110 km/h on the highway? The reason will surprise you!

Wait a minute – would driving slower shorten travel times? Well, that's according to studies from abroad, which show that lower speed reduces the phantom congestion. So, less of that familiar scenario where everyone suddenly brakes for no reason, like they've seen a ghost. A shorter average speed means smoother traffic. So why is 110 km/h on the highway – the speed that shortens the travel time.

But let's leave ecology aside for a moment - today we'll just talk about safety and flow. Let's see how they've done it elsewhere and what it would mean for our highways.

Our highways – too spicy soup?

Our highways they are like that overly spicy soup – everything is in there, but nothing is right. The official limit is 130 km/h, but the reality? People are speeding at 160 km/h or more, while some in the lane are driving 90 km/h, as if they were on a Sunday outing. The result? Huge speed differences between lanes, which turn traffic into a time bomb. The chance of an accident increases dramatically.

And then comes that moment when a minor collision occurs that shouldn't cause a traffic jam - and it does. Why? Because there's always someone who has to slow down and analyze the accident in detail, like they're evaluating an art painting in a gallery. Meanwhile, the line of cars behind them stretches into infinity.

What do the experiences of other countries say?

Italy

In 2005, a system was introduced in Italy Tutor (segment speed measurement), which reduced the average speed of vehicles by 10 % and reduced the speed dispersion by as much as 26 %. Smaller speed difference = fewer accidents. The result? On the A56 motorway near Naples, accidents fell by 32 %.

In Italy, they did not lower the speed limit from 130 km/h, but instead controlled traffic so that the average speed remained below that value. Sectional speed measurement caused drivers to drive more evenly, which reduced the number of accidents by more than 30 %. As a result, there were fewer accidents and less congestion due to accidents.

Austria and Germany

On two-lane motorways in Austria, the speed limit is 110 km/h just before the exit. What's more, even on multi-lane roads, the speed limit is reduced 500 meters before the exit to make traffic flow more smoothly. No one complains about this.

Those of you who have driven in Germany, France or the Benelux countries know that the speed limit often drops to 110 km/h even on very wide and good quality motorways. In the Netherlands, the speed limit has even been lowered to 100 km/h during the day, and at night they allow faster driving (120-130 km/h). Studies have shown that the flow rate has increased, not decreased, and the average journey time has been shortened.

Impact on traffic flow and throughput

One of the main arguments against a lower limit is the fear of longer journeys and increased traffic congestion. However, experience and research show that reducing speed can maintain or even improve fluidity, especially in heavy traffic. At very high speeds, individual vehicles cover the distance faster, but increased safety distances and more frequent braking due to differences in speed reduce the actual road capacity (vehicles per hour). A motorway has its highest flow at speeds of around 80–100 km/h, when vehicles drive in a coordinated, dense flow. If everyone drives at 130 km/h, the moment there is a reduction in speed (due to a slower vehicle or an obstacle), braking shocks are created, which can develop into a traffic jam. At 110 km/h, these shocks are less severe. Traffic experts from the Netherlands estimate that lowering the limit from 130 to 100 km/h increases motorway capacity by approximately 1–2 %​. This is not much, but can make decisions on sections that are just before saturation – a few percent higher throughput means that the congestion occurs later or is less extensive. In practice: a motorway where drivers currently slow down to ~80 km/h during rush hour might be able to handle the flow without a drop in speed with a lower limit, or the speed would only drop to, say, 90 km/h instead of 70–80 km/h. Of course Miracles should not be expected – traffic jams will still occur on the busiest roads during peak hours (if traffic capacity is exceeded)​, but slightly later and perhaps on a shorter section.

Lower speeds and smoother driving reduce the occurrence of “phantom traffic jams”, when there is no obvious reason for a queue, yet vehicles are stopped due to speed fluctuations. This is exactly the phenomenon highlighted by the Climate Council - slower, more consistent driving prevents wavy braking, thereby reducing sudden stops without cause​. This means smoother traffic flow and less time wasted in queues. The fact is that in current In traffic, the difference between 130 and 110 km/h only means a difference of a few minutes per hundred kilometers traveled. Travel time practically does not change noticeably due to the slightly lower speed – ideally, a 100 km journey takes 46 minutes at 130 km/h and 54 minutes at 110 km/h (8 minutes difference per 100 km). In reality, however, travel times on motorways often depend on traffic conditions, not just the speed limit. If a single traffic jam or collision is prevented with a measure, much more than these few minutes can be saved. In Zurich, for example, after the introduction of lower speed zones, it was found that even shortened the average travel timebecause traffic has become less “zig-zag” and more fluid. We also find an example in Slovenia: on a section of the Ljubljana bypass, where variable limit (90 km/h in heavy traffic), drivers are more likely to drive a section at a lower speed during rush hour than they were before at 100+ km/h and then stopping in traffic jams. Active cruise control (like variable restrictions in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany) are all based on the finding that Reducing speed at critical moments improves flow and increases actual travel speed – paradoxically, in a crowd it is sometimes slower – faster. Therefore, the argument that 110 km/h will cause general congestion is not true; on the contrary, it may reduce it. Traffic flow will be more even, there will be less “zig-zagging” between lanes and sudden acceleration/braking, which now often cause congestion.

Last but not least, fewer accidents mean less congestion due to accidents. On motorways, a large proportion of major traffic jams occur due to traffic accidents – in which case the road may be partially or completely closed, and the elimination of the consequences takes time. If we reduce speed and thereby prevent accidents or at least reduce their severity, we will have fewer extraordinary events that paralyze traffic. This improves reliability of travel times (less likely to have unforeseen delays). In traffic engineering, it is often emphasized that reliable, slightly longer travel time better than shorter average time with high risk of very long delayFrom the perspective of logistics and road users, this is a significant advantage: a 110 km/h limit would probably reduced extreme congestion, when the journey takes 2 hours instead of 30 minutes due to an accident. This would perhaps keep average travel times similar, variance travel time would be reduced – which is a positive effect on mobility in a broader sense.

Why 110 km/h in Slovenia – and what else needs to be done?

Theoretically, reducing the speed limit would mean a smoother traffic flow and fewer accidents. But – in Slovenia we have a problem that is not just speed. Our motorways are more winding and narrow than those in Germany or the Netherlands. Besides – how is a lower limit going to help if no one is already following it?

If we lower the speed limit from 130 km/h to 110 km/h, many drivers will still drive 130 km/h. But far fewer will drive 150 km/h or more. We will calm traffic by about 15 %, which could reduce the number of accidents by at least a third.

The solution therefore lies not only in changing the restriction, but primarily in:

• stricter control and sectional measurements,
• improving driving culture,
• smarter traffic organization.

---

What about the third lane?

Every time someone mentions a third lane, we imagine wide German motorways. But the reality here? To widen it, we would have to demolish 70 % overpasses. Our motorways were designed in such a way that we simply cannot widen them without major construction work. If we were to make a 3rd lane out of a shoulder, we would create a new potentially dangerous situation every 2-3 kilometers – merging into the lane itself. And thus caused more “situations” that could lead to more accidents. 

It would make more sense to:

• invest in better workplace organization (night work so we don't stand in lines at three in the afternoon when someone is playing with a shovel),
• to tighten the punitive policy (in Switzerland, the fine for speeding is tied to income – an idea for our budget?).

And the last lifeline: FENCES. Lots of fences.

Not because of the noise, but because of the thoughtless staring at construction sites. You know when traffic comes to a complete standstill because everyone is watching the excavator move? Or even worse – how a road worker plays with a traffic sign?

But not only on construction sites. Higher fences between lanes would reduce the visual perception of the width of the road, causing drivers to subconsciously drive slower. This is not science fiction – it actually works. Try to observe how traffic behaves on the motorway towards Venice, where such barriers have already been installed. The Italians have been using roadside fence extensions for decades to reduce speed – based on a purely psychological effect.

The same effect – or an additional one – is also achieved by shorter center lines, which create the impression of greater speed due to optical illusions, causing drivers to automatically slow down. Sometimes it is necessary to use optical illusions on highways.

The feasibility of introducing 110 km/h on motorways in Slovenia

Based on the presented data and experience, we can conclude that the introduction of a 110 km/h limit on Slovenian motorways would be beneficial from a safety and flow perspective. justified and reasonableKey arguments in favor: significantly lower risk of traffic accidents (predictably much fewer fatalities and serious injuries) and calmer, smoother traffic flow with fewer sudden stops. Examples from other countries show that the reduction in speed does not result in significantly longer travel times, rather the opposite – traffic flows more predictably. Traffic safety would be improved due to shorter braking distances, more reaction time and lower crash energies at 110 km/h. In addition, more consistent speeds between slower and faster vehicles reduced dangerous situations and overtaking maneuvers. Also traffic flow would at least be maintained, if not locally improved, with a lower limit – especially in heavy traffic, when a lower speed prevents congestion and increases road capacity. It is important to add that the introduction should be monitored appropriate supervision and awareness-raising drivers, because only respected The limit brings benefits that studies show. Experience (e.g. from the Netherlands) is optimistic, as drivers adapt to the new rules in the long term and no longer exceed the limit significantly, even at night.

Setting aside the environmental benefits that brought the initiative to the table in the first place, the safety and flow arguments remain strong enough on their own. Every life saved and every accident prevented is a direct consequence that is difficult to ignore. In transport policy, the goal of zero fatalities (“Vision Zero”) is highly dependent on road speeds – motorways already have one of the lowest accident rates per kilometre travelled, but they still happen (15 people died on Slovenian motorways in 2022). A 110 km/h measure could reduce this number even further. At the same time, it would have an impact on greater driving smoothness: Slovenian motorways are often congested, especially the Primorska and Styria directions during the tourist season, when even 130 km/h is not possible most of the time. A lower limit would hardly affect the speed here (since it is already limited by traffic), but would reduce the differences when traffic clears.

We can conclude that the introduction of 110 km/h for security reasons very likely to bring fewer accidents, fewer injuries and fewer fatalities​, from a flow point of view well smoother traffic with fewer sudden congestion​. It is expected that average travel times would not be significantly longer – about a minute or two on a typical motorway section, but this could be outweighed by the time savings from less congestion. Overall, the arguments in favor of 110 km/h are convincing.Of course, it will be necessary to further examine the specific Slovenian conditions (traffic flows, sections with more accidents, impact on economic flows), but previous studies and foreign experiences indicate that such a measure is a step towards safer and more efficient highwaysSlovenia would thus join the group of countries that set life and fluidity before speed, which is increasingly emphasized in today's transport strategies. Introduction of 110 km/h on motorways therefore seems justified and sensible, especially if accompanied by surveillance, awareness-raising and perhaps a transitional test period to gain social consensus - similar to how we have adopted other safety measures over time (e.g. seat belts), a slightly lower speed on the motorway could become the new norm for the benefit of all road users.

---

So what to do? Real solutions that are cheaper than new roads!

Instead of unnecessary debates about the 110 km/h limit, we mainly need:

• Stricter control and sectional measurementsthat the punishment will really be a punishment.
• Better driving culture – less aggression, less stupidity.
• Smart infrastructure solutions – not a third lane, but better traffic organization.
• Fewer opportunities to pointlessly stare at accidents and construction sites.

If we take at least some of these points into account, traffic will flow faster - without constant braking due to reckless drivers and pointless traffic jams. This way, we will get to our destination faster than if we had a highway without a limit and drove at 200 km/h. By simply reducing the limit from 130 km/h to 110 km/h, we would reduce unwanted incidents on the road by at least 1/4. This would increase the flow of roads.

And we'll lose even less nerves. Which is not exactly negligible in traffic, right?