It's just: I can go faster, if I want to (or for some reason need to).
I'm really not a fan of doing the Apple thing and to infantilize the user by disallowing sideloading because it's dangerous.
The discussion got dragged to compare force and impact but similarly to train tracks, highways are usually a place of motion. People don't walk around and cars are usually also fast.
We counter the emergency situation such as the infamous end of a traffic jam by adding brake assistants that warn the driver to brake and then hit the brake on their own. This kind of technology seems to reduce traffic incidents so that the most danger comes from older cars without this technology.
I completely agree, that we don't need hyper cars or racing cars on the road. But the 100 mph limit wouldn't help at all in cities. There are better ways like obstacles that force a driver to slow down or routing with curves instead of straight lines.
I really don't care for your analogy, speeding is a choice that puts others at risk and I think safety rules that protect everyone from each other, are far from infantilism.
But also, we shouldn't let perfect get in the way of good. Blocking 100mph+ may only improve safety on faster roads, but that's still a gross improvement. A few people a year are caught doing 150mph on 60mph single carriageways near me. Far more nationally, far more never caught, and exponentially more on superbikes.
If there's no legal reason to do 100mph on any road, why not just stop it being an option? Remove that temptation. It will save far more lives than it costs.
I completely agree, that we don't need hyper cars or racing cars on the road. But the 100 mph limit wouldn't help at all in cities. There are better ways like obstacles that force a driver to slow down or routing with curves instead of straight lines.