[Nevermark]

> Though no one cares, I feel compelled to put down my 2 cents.

I am not sure if you are insulting everyone who reads your point, or your own ability to communicate.

But maybe interpret the ideas less as a dichotomy you can't untangle and so must reject, which is a fragile place to reason from, and instead identify what are good points, what are not, and improve upon either.

Because there is certainly a great deal of truth to the problems being addressed.

[zdragnar]

What truth? The whole article is absurd. Speed limits exist to reduce fatalities, not reduce inequality. Road speed limits in my area have been increasing, not decreasing, as road designs have improved. Distance didn't scale with speed either - the West was settled well before the automobile.

[RunSet]

> Speed limits exist to reduce fatalities

In the USA the national speed limit was implemented by Richard Nixon in response to the oil crisis of 1973. The motive was to reduce energy consumption, not to reduce fatalities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

[zdragnar]

As you might note in that link, the states already had their own speed limit laws in place, and that the national limit was later repealed. Thus, the speed limit laws are not in place to reduce gas usage.

[RunSet]

Even a single exception (which I furnished) is sufficient to invalidate the claim I quoted.

[zdragnar]

To fight pedantry with pedantry, I refer you again to my comment, which points out that exception no longer exists, and the original claim, which is in present tense.