This is 100% a political issue. Instead of introducing privacy-violating software, we could instead institute massive policing campaigns to curb speeding. But that would require actual effort by police, something they don't want to do.
Policing in a country filled to the brim with private firearms and a lot of people desperate to avoid serious consequences makes "massive policing campaigns" often lead to high-profile deaths.
Chicago tried to put cops in the CTA stations/trains and within weeks a man accused of "walking between CTA cars", techically a forbidden thing but commonplace and relatiely victimless, was shot in the back fleeing.
It's a political issue but really a design issue. Unfair speed limits do color our perception of speed limits in general, because they are often not set correctly for the design speed of the road, but are set correctly for the present danger certain speeds in that context exhibit. It is a warranted, justfied emotional reaction to the speed limit; we feel fine driving the design speed, yet are punished for making the road "unsafe". It's entirely reasonable to doubt it. The design speed should match, and even be slightly lower, than the intended speed limit of the road.
Also in Chicago, recently a 25mph speed limit failed to pass in the city council. I was all for it, but saddened the ordinance did nothing to demand local, county, and state DOTs to redesign roads. I live next to a very wide, four lane road with middle turn lane. The blanket speed limit in Chicago is 30mph. The road I live next too feels downright comical at 30mph. Everyone does 40 because it feels natural to do that. But at 30mph, I might die if I get hit crossing that road. At 40, it is all but guaranteed.
