It is legally defined as a privilege. States do restrict who drives and who doesn't. You have to obtain a special license from the government in order to drive a vehicle on public roads. If you are found to abuse your privileged then that license can be revoked.
Effectively you are restricted from driving from birth without due process. You must go through a process in order to gain the privilege.
You have a right to freely travel, that doesn't mean you have a right to a specific form of transportation.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. How the public perceives it. How it is marketed. How it is handled by insurance companies.
I've been in that position. It worked out. It was also much more difficult than I initially thought it would be.
I break my career growth into two areas: learning from the examples of those around me, and learning on my own. To maximize your growth you will need a good mix of both types. There are likely experienced people who can teach you many things wherever you go. What you really need to ask yourself is whether you value the types of things that you can learn from your co-workers in this environment. In this case, they can't teach you much about tools and process. What can you learn? If you can't think of anything that interests you then this sounds like a dead end, and you should probably leave.
All of that being said. A market is a market. The article makes it sound like they did look at training individuals internally, but decided to go with hiring some outside developers to help them jump-start the process. If that is what it costs for that type of talent, then that is what you must pay. Do I think it is fair? No. If I worked where that happened would I learn the new technology anyway? Yes. Would I try to prove that I am a better developer than the new hires? Yes. Would I demand a pay raise after? Yes.
Are you talking about people matching speed at 45 in a 65 or are you complaining about people matching speed at 65 in a 65? The former is understandable, but if it's the latter, why should I make room for you to break the law (go over 65)? Sure, it's your choice to speed, but I don't see where I should feel bad about doing the speed limit. When signs say "slower traffic keep right" they mean slower than the speed limit. Grandma Moses shouldn't be in the far left lane doing 50 in a 70. The left lane isn't where it's magically acceptable to speed. People around here seem to think the speed limit is dependent upon the distance from the car in front of you. If you can't see anyone, the 65 is a 90. If you're about half a mile behind them, it's an 80. Quarter mile and it's a 70 until you're sure it's not a cop. Then it's back to 80 until you're 6 inches off their ass. At that point, you either change lanes without signaling (it'd require putting down the cell phone) or, if you can't pass, sit on their ass and flick your high beams on and off in their rear view mirror until they miss a turn and run off the road in a blind stupor. I actually saw a woman driving with her elbow this morning. She had the cellphone in her right hand and her left hand was blocking the sun from her eyes. Her visor was up and it wasn't even that bright out.
You aren't the police. It isn't your job to tell people how fast they should or shouldn't go. It is okay to go the speed limit in the left lane, but it isn't okay if you are the only guy in the left lane, and you are going the same speed as everyone in the adjacent lanes. If people want to speed, let them speed. One of our jobs as drivers should be to impede the others around us as little as possible. It definitely isn't your job to make sure that the people around you aren't breaking the law.