks from doing a "Elephant Race" or a "Sunday Driver" overtake Cars with 5km/h difference and blocking the left lane.

i will NOT change this in the article, because every time something is changed, some schoolmasters delete the changes instead of checking the sources. i'm just a daily user of the autobahn and i know german traffic law, but if someone thinks he knows better... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain conventions how to add text to an article on Wikipedia; this edit fails. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact that is debatable because after all there is a "no overtaking by trucks" sign, indicating that when this sign is not given, overtaking by trucks is allowed. Frankly, on three-lane motorways it does no harm if trucks occasionally use the middle lane.--46.87.143.20 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

During the winter months winter tyres are compulsory.

No, they are not. Only in a snow or icy conditions.

Source: www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/touring_tips/germany.pdf Citations: "It is now prohibited to use summer tyres in Germany during winter weather conditions - summer tyres are predominantly fitted to vehicles in the United Kingdom."

"Winter weather conditions include black ice, snow, ice, slush and hoarfrost."

"Motorists, whose car is equipped with summer tyres may not take the car on the road in winter weather conditions. Motorists in violation face fines of €40. If they actually obstruct traffic, the fine is €80. You may also be prevented from continuing your journey unless the tyres are changed or the weather conditions change." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.25.133 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in germany you may use summer tires if the road is DRY.

BUT: if the road is wet, snowy or icy you HAVE TO use winter tires. otherwise you'll get fined and insurance will deny any payment in case of an accident!

StVO §2 (3a) Bei Glatteis, Schneeglätte, Schneematsch, Eis- oder Reifglätte darf ein Kraftfahrzeug nur mit Reifen gefahren werden, welche die in Anhang II Nummer 2.2 der Richtlinie 92/23/EWG des Rates vom 31. März 1992 über Reifen von Kraftfahrzeugen und Kraftfahrzeuganhängern und über ihre Montage beschriebenen Eigenschaften erfüllen (M+S-Reifen). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted law says that winter tires are compulsory when the road is icy or snowy. It has nothing to do with rain or the time of year. I shall correct this in a few days if nobody responds. --141.28.228.229 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC) (a german car driver)[reply]

WP:ENGVAR

I notice that both "tyre" and "tire" are used in this article. WP:ENGVAR requires that we settle on either British or American English and use it consistently throughout an article. In my somewhat limited experience (about 6 months living in Munich), most Germans I've met speak British English. Of course this is based on anecdotal evidence, but I'd go with British English for this article. (I'm American myself btw.) Thoughts? Cheers, Lithoderm 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They speak British English so let's settle on that. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1989 Autobahn Map?

I once vaguely remember seeing a map that showed three specific routes West Germans could take to get to West Berlin by car through East Germany. Could someone include this for completeness? Such a map would be found in an old encyclopedia, likely. --70.79.150.161 (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This information is presented at West Berlin#Road traffic, albeit without a map. If such a map were available, it should probably be shown there, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

conflicting position with spanish highways

German autobahns are apparently 4th longest after US, China and Spain.

So are Spanish motorways, after US, China and Canada?? --Ls97 (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I just came to this talk page to see if anyone else noticed! :-p ctxppc (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Spanish Highways

The Highways in Spain article mentions that the highway network system in Spain is the fourth largest in the world, not the German autobahns (like this article claims), and that article also says that Canada is in front of Spain (which would make Germany become the fifth largest). What's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfgangAzureus (talk • contribs) 01:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To compare Germany and Spain, you could use as source Eurostat data (data reproduced here after). Might be that non European countries definitions are not exactly the same than the ones unsed in Europe. Might be some databases such as IRTAD provide some data anyway.

Network length (Germany compared to other European nations)^{[citation needed]}

apples and pears

it does not make much sense to compare various kinds of motorways, autopistas, expressways or highways with one another unless they have the same or at least similar specifications. they rarely do. therefore i requested citiations for all the lengths given which includes checking if pears or not compared to apples. in all cases it should be clear that we're talking about at least 2 lanes per direction, each direction seperated from the other, access only via interchanges, a minimum width per lane, limited access, minimum speed, etc. the spanish figure, for example, includes autopistas and autovias. the latter hardly compare to autobahns.

another differentiation often made is the administrative level the road is built by. if that is added to the specifications, comperisons become even more difficult and useless. the federal government in germany is responsible for 2 grids of roads: the autobahns and the federal highways. the latter originally were 2-lane but many have been turned into 4-lane expressways with interchanges. the only visible difference is the yellow signs instead of the blue ones and, of course, the different numbering: autobahns have an A+number, the federal highways a B+number. so, if autovias are included in the spanish statistics, all the 4-lane highways with interchanges in germany should also be included. to make things even more complicated, similar expressways can also be found in germany on the state level in metro-areas, although not so many. they then have an L+number. in comparison, the only federal highway in canada is the trans-canada-highway of which only a few sections are comparable to autobahns. all other roads are built by the provinces. this doesn't mean that the canadian expressways couldn't be summed up and compared to the german ones, as long as they adhere to comparable specifications. but i have my doubts that canada really has 17,000 kms of such roads.Sundar1 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the flaws of comparing disparate road systems, but I doubt whether a like-for-like comparison can be ever be sourced. Until then, I suggest to remove all such length comparisons in the affected articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for the reasons given above i made some changes and ditched the comparison to spain.Sundar1 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your argument, you say a motorway cannot be defined in Germany, because there are Autobahns (A+number), and federal highways (B+number). While it looks to be a problem for you, other wikipedia pages, provide (and or compare) motorway death rate or speed limit...

In fact, there are two questions raised here: quantity (1) and quality (2).

For the first point (quantity), a well known organization which provides some source is needed; for instance, the European commission has its opinion, as it publishes a document which adds/compare those motorways length: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/pocketbook2017.pdf

For the second point (quality), in response to your concern, in the same source, the EC provides this note: Notes: ES: ‘autopistas de peaje’ and ‘autovías y autopistas libres’.

Once the quantitative point described, to complete the comparison, differences in quality between the major networks could be introduced; for instance: Spanish motorways are split in 12000 kilometers of autovia, and 3000 of autopista [2] ...autopistas and autovias motorways are limite at 120 km/h in Spain, while in Germany ...; autopistas and autovias motorways have those safety results in Spain, while in Germany ...

This could be more constructive and more informative than just hiding some piece of information.

There is also a specification of what is counted: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/29567/3217334/Guidelines-Data-prov-Regional-V6.pdf/2db4a812-1b05-4335-97bf-6eaed8b0913c

388km?

Can someone explain me from where the 388km number is coming from as this clearly contradict the article in german where is it stated that half of the german highway have an advisory speed. Greatpatton (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it's an amazing misunderstanding by the film maker; I've removed it and added citations for 1350 carriageway-km of unrestricted autobahn in Baden-Württemberg alone.Duke Ganote (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too much speed limit details in the introduction

I think the section on speed limits in the introduction should be thinned out somewhat, and much of it moved to the speed limit section. However exciting the option of unrestricted speeding mayhem ;-) may seem to the rest of the world; once you're here, you will realize it is just not that big a deal for everyday autobahn usage. The vast majority of people just use that road to commute, safely and boring, from A to B - most of them trying not to burn up too much highly expensive fuel in the process. The issue is there, and there are heated debates at times, and it should by all means be included in the wiki. It just seems to me it's not important enough to warrant such a long stretch in the introduction.--Cancun771 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German-built Reichsautobahnen in other countries

Seeing as there is a whole other article on Reichsautobahnen, we should consider removing most of this subsection from this article and transferring it there, maybe with a short summary remaining.--Cancun771 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. A hatnote will indeed need to be added. Of course, the word "autobahn" in German means "freeway"; in English, however, the consensus below is that it simply means "Freeway in Germany". (non-admin closure) Red Slash 18:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German autobahns → Autobahn – This is the primary topic for Autobahn and "Autobahn" is shorter, more generic and accurate. It also redirects here already, so the title is available. The "German" in German autobahns is unnecessary and doesn't follow normal Wiki practice anyway (which prefers "Autobahns of Foo"). It will need a hatnote to point to Autobahns of Austria (are the latter actually called "autobahns"?) Bermicourt (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are highways in Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein which are indeed called Autobahn (never "autobahns"): see de:Autobahn (Österreich) and de:Autobahn (Schweiz).
As for the move request: what does it improve? As the nominator observes, Autobahn already redirects here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me try and explain further. We currently have Autobahns of Austria, Motorways of Switzerland and German autobahns. So there is no consistency and this article title contravenes the usual naming convention "Things of Place". To resolve this, either we say this is the primary topic and rename it Autobahn, which was my proposal, or we rename it to Autobahns of Germany and, by the way, move Motorways of Switzerland to Autobahns of Switzerland. Autobahn then becomes a dab page until someone writes a generic article. That was not my proposal but it would still make more sense than the current mish-mash of titles. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment
    1. why would the Swiss page move under that scenario? IT's Italian and French, as well as German. There is no reason I can see under your conditions to ever move the Swiss article, and if it did move, why wouldn't it be Autoroutes of Switzerland ?
    2. moving this to Autobahns of Germany is fine by me. Then Autobahn becomes a disambiguation page, like Autoroute
    -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The German ones are the primary topic and "autobahn" already redirects here anyway so there would be no additional steps for those seeking the Austrian or Swiss ones. — AjaxSmack 01:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONCISE. bd2412 T 15:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment check out de:Autobahn, especially under In anderen Sprachen (in other languages) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article de:Autobahn is not about the same subject as Autobahn; instead, that article describes what's known in English as Controlled-access highway. The names of articles in other languages on that subject are irrelevant to this discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Different background colour for A7 route marker?

At the top of the article, in the infobox, under the Autobahn sign, there are 3 route markers - for A3, A5 and A7. The background for A7 uses a different shade of blue than the other 2 route markers. Is this correct, or is this a mistake by the image uploader? If it's a mistake it's a bit annoying because it just seems out of place there. Photon man62 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the route marker images were originally uploaded to commons in 2005. Some, but not all, of them have since had the background colour changed to the correct digital shade of blue. As I do not know how to make that change, I have removed the A7 image (which still has the wrong background shade), and replaced it with a different, A1, image with the correct background shade. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

greening ref?

http://grist.org/list/overachieving-germans-to-green-the-autobahn/

<ref name="Core 2015">{{cite web | last=Core | first=Liz | title=Overachieving Germans to green the Autobahn | website=Grist | date=14 January 2015 | year=2015 | url=http://grist.org/list/overachieving-germans-to-green-the-autobahn/ | accessdate=15 January 2015}}</ref>

Bananasoldier (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Punct

In the German language the decimal mark is the comma , while in the English speaking world it is the period . This is a decision by governmental standards agencies and is not a simple social convention. When writing an article in English it is necessary to use 1.150 for a number slightly bigger than one, and to use 1,150 for a number slightly bigger than a thousand. I translated the numbers from the German into English, by replacing the German decimal mark with the English decimal mark. Nick Beeson (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autobahn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308080827/http://www.wabweb.net/verkehr/frames/abaltaf.htm to http://www.wabweb.net/verkehr/frames/abaltaf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inteactive map

this map is complete nonsense. i dont know where it comes from and who has drawn it, but ist clearly shows NOT the German autobahn system! e.g. the main motorway from Hamburg to Hannover and on (A7) is completely missing, as are many others. better delete this map than to provide such fakenews information!

It'd be nice if you signed your edits, even as IP. As to the map, removed it - most of the routes in and around Berlin are missing, as well as the upper rhine valley road. Among others, it would seem. While I don't see the added value as such, at least the work should be done before adding it to the article. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 3 years later and that incomplete map is still there. I do not feel comfortable deleting the content. But perhaps there is a way of reparing it? 2A02:2454:994D:4500:E40B:5E59:1374:415C (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering

Nonsense. A31, A30 and A33, for example, are at least in parts in Northrhine-Westpahlia, not exclusively in Lower Saxony and T. as stated. Who put this into the article, where is the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.27.150 (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top Speed

A czech millionaire driving a Bugatti at 417km/h on an empty autobahn A2 was acquitted from dangerous driving by the public prosecutor on 22 April 2022. https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/justiz/id_92059932/mit-417-stundenkilometern-ueber-a2-verfahren-eingestellt.html--H.F.Bär (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you told us this for a reason? Do you think it ought to be included in the article? Does anybody have any views on this? Spinney Hill (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Mayor

Zac67: NO "Lord Mayor" in Germany. It's an English title. There are Bürgermeister and Oberbürgermeister, or mayor, in English. ArgosAristos (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title and lede mismatch

Why is the article title not italicized, while The Autobahn is italicized in the lede? I would lean against italicization given that the Autobahn is a common English language term, but either option would be better than having the title not match the lede. :3 F4U (they /it) 20:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction focuses too much on speed limit

In its current state, almost the entire introduction is spent discussing the Autobahn's speech limit system. This seems to go against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section by placing undue weight on the speed limit, as opposed to things like the history and usage. Bold revisions to the introduction would really help improve the article. StereoFolic (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's what the Autobahn is famous for. Germany is the only country worldwide that does not have a legally set maximum speed limit. Nakonana (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]