Jim - you're right, and I understand how you can be stunned by the underlying assumptions.
But:
While I'm not one to usually make any case based on "human nature", here's a possible analogy:
It's our responsibility to drive safely and smartly, taking good care of both ourselves and the others sharing the same roadways by staying at the speed limit and factoring in road/weather conditions.
But "human nature" seems to be that, if the speed limit is 60, but there are no cops around and we're in a bit of a rush (with whatever self-important project we have on the go), we'll push it up to 70; and, if everybody else is going 70, and there's a car in the passing lane travelling at just barely that, we might speed up to 75 or 80 to pass them.
And if someone is young and ego-bound and full of (misplaced) competitive fire, he might gun his fancy new BMW up to 85 -- confident that he can get away with it and confident too that, if he get's pulled over, he can "afford" the ensuing traffic ticket.
In the meantime, he gets to "impress" his date and show off to the poor sap driving an 1985 Honda Accord.
At some point, aren't you glad that there is a 'governing body' and cops and the weight of public opinion so that, at the very least, the official speed limit stays at 60?
Without it -- and though we are all supposed to be 'responsible' for our own actions -- that idiot in the BMW might take it to 90, and a whole bunch of other idiots trying to impress their dates would say 'well, if he is going 90 I can too, and maybe a little more'.
P