> As a reminder, I'm not arguing speeding should be legal. I'm arguing that mandating speed limiters in cars is not a good solution. And the onus would be on the one arguing for the institution of such a regulation to justify it, which you have not done.

I would think that the reason for having speed limiters is fairly obvious: people don't follow speed limits, law enforcement is ineffective and unequally applied, and the result is that car accidents are the number 1 killer of people under 40 in the US. If mass death isn't enough justification for you, I don't know what will be.

And to be specific: this is the only solution on the table which has a real chance of changing the above.

> Whatever happened to "obviously there's some tradeoffs involved" in the case of banning driving?

This is absurd. Banning driving clearly has massive negative effects which far outstrip the risks to others which driving causes. You know this.

> Either creating risk for others alone is sufficient justification for the removal of a freedom, or it isn't.

Alone, it is.

But in the case of banning driving completely, it's not alone, there are other factors. Which you know.

There aren't other issues present with speeding. There literally is no reason to speed.

Stop trying to present this as a black and white issue: the world is full of shades of grey and nuance.

> You have to also consider the cost of the solution, the real-world measurable benefits of the solution, inefficiencies and inaccuracies of the solution (e.g. missing or defaced signage, signage read incorrectly), the risk that the solution itself creates (e.g. a car is being followed closely. Now when the speed limit changes, slowing down automatically, rather than at the driver's own discretion, creates risk for this driver) and many other factors.

Cost of the solution: cheaper than the medical cost of treating millions of car accident injuries, the cost of road cleanup, etc., probably. And that's just in terms of dollars: surely we can agree that human life has some non-monetary value.

Real world measurable benefits: fewer speeding deaths, less inequitable police enforcement of speeding laws, less cost.

Inefficiencies and inaccuracies: you seem to be dismissing speed limiters outright without actually picking a solution so that you can wave your hands about inefficiencies and inaccuracies of a solution which isn't actually specific enough for anyone to tell you what the inefficiencies and inaccuracies of the solution is. It seems you're aware that the issues you bring up such as missing and defaced signage, are already addressed in the proposed legislation, so what solution are you actually objecting to?

Consider the following speed limiter solution: in the US, the highest speed limits I'm aware of are 80mph, and most states max out at 70mph. Would you be opposed to a governor which simply prevents cars from driving faster than 80mph? What are the inefficiencies and inaccuracies of not being able to drag race with factory cars on public highways?

> The rest of your post is focused on a point I made about how society (in general, at least where I live - I don't know where you live and I obviously can't speak for you personally) already does not view speeding as something that could reasonably be enforced by mechanical limiter (since there are many situations where drivers facing unusual or extenuating circumstances are given leniency by cops and judges, and society tends to view this favorably, and tends to view harsh enforcement very unfavorably. This stands in contrast to the treatment and attitude toward most other crimes, where no excuse or extenuating circumstance tends to warrant leniency, unless the person literally had no other choice.) If you disagree with society on that point, then that's something you should take up with society. Regardless, it was a tangential point. (It was only worth mentioning because, society are the ones who elect the lawmakers at the end of the day. So they are ultimately the benchmark of whether a given legal doctrine is considered controversial or not.)

Yeah, that's because societal opinion on whether this could be enforced by a mechanical limiter is not in evidence. You're claiming society backs you up on this, which is simply not proven. Your examples of anti-speed-trap legislation are practically unrelated non sequiturs which assume a nonsensical motivation for those laws.