By P Gosselin
Just 12 car trips person per year would be allowed!
The Berlin Constitutional Court has declared the “Berlin car-free” referendum admissible, paving the way for a possible drastic reduction in car traffic.
Hat-tip: Blackout News
Cars may soon be banned in Berlin. Image generated by Grok 3 AI
The court found that the aim of promoting health and climate protection is a legitimate legislative objective and that the draft does not violate fundamental rights.
There is no constitutional right to individual road use.
The initiative aims for a car-free Berlin center in which private car trips would be limited to just twelve per person per year. Exceptions would be for police, emergency services and people with mobility impairments. Delivery traffic and special cases such as services would be able to be approved digitally. The proponents argue that the aim is not to replace combustion engines with electric cars, but to reduce the total number of vehicles around the city center.
“We have won, right down the line: the future of Berlin belongs to safety, climate protection and the health of all Berliners – and not to unrestrained car traffic,” said the Volksentscheid Berlin autofrei (Referendum Berlin car-free) in a statement.
170,000 signatures needed for a referendum
Next, the initiative must collect 170,000 signatures within four months in order to bring about a binding referendum.
The initiative, however, faces opposition from various groups. Business associations, such as the Association of Business Associations in Berlin and Brandenburg (UVB), have warned that a widespread car ban would be a severe blow to the economy in the capital region. They fear reduced customer access, especially for businesses that rely on delivery services or customers traveling by car.
There are also concerns that restricting car use would interfere with property rights, as car owners within the affected zone would be limited in how they could use their vehicles near their homes. Many residents and businesses rely on cars for their daily commutes, deliveries, and other activities. The proposed restrictions, allowing only 12 private car trips per person per year within the city’s S-Bahn ring.
Critics also point to the current state of public transport infrastructure, expressing concerns about “significant bottlenecks” and overcrowding if a large number of car users switch to public transport. While Berlin has an extensive public transport network, it probably isn’t robust enough to handle such a massive shift.
The current conservative-led Senate under Mayor Kai Wegner (CDU) has actively opposed traffic reduction policies, campaigning against bicycle lane expansion, speed limits, and parking reductions. Residents should be able to choose their mode of transport, including cars.
While the court has deemed the initiative legally permissible, there remains a number of hurdles, including a potential referendum. Past experiences with referendums in Berlin show that implementation can be challenging due to political resistance.
There are also questions about how the 12-trip limit per person would be enforced, raising concerns about bureaucracy and data privacy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Welcome to North Korea, Berliners. Shoud work a treat, not!
Merry Christmas! (No L)
It is clear that Berlin’s lefties consider there to be too many people. Just like their forebears a hundred years ago.
Well, this is really going to protect the climate!!
Sure. More exercise, breathing harder, more CO2!
Strike me pink what the Hell good is that? It doesn’t bring in any loot to keep us betters and our flunkies in the manner to which we’re accustomed-
(430) How is this legal? This might be the worst policy in Australia. Topher Project Ep 109 – YouTube
Monkey see, monkey do, perhaps Mamdani will be on the fast track to ban cars in Manhattan.
German constitution – just as the US Constitution – gives you a right to be a moron.
Human beings are odd aren’t they?
So easily led or misled.
Having just spent several weeks travelling in Europe, a lot of it in large cities, I can see clearly that private car access in most major cities in Europe has to come to an end before long. The congestion is ridiculous, and isn’t sensible for most road users. Journeys at peak times are mostly at a standstill.
My view, and I believe the practicality, has nothing to do with climate or freedom. It’s just not sustainable as the number of cars increases, and roads cannot. Parking is also insane. A parking space in Sydney now is worth more than many houses in rural areas.
I have to say that motorbikes and 2-stroke scooters cause the majority of the pollution, too, though. They seem to be exempt from recent advances in (real) pollution control in cars.
Have you ever tried Napoli? You can play spot the car without a dent or ten….
I live near Napoli. I don’t drive there at all!
It does take a certain courage.
The one time I was in Naples I quickly learnt that traffic lights are a suggestion.
My experience is that pretty much every single road marking and sign south of Rome is a suggestion. My mother thought the Italians regarded them as decoration.
Strangely, traffic lights seem to be the only thing obeyed, except when mobile speed traps are in operation.
0It must be doubtful that 12 car trips per year per person or vehicle is achievable at any reasonable cost or in any reasonable time – certainly the planning and implementation would be formidable challenges. One would have to see the plan. It would involve a restructuring of the whole city’s business and social environment.
Is it a good idea in principle? No, but for a reason that no-one here will sympathize with. Because its letting the ideal and unachievable be the enemy of the good and achievable. We have given our cities over to cars, which is to say for the most part, we have prioritized the wishes of people driving through streets to those of people livng, working, shopping, playing in them.
Stand by the side of the road in one of London’s large arteries in rush hour, or indeed any weekday during working hours and ask yourself whether you would really want to live there. Maida Vale, the A12 on the east side, Euston Road.
Just as everyone would probably cast their vote for being able to drive through, because they do not experience the local damage. Just as lots of people will vote for a car ban because they want to stop the local damage, and never mind the larger economic effects.
The problem with the Berlin proposal is that it proposes the unachievable, and will lead to the rejection of less radical, but necessary, effective and more reasonable proposals along with it.
The sensible reaction to the current state of European cities is not to ban cars, nor is it to persist with the present free-for-all. Its to limit them and make space for people walking or cycling. The part of the post that says:
The current conservative-led Senate under Mayor Kai Wegner (CDU) has actively opposed traffic reduction policies, campaigning against bicycle lane expansion, speed limits, and parking reductions. Residents should be able to choose their mode of transport, including cars.
This is wrong. The problem is that if you do not make proper provision for people walking and cycling, you will not have any. Roads, like London roads, which try to combine cars, trucks and bikes will always fail. When people find out just how dangerous it is to cycle on them, they stop.
The only solution anyone has discovered so far is the Dutch one. Segregate people walking and cycling from cars and trucks. Heavily restrict through car traffic to essential routes. Accept that people are going to want to drive, but accept also that people are going to want to walk and bike, and provide for them too with equal energy to that put into car facilities..
What, the car enthusiasts ask, are the benefits?
Well, in Holland before the bike path building program, in 1971, 3,300 people died on Dutch roads, including 500 children. By 2023, the population increased by 30%, traffic deaths fell to 684 overall. Child traffic fatalities (under 15) fell from over 400 in 1972 to just 20 in 2023. It can and should be done.
If you look at global statistics, the WHO in its 2023 report gives total deaths of 1.2 million in 2021.
If anyone had proposed, back in 1900, that we should introduce a means of transport with all the convenience of the car, but with the inconvenient side effect that it would kill 1.2 million people a year, and seriously injure 20-50 million, do you think we would have voted for it?
The Dutch model is worth trying, because the current death and injury total is unjustifiable, and it can be dramatically reduced. With restrictions and alternate provision.
There are of course the usual maniacs who think the right to drive at speed through any street they feel like is a human right, and that any restrictions on it are converting the country into North Korea, fascistic….etc etc.
They need to go stand by the A12 entering London in the rush hour. And then go visit some accident and emergency facilities. The question is not whether we should restrict car use in cities, and provide for walkers and cyclists. Not ‘provide better’, because up the now the policy has mostly been not to provide at all. The question is how to do it and where to draw the limits. And how to make an implementation plan with minimal disruption.
Probably going for the record on down-votes with this one! But before you vote, think again about that number. 1.2 million a year. Think what that means.
We live on a planned community on the Southern California coastal plain. The City has always had nice wide bicycle lanes on every major thoroughfare. Ratrlu used except by bicycle clubs who persist in riding 4 – 6 abreast, thereby fouling a traffic lane. Kids riding bikes, e-scooters and e-bikes ride on the sidewalks. There is an area of roadworks with clearly posted signs instructing bicyclists to follow a detour, as the bicycle lane is obstructed.obstructed. Periodically a bicyclist exercise his natural right to ride eher ha damn well pleases, in the remaining traffic lane.
We provided bike lanes but they are rarely used. Bicyclists obstruct traffic. And the numbskull kids ride on the sidewalks.
Sorry, little sympathy here.
What most of the wannabe Tour racers don’t realize is that they are universally despised by everyone else. Their actions when on their form of “exercise” seriously degrade the reputations of all other users of alternative transportation.
I would not mind if my tax dollars went to improving the alternative forms of transportation. Here where I am in rural northern Florida, there are none of the luxuries that many of the more populated areas enjoy. There are no bike lanes and very often no shoulders on the high speed roads. It’s rather funny that just 16 miles from my house is a bicycle route that stretches from St Augustine, FL to Los Angeles, CA called the Southern Tier. Anything off that route is very dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists, so much so that even seeing one is a rarity. No kids on bicycles, no dog walkers, no joggers, only motor vehicles.
As an automotive engineer for the past 59 years, I have an affinity for automobiles. As a driver of cars, I regularly drive through the metropolitan areas of Dallas-Fort Worth and Chicago. I have never stopped to get out of my car in either of them, even after all these years. I drive through them only because the interstate highway system makes it necessary. Even with regular stop-and-go traffic for most of the trips, the quickest way to get beyond these centers is to drive through them. The interstate highways AROUND them are now clogged with traffic as the centers have grown.
The interstate highway system was mostly designed to CONNECT metropolitan centers, not to avoid them. Alternate routes are much longer and simply take too much time, in spite of the stop-and-go traffic within them.
The concept of eliminating auto traffic in city centers certainly has merit. However, it requires much more than simply passing a law. It would require a complete restructuring of the interstate highway system to avoid metropolitan centers. It would also require large bands around these centers, with adequate parking and transportation for those who actually wish to stop in the centers. Both of these requirements would be prohibitively expensive.
The original Interstate Highway design was to bypass major cities and have spurs into them. This was seldom implemented and any attempts to do so demonstrated that those who came up with the idea must have slept through grade school geography – where we all learned that people live and work along transportation systems! So Interstates (like the “bypass loops”) attracted development and became in some cases more congested that the routes right through the city – and longer.
30 years ago we saw images of everyone in China getting around on bicycles. For some reason they decided to drive cars instead. I wonder if they’ll become enlightened and go back to bikes. /s
Go to youtube and search for “China e-scooter fires”.
.Yikes!
e-scooters are for lazy people- I love biking using my leg muscles
Try riding a bike in winter.
It’s all in how you prepare for the commute.
From 1999 to 2015 while living and working in Denver, Colorado and elsewhere, I stopped driving a motor vehicle completely and used a two wheel bicycle exclusively to get everywhere. Denver has an extensive public transportation system connecting most of the city and it’s suburbs. Never missed a day of work because of my choice of transportation even though my commutes were 10-25 miles one way. Even during the Holiday Blizzards of 2006 when the city shut down to the massive amounts of snow & wind, I went to work each day.
This all culminated when I left Denver in 2012 on a 3-wheel recumbent pedal tricycle and traveled 2,600 miles to Pensacola, Florida, a journey of 3 months. I now live in a very rural part of Florida where riding a bicycle or tricycle is very dangerous due to the farm roads and county highways with high speed traffic and loose animals.
OK, cool- you’re happy to bike in extreme weather. Most people aren’t into that. I’ve been biking for about 65 years- but in decent weather. If I bike in cold weather, my head gets chilled and get sinus problems- and, I sweat even in cold weather when exerting myself- and that’s not fun in cold weather. Good way to get sick. If it’s your choice, I think it’s very good- as long as you’re not doing it out of poverty. I think it’s fine for cities to have bike lanes for those who like bikes. I’d never use an electric bike. I want the exercise. I’ve always liked biking up steep hills for the thrill of going down fast.
Wouldn’t say it was a great time cycling in extreme weather conditions, but preparation is the key item, here.
Starting with a balaclava or full face covering for the head & neck, ski goggles for the eyes. Thermal underclothes and wind resistant outerwear and biking boots for the feet. You want to warm the air slightly before breathing it in.
The “typical” clothing worn by the wannabe Tour riders during the warmer months, the object is to remove the sweat allowing the body to cool. It is the complete opposite during the cooler & winter months where sweating profusely is highly discouraged. That means that attempting to maximize the body performance on each and every moment on the bike is turned to simple endurance for the weather conditions and NOT sweating profusely.
Long distance bicycle riders don’t usually attempt the short energetic trips as that greatly reduces the total miles in a day overall. Try doing 100 miles as fast as you can, camp out somewhere and get up and do it all over again day after day. Sure, it can be done, but where is the fun in that?
Downhills are always great fun on bicycles & tricycles. On my little trip to Florida, there was a hill on the Kansas Missouri border where I reached 50 mph according to the bike computer. That was on the recumbent pedal tricycle towing a trailer. Only slowed down due to I had no idea of what was coming up. The HP Velotechnik Gekko trike was extremely stable at that speed
The last time I had to take public transit in Denver, it took 30 – 50% longer than driving.
Dealing with day care and other hard time limits prevent the luxury of time.
Having the luxury of time for the very few does not overcome the lack of luxury for the majority.
I completely agree with the transit times. But life is a series of choices that you make. I’ve always had the opinion that if you are on time, you are 15 minutes late.
Bring back sedan chairs!
The whole idea is missing the forest for the trees. It’s treating symptoms and not the disease.
I have always been impressed with St. Louis and how it functions with its light rail. They have large access points with plenty of parking and frequent stops. It might take a little while to get from a suburb to downtown but not as long of a wait as contending with congested auto traffic would be. The traffic downtown, while heavy, is not hard to navigate. There is sufficient parking downtown for those who have driven there, perhaps with a little bit of a walk involved but not torturous hike.
Boston is similar with its train system but it doesn’t seem to have the large access areas with parking at all access points.
For Berlin, or any other big city, to emulate such a system would be expensive and involve a long time of execution. But it is the *only* way to treat such a disease. Treating symptoms only allows the disease to progress, perhaps along a different path but still progress.
Well good. We can all sit back and watch the experiment.
“They’re just encouraging it”, “They won’t make it a law”, “Nobody’s going to tell you that you can’t drive”
How did that turn out?
Are people being forced under penalty of law to drive within the city limits of Berlin, or are people doing that voluntarily?
If I read this correctly, the legislature has a greater Right to lie about “promoting health and climate protection” and then follow that up with garden variety tyranny and sadism than the citizens have in choosing their form of mobility.
Of course, the population never really had a choice in the whole matter. Their legislature decided for them that their homeland would be handed over to invading hoards, that the people had no Right at all to patronize companies willing to produce reliable and inexpensive energy, that too , the government has decided is too much for the people, and now the legislature has greater rights, that is fundamental Rights to impose upon other human beings their demonic motives.
A kind reminder why the Declaration of Independence was written, and a reminder as to why we should regularly primary our senators and representatives each election cycle so that these tyrants have to go home and live under the rules and religious observations that they impose. So we won’t be like Germany where courts have turned the term “fundamental Right” into a meaningless joke.
I hope that Volkswagen and other German automobile manufacturers take note that not only has their legislatures made manufacturing expensive in their country, but also hates the idea that customers would use those products.
Its a big world out there, might want to consider your chances operating somewhere else.
I predicted this 20 years ago. Makes sense it would start in Europe. Govt has free reign.
Logical progression from controlling ambient air quality, net zero policies, and urban growth controls.
Easier to implement infrastructure demands for electricity based transport.
The challenge is squeezing ‘renewable energy’ from the unreliable, heavily subsidized sources.
Govt embraces control, regulations, and graft…all features of this outwardly looking draconian measure.
But the cities are inhabited mostly by the indigent, the wealthy, and the govt. All progressives. Or ‘leftist’ for concise comparisons–hapless leftist and philanthropic leftists and absolutist control leftists.
One of the base supporting features of nuclear energy resurgence…govt sees the gap stopping their extension of control. Reliable energy that is mostly independent of fossil fuels.
Electric transport will be central and within a city boundary and mandatory…coming to a metropolis near you. Hope I’m wrong.
I’ll bet that government employees will be exempt from such laws. Their work is critical (in their own minds).
“Just 12 car trips person per year would be allowed!“
Just enough to get away with selling exceptions and special passes without high visibility?
Stupid is who stupid does, well and since you can’t fix stupid.
Lefties and ecotards want to reduce population, well then lead by good example and jump off a bridge first, the rest will follow other and better examples…like having a beer or bbq.
No exceptions if you don’t want your emergency services to arrive on foot or by bicycle you need to be against this insanity.
City/urban congestion is a real issue.
The solutions need to be carefully thought through. Cost being a factor. Inconvenience being a factor. And then there are all those unintended consequences that no one thinks of or plans for.
Bottom line is balance.
The rights of one individual end when they infringe on the rights of another.
There is always the freedom of choice and the right to mobility. Those cannot be stripped away by edict, but communities can achieve balanced compromise.
It will evolve. Let it evolve sensibly.