I mean the answer obviously depends on what the road is like. Near me, for example, I have 2 different roads that I drive on most often at night, both with speed limits around 35-40. One of them is in town, and has streetlights, stoplights by the crosswalks, and is just generally way better lit. Even so at night visibility is worse, so I'll go like 10 below the speed limit (maybe only 5 bit depending on if I don'y see/think people are out walking or if I'm not as worried about visibility). The other road is basically a country road. It has trees and farm fields on either side, no lights, and is extremely hilly. Because of all that I go like max 20 or 25 pretty much, so I have enough time to brake for a biker I missed when I went over a hill, or for a deer or other animal that jumps out in front of me.
The dangerous thing in a crash between a bike and a car is definitely the car, so it should also fall more on the car to be safe. Not to say a bike has no responsibility for their own safety obviously, but a car should be traveling slowly enough that they have the ability to stop without hitting something if they have a sudden need to, and that means potentially going much slower than the speed limit at night.
My rebuttal to that is what if he set up a news website instead? Like I said in a previous message it's not that hard to make a fake news site. It has a higher barrier to entry sure, but not one that's impossible, anyone with a moderate amount of web design skills or like 50 bucks and access to fiverr could probably get one built for them.
In that case you'd get an article from it posted, read it/read the about us page, probably Google the name/authors name, and see that it's non-existent and remove it. With substack the process is really the exact same, so banning substack specifically just feels arbitrary.
Also, specific sites known for extreme bias or disinformation are already banned right? So why isn't substack handled the same way? There aren't that many independent journalists on Substack people would be posting, I can think of like 2 or 3 sites I've seen. Any opinion piece would be banned for being an opinion piece anyway, regardless of where it was posted from originally, substack or otherwise.
Plus with these substack blogs, it's not even something you can enforce without opening the article to see its on substack anyway. The URL for the ones ran by independent journalists don't have any reference to substack in them, so you need to open it up and look at the site, which at that point taking an extra 15 seconds to check if it's reliable isn't that much more effort. And if you don't need to open it because you recognize the URL, then you should also know whether that URL is for an actual journalist or someone spreading misinformation.
Basically it just feels like substack sites aren't a unique problem that doesn't also exist with "regular" websites which may or may not have misinformation or extreme bias.