They didn't win really. There was a coalition of the "Social Democrats", Greens and Left. Because the "Social Democrats" are utterly incompetent, the state election had to be repeated because they fucked up the election process.

In the repeated election the Greens and Left had about the same votes and the "Social Democrats" lost hard. Still the coalition maintained a majority and could have continued. Instead the "Social Democrats" betrayed the coalition, claimed the election was a "clear signal against it" and became the smaller partner to the nationalist Berlin CDU, who campaigned on the notion that your surname shows whether you are a "real" German or merely a German citizen.

It is the classical liberals backstabbing progressives to embrace right/far-right politics move.

Now this current government has set out to destroy every achievement of the old government while ignoring the grave issues with housing, infrastructure, social security, climate mitigation...

Now of course after two years of that, the current government is deeply unpopular, but such is the cycle of Berlin. Have a reasonable government manage somewhat, then people elect the reactionaries, believing they would "fix" things only to fuck everything up more and have the progressive government after try to pull the cart out of the ~~dirt~~ sinkhole.

So lets go ahead and conserve destructive policies.

The fact that they have improved air quality is not sufficient reason? Do they think air quality is like painting a house, that it only has to be done every couple of years?

The air is better, but if we keep not ruining it, it will be too good.

Then the lungs of our children will grow weak.

That is the reason they used to create them, but municipalities do have the right to create 30km/h zones in any residential area they choose, as long as it is not a major road.

It hasnt it will take another 60 years to fully recover

Don't give them ideas, they already want to bring back asbestos.

Good luck with that...

If the Onion is not out of business yet, it will be soon. Reality is more ridiculous than what they can come up with...

That's something I noticed in the last two weeks that I spent in the UK. You simply cannot reach the speed limit. If you actually drive through a normal UK city at the given speed limits, you'll lose your dentures or your teeth, and/or your car.

I was sent by my GPS on a "road" that was about as wide as my car. Left and right it was greens, more than a mans height, and the "road" zig-zagged through nowhere. You had to drive at walking speed around the corners, as there was traffic in both directions. Official speed limit: 50mph / 80km/h

Seriously.

Case in point, I had a student once who had a note on file to watch for seizures. Me and other teachers/staff were puzzled as this student didn’t have this worry of seizures the years before — turns out the children’s home they were housed at took them OFF the anti-seizure medication they were on, noting that the student didn’t need the medicine anymore as they were not showing signs of seizures. WTF?!

Sorry to spew political rhetoric like vomit everywhere, but this reminds me of the same self-inflicted idiocy of trump and his cultists.

This. It devinetively took some time to adjust to just going to the next station waiting a few minutes and then driving where you want to. Driving a car in Berlin is borderline stupidity. The public transit is literally insane.

The evidence of studies says that you are wrong.

Here are some key points from a study summary that was made for London: 20mph zones do not appear to worsen air quality and they dramatically reduce road danger. They also support a shift to walking and cycling, generate less traffic noise and reduce community severance. In 20mph zones vehicles move more smoothly with fewer accelerations and decelerations. This driving style produces fewer particulate emissions.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/speed-emissions-and-health.pdf

Lower speeds reduce road danger

Are extra casualties and reduced freedom for people who aren't driving worth the few minutes saved for a minority of people?

Tire and brake particulate is a real air quality impact that is either worse with EVs (for tire particulate because they are heavier) or mitigated, but still present for EVs (for brake particulate because regenerative braking reduces but does not eliminate the use of physical brake pads). For ICE cars (which are still the dominant form of car when looking at what's on the road today), efficiency might go up in terms of fuel consumed per mile at a steady speed of 90 kph, but urban driving involves a lot of stopping and going, and reducing the speed limit reduces the amount and intensity of acceleration being done, which is where emissions are going to be worst. Also, the existence of 30 kph zones encourages alternatives to driving, whether that is low-no emission modes like walking, biking, or transit, or moving car trips away from the 30 kph zones to other areas (there's a potential negative externality to the latter, but if done well, this can move car airborne emissions away from where a lot of people live and play and towards corridors and areas that are designed with uses that are more tolerant to poor outdoor air quality (e.g.: industrial parks, generally lower density areas, etc.)). That's not to mention road vehicle noise pollution (sometimes considered part of air pollution, but most times not) and safety benefits that come alongside the air quality benefits discussed in this article from having fewer and slower cars

in general, efficiency goes up till ~90km/h.

Are you talking about fuel efficiency or total emission though? The efficiency might go up but the emission might still go up, it might be less emission per km/h but maybe not per km.

Slow speeds make public transit a little more attractive to people on a time budget.