Anyway, dystopian films containing mass surveillance (such as Fahrenheit 451) also cover the very same practice.
The other requirement is the ability to change laws, otherwise this would indeed only enable selective (i.e. seemingly random) enforcement.
I am all for hardcoded speed limits. Why sell cars that can go faster than $MaxSpeedInYourCountry ???
Other than that I think you made a good point.
Recently, our county measured the speed on an 8 mile long rural road. Their conclusion was that there was no need to bump the existing speed limit of 45 up to 55 or 60 (to match similar roads) because people weren't going faster than 45 on it.
Why weren't people going faster than 45 on an empty, rural road? Because the sheriff's department enforced that 45mph speed limit very rigorously, with an average of one speed trap and one roving vehicle.
Why sell cars that can go faster
than $MaxSpeedInYourCountry ???
Politicians today have three choices:(1) Set and enforce low speed limits, large numbers of drivers make low-impact complaints.
(2) Set and enforce high speed limits, small numbers of parents of dead children make high-impact complaints.
(3) Set low speed limits but don't enforce them. Anti-speed campaigners and road users are both satisfied.
In my country, politicians tend to go for (3). A switch to (1) would not be without its costs.
A switch to (1) might have similar effects, motivating the people to force a switch to (2).
e.g. if almost everyone got speeding tickets, but they only cost $15 and didn't involve any points against the driver's record or insurance premium hikes, people would simply pay up and probably speed less often. complaints about the injustice of speeding tickets would probably remain at current levels.
Can't we just view "the right to speed" as a service offered by the government and then apply the usual price and demand logic to it?
Some enforcement has to be done or it gets out of hand ever so quickly
So if you take away people's means of breaking the law (such as auto speed-limited cars), it's actually striking at something really fundamental in the ability of the citizens to push for change or to protest. Almost like we want to have just the right amount of law breaking, although I can't imagine anyone associated with public policy ever adopting this stance.