It is also unlikely to spread because the solution (no speed limits outside city limits) covers a lot of territory in a sparsely populated area like Montana and covers almost no roads in the dense urban centers in which the vast majority of the population lives and drives.

Additionally, it is not giving control back to "the people", it is giving it to the driver and that is not necessarily what "the people" would want in all situations.

in sparsely populated areas, people spend a lot of time on the minorish highways, going back and forth between the populated areas. going somewhere 30 miles away isn't a big deal, because it isn't 30 miles of stop lights and cross traffic.

More to the point, you have to go somewhere 30 miles away all the damn time. If you live in a big city, you don't have to go to another city to see a medical specialist or to go shopping.

You forgot: c) lots of people would cry 'fowl' citing massive carnage on the highway as 90% of drivers immediately increase their speeds to 100+mph on downtown city streets (i.e. people over reacting citing nightmare scenarios that pull at emotions rather than logic in a bid to control what other people can/can't do)

100mph is clearly not "safe and reasonable" for downtown city streets. Your scenario is absurd and not supported by real world experiences.

I think that you forgot to read the whole post, especially that part about people "appealing to emotion rather than logic," or do you seriously intend to claim that people won't make those arguments (wrong or right) whenever such a proposal is tabled?