I've often heard that Einstein shattered the notion of absolute motion (i.e. all things move relative to one another) and that he established the speed of light as being absolute. That sounds paradoxical to me; I cannot understand how the two concepts can be reconciled.

**Before going further,** I'd like to say: **1)** Over the years, I've seen many layman's explanations on these topics (including the nice YouTube video by Vsauce, *[Would Headlights Work at Light Speed?](https://youtu.be/ACUuFg9Y9dY))*. I understand everything that's said (or, at least, I think I do). Just nothing I've found seems to address this apparent contradiction. **2)** More recently, I've tried to find the answer on my own. That includes searching the posts on this site. Some come close ([like this one](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2230/why-and-how-is-the-speed-of-light-in-vacuum-constant-i-e-independent-of-refer)), but nothing I've been able to find seems address specifically what I'm asking.

**Back to the question:**
Relativity shows us that there is no universal frame of reference by which to judge motion, so object A might be reckoned as moving at 10 m/s relative to object B or as stationary relative to object C. This is fine for me. I can grasp that the universe has no intrinsic coordinate system, that we only think that way on Earth because we have the ground to move over.

Then there's the speed of light (in a vacuum). *The speed of light is the ultimate "speed limit,"* it's often said. But if there is no universal frame of reference, how can there be any such speed? The very idea only make sense if there is a universal frame.

* If one object is moving (uniformly) at 60% c and another object is also moving at 60% c, but in the exact opposite direct, then from the perspective of either one (if they could still see each other) the other would appear to violate that speed limit.
* All these spacetime bending consequences used to explain why nothing can move past this speed only seems to enshrine the concept that there is some ultimate speed standard.
* If there is only relative speed, then the concept of light having a specific speed in the vacuum should be a nonsensical one since it having speed (x m/s) would only make sense when measured against some other body.

*Since I was very young, it has always sounded to me like motion is only **mostly relative**, that until you get close to the speed of light, the effects of an absolute frame of reference are negligible. Perhaps that there is an actual fabric of space which everything moves relative to, which is why there is something to expand between galaxies (faster than light can propagate) in the metric expansion of space.* Growing up, I always thought this would just start makes sense with time. Now I'm up to a first year (college) level in physics, I even know basic calculus, yet I'm still hopelessly confused.

**EDIT:**   

Thank you to whoever suggested this may be a duplicate of [What is the speed of light relative to?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/114523/what-is-the-speed-of-light-relative-to). It and others are very much related and at least partially answer my question. Unfortunately, explaining that distances become shorter and time becomes slower as a way to stop you from exceeding the speed of light does not explain how that speed is not an absolute.

By my reckoning, if all speed is relative, then no matter how fast you go light should always race away from you at the same apparent speed. I.e. there should be no speed limit. For there to be a speed which you cannot exceed or you would catch up (and make time irrelevant) requires the very concept of some external speed by which light can travel and nothing else can reach - thus my logical paradox continues unabated.