Winner and Marx's Agreement Towards Speed Limits and Highways

In "Do artifacts have politics", Winner argues the relatively unnoticed political power of technology in varying degrees.   Winner would agree with my topic on the negative effects of speed limits and the American highway system.  Winner's discussion of "technical arrangements that precede the use of things in question" directly relates to speed limits and highways (28).  When there was a strong push for safety and less gas consumption, the United States forced states to abide by speed limits.  At the time, this invention seemed fitting.  But, as Winner describes, choices become fixed in equipment and social habit (30).  Highways designed with relatively low speed limits had flexibility in design in the beginning.  However, their flexibility has vanished and their practical purposes may be out dated.  But the technology's power holds firm.  To redesign the United States means of auto transportation would be a huge undertaking.   The resources required would be enough to make the issue relatively untouchable.  This alone would support Winner's argument of technological determinism.  The technology in place holds strong political power that towers over the averagely timid politician.  
In Marx's article, speed limits and highway safety follow his discussion of social issues versus technocratic ideals.  Marx says, "the debased technocratic version of the progressive worldview has slowly gained adherents...and by now it is one of the chief ideological supports of an adversary culture" (75).  Speed limits broadly fit the idea of technological progress being reevaluated by the public.   The public going against the technocratic idea demonstrate Marx's hope for questioning the use of technical progress.