The problem I have with this is always the “when is it enough”? Setting is speed limit of 130 is not unreasonable. But the exact same arguments apply for a spee

The problem I have with this is always the “when is it enough”? Setting is speed limit of 130 is not unreasonable. But the exact same arguments apply for a speed limit of 120. Or 100. Or 80. Or 60. Or 30. It basically the same as the Apple CSAM issue: where is acceptable to impose restrictions to freedom, or to impose inconvenience, for a marginal improvement to safety. It’s frustrating to see essentially the same issue come up so many times, without having any real framework to discuss it. (See: gun-laws, speed limits, CSAM-scanners, porn internet filters like in the UK). It makes it very easy for the side advocating for stricter regulations to twist the argument into something that cannot easily be countered (“Think of the children! You surely don’t want [bad thing] to happen?!”)