[starfish923]

If the speed limits are being set illegally (ie, not per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or MUTCD, which has been adopted as LAW by every state, whose governments ignore it so that they can set the speed limits artificially low to engage in revenue generation) then is it really breaking the law to violate them? The MUTCD sets forth a standard whereby the speed limit is to be set at the speed at which the 85th percentile driver drives. If everyone is "speeding" it's an indication that the speed limit is too low, not that everyone is a scofflaw. If the government won't abide by the law, then why should the citizens, particularly when the "offense" is merely malum prohibitum and not malum per se.

Right.
The law is bad, so we break it. We don't change it, we just break it and justify breaking it because we think it's bad.
"Everyone" is speeding so OBVIOUSLY the speed limit is too slow.

The same attitude goes for drugs. "Everybody does it, so the law MUST be bad." Sounds like teenager-think.

Relative morality.

Work to change the law rather than just break it and try to justify violating the law.
Or break the law, pay the fines and stop whining about it.
Or break the law, then don't bellyache or sue when someone gets in an accident and dies or becomes a quadreplegic from speeding.

[Altamira]

""Everyone" is speeding so OBVIOUSLY the speed limit is too slow."

Yes, now you get it! If the LAW were followed, then everyone would not be speeding, because the speed would be set at what the 85th percentile driver drives.

Your moralizing is really not persuasive. Sensible people know the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se, and can use their own moral compass to differentiate between the two. Why don't you use your head instead of being slavishly law-abiding?