No of course that’s not my position, that’s quite a conclusion to jump to. But I’ve definitely seen a lot of drivers going 35-40mph in 25mph pedestrian-heavy zones where they should be driving the speed limit or possibly even slower. Those drivers are barely saving seconds of time in their travels while increasing the risk to bystanders dramatically.
What I’m trying to say centers on this:
You say you’ve seen restricted highways with posted speed limits below reasonable and appropriate speeds.
My point is that if all drivers are limited to that lower speed, there is nothing unsafe about going “too slow.” Your opinion that it’s unreasonable is based on convenience, not safety.
E.g., urban freeways where the speed limit is 50 but most drivers are going 70 and some drivers are going much faster. That’s a dangerous situation. What ISN’T dangerous is if everyone was governed electronically by 50mph by that road. If everyone is limited to 50mph that dangerous speed differential has been removed and it’s safer.
Presumably the government could wait until basically all drivers have a vehicle with this technology and then flip the switch on the actual governing feature.
Maybe this is “anti-freedom” and all that, but my hypothesis would be that road deaths would decrease.
Almost 1/3 of all driving fatalities involve excessive speed: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding...
On a tangent, I have a theory that drivers who demand high throughput and fast speeds want to avoid the uncomfortable truth that alternatives like public transit and cycling are more efficient modes of atransportation. When we look at some urban freeways that slow to a crawl during commuting hours and the local news tells me that the average speed is 27 mph, that just tells me that more people should be commuting on alternatives like e-bikes, buses, and trains, because these personal vehicles that supposedly save so much time and convenience are no longer doing so.