Most of the people who approve these laws are not necessarily internet literate to understand what the future holds for Internet. An analogy of this sort helps them understand what this means why some traffic can/should be given preferential treatment despite the law saying not to.
With the context of it, it makes sense for the future. Laws are made to be followed for years to come. Considering for “critical IoT services” or “specialized services,” which could take precedence in near future this is okay to be added in the rules for now until we face it. And this analogy is quite okay if you consider speed limits as internet speed and every car as the content packet.
I continue to find it sad/funny that law governing the internet is made by analogy.