Speed limiters now mandatory in all new EU cars

Sorry, how? You keep claiming this is a privacy concern, but so far, I see no evidence whatsoever that implementation of this anti-speeding regulation requires violations of privacy rights, or is planned to include violations of privacy rights.

It's beginning to sound like you just want to speed and are trying to justify that position by claiming that it's a violation of privacy when it simply isn't. If some form of enforcement violates people's rights to privacy, I'll oppose that, but I'm not going to oppose speeding regulation that saves lives on the basis that hypothetical enforcement options violate privacy rights. There are plenty of ways to implement anti-speeding enforcement that don't violate privacy rights.

Your argument right now is tantamount to claiming we can't have laws that might be enforced by violating people's privacy, but that logic applies to a whole lot of laws which you obviously don't support reversing. Should child pornography be legal? Should blowing up planes? Laws against those things have been implemented in ways that violate people's rights to privacy far more often than speeding. And I do agree that we should enforce those laws without violating people's privacy, but obviously we agree we can't just legalize those things because they might be enforced using methods that violate the right to privacy.

You can, in fact, dismiss the argument of personal freedom purely on the basis that someone is creating a life and death risk for others, though. You've presented no cogent argument otherwise.

> The concept that a driver would sometimes be given the freedom to surpass the speed limit, when they judge it necessary, is not even particularly controversial.

We're in the middle of a controversy on this topic, therefore it is in fact controversial. QED.

> Police use broad discretion to not enforce speed limits to the letter of the law.

Yes, and that is clearly an abuse of power--one of many police abuses of power that our society is struggling to curb. Is that really the argument you want to be making?

> In fact many states have laws that crack down on police departments staging "speed traps" to generate speeding ticket revenue.

Yes: and why is that? Is it because they think police should have discretion to not enforce the letter of the law? How on earth does that follow?

> Which is society's way of saying that, yes, speeding is illegal, but that illegality isn't meant to be a lever for government oppression.

Alternative explanation: this is society's way of saying that, yes, speeding is illegal, but road infrastructure should be designed to make the law useful and possible to follow.

The "no speed traps" laws I'm aware of are focused on a) giving drivers signage that adequately indicates a change in speed limit in advance to give drivers a chance to adjust their speed, and b) removing police perverse incentives to enforce the law in ways that don't achieve its purpose. These laws address very specific problems that have nothing to do with your vague "lever for government oppression" idea.

Be honest with yourself: you've experienced having the ability to speed "at your discretion" if you've driven a car, because cars currently don't have speed limiters. Have you ever, even once used that discretion to speed for a good reason? Or are you just grasping at straws to justify why you should be allowed to put other people's lives in danger because you're impatient?

As a reminder, I'm not arguing speeding should be legal. I'm arguing that mandating speed limiters in cars is not a good solution. And the onus would be on the one arguing for the institution of such a regulation to justify it, which you have not done.

> You can, in fact, dismiss the argument of personal freedom purely on the basis that someone is creating a life and death risk for others, though.

You're contradicting yourself now. Whatever happened to "obviously there's some tradeoffs involved" in the case of banning driving? Either creating risk for others alone is sufficient justification for the removal of a freedom, or it isn't. Obviously the degree of risk created is not the criteria either, since, as we've already covered, banning driving would save 100x more lives than speed limiters would. So obviously there are more factors involved in the decision than just the creation of risk, nor the amount or degree of risk.

Therefore, no, "creating a life and death risk for others" alone is not a sufficient argument. While I do agree that it is one factor involved, it is not the sole factor. You have to also consider the cost of the solution, the real-world measurable benefits of the solution, inefficiencies and inaccuracies of the solution (e.g. missing or defaced signage, signage read incorrectly), the risk that the solution itself creates (e.g. a car is being followed closely. Now when the speed limit changes, slowing down automatically, rather than at the driver's own discretion, creates risk for this driver) and many other factors.

(This EU law, specifically, is merely a "soft" approach, since many of the mandated options aren't actually speed limiters, they are simply warnings to the driver. I'm specifically arguing against a "hard" approach where cars limit their own speed.)

The rest of your post is focused on a point I made about how society (in general, at least where I live - I don't know where you live and I obviously can't speak for you personally) already does not view speeding as something that could reasonably be enforced by mechanical limiter (since there are many situations where drivers facing unusual or extenuating circumstances are given leniency by cops and judges, and society tends to view this favorably, and tends to view harsh enforcement very unfavorably. This stands in contrast to the treatment and attitude toward most other crimes, where no excuse or extenuating circumstance tends to warrant leniency, unless the person literally had no other choice.) If you disagree with society on that point, then that's something you should take up with society. Regardless, it was a tangential point. (It was only worth mentioning because, society are the ones who elect the lawmakers at the end of the day. So they are ultimately the benchmark of whether a given legal doctrine is considered controversial or not.)