Actually not accepting the given speed limit is a form of voting against said speed limit (especially when done en masse). Yes, it is not formal, but it is voting nonetheless. If the system was really democratic and not tyrannical then it would take it into account and would not resort to more control and punishment.

> ...the only correct response to which is to contact the state government and complain while continuing to respect the law. Breaking the law while remaining silent is diametrically opposed to the democratic system that the US, at least, aspires to.

You've presented a false dichotomy here. Advocating for a change of the law while respecting the law, and breaking the law silently are not the only option.

You can also break the law while advocating for its change. This is called civil disobedience and is a very American thing, going back to at least Thoreau.

If you've never encountered a dangerous situation in the right lane, you don't drive very often or very far or both.

Electric vehicles are not actually better than gas for continuous use, they're better in the city when the traffic is stop and go.

Losing minutes (and hours) of your life for a minor improvement on the climate seems odd. Spending that energy on reducing corporate offenders (like shipping with bunker oil) would be more effective in achieving closer the maximum 20% reduction. Lobbying for better public transportation is better than slowing everyone down. (though it's unfortunate how often those lobbying want to replace instead of augment cars.)

If the majority of drivers feel the limits are too low, and the limits stay low, can you argue democracy is working? It's more likely you favor the status quo and know that contacting a politician is rather unlikely to get it changed.

Electric cars are more efficient in general, the relative efficiency is what I am comparing. Keep in mind, that the best path is to drive your current car until it's irreparable before buying any new car electric or not.

Have you actually contacted a state government and seen a response that aligned with what you consider to be moral? I believe this may be a fairy tale that politicians tell their children, corporations tell their politicians, and the rest of us tell ourselves to feel like we matter. My understanding of basic physics tells me it's good for my health to match the flow of traffic, regardless of the signage. I haven't found that government makes similar decisions surrounding my health, or yours. Ymmv.

> the only correct response to which is to contact the state government and complain while continuing to respect the law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

> Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law.

> Martin Luther King Jr.

> the only correct response to which is to contact the state government and complain

I have done this. It resulted in the gov asking me to prove it. I ran a study and responded that something like 80% of drivers (I don't have numbers with me any more) go above the posted 25 mph speed limit.

The results? Nothing. The gov said thanks for the data and ignored it.

To this day, that stretch of road continues to see daily speeding tickets given. It is not a speed limit for safety, but for revenue generation.

> the only correct response to which is to contact the state government and complain

At least here in Australia, you'll be completely ignored. Been there and tried it. Doesn't work, at least not as individuals. ;)

> ...the only correct response to which is to contact the state government and complain while continuing to respect the law. Breaking the law while remaining silent is diametrically opposed to the democratic system

No, this would take more hours than there are in a decade.