your "example" is a bad faith gotcha based on an insane hypothetical.

This you?

you somehow think that if someone is doing 90 in a 55 and hits someone actually doing 55 that it was the normal person's fault.

As for:

It does absolutely nothing to prove my argument wrong that everyone would be safer is speeders slowed down to a reasonable speed.

Your argument has never mentioned "reasonable speed". You have been repeatedly saying "slower is safer" and I pointed out how such a mind numbingly simple statement is useless and incorrect. "Reasonable speed" is a reasonable argument, but then the question becomes "what is a reasonable speed?"

Your example here is once again a bad faith gotcha argument based on insane hypotheticals.

Arguing through absurdity is not bad faith or invalid. The point I was making is that just because the sign next to a road says a certain number that doesn't magically make that number a "reasonable speed". It has already been mentioned that politicians will lower speed limits below a "reasonable speed" for the road conditions in order to claim it's now safer.