There are three things being discussed here, and they need to be kept separate.
One is the law. Then we have courtesy and safety.
I'll start with safetey just to get it out of the way. How many times will we hear that there's some huge risk of being rear-ended when driving the speed limit in the fast lane? Of course there are no statistics to support this. None. But we sure keep hearing it, don't we? On the contrary, there is ample evidence that shows slower vehicle speed is almost always safer for everybody. You want everybody safer? Don't bitch at the folks doing the speed limit "impeding" the speeders. Bitch at the speeders. "Feeling" that slower drivers are making everybody less safe is not the same as *actually* making everybody less safe. Why is it that the folks who wish to speed are the most vocal about the dire safety consequences of the people driving at or below the speed limit?
And that brings us to courtesy. If you want everybody to be happy with their driving, and you don't care about safety or conservation of resources, or pollution - then the uncontested action is to always make sure you're not impeding anybody no matter what. Everybody is at least superficially happy if they can travel at whatever speed they wish. And if all else is equal, I suppose a case can be made that a happy driver is safer to be around that a pissed-off driver.
And finally the law. It never fails to amaze me to hear what people think the driving laws are. They were told something by a police officer. They heard it in traffic school. Somebody they know got a ticket for it. NONE of this determines what's legal. The only thing that does is the vehicle code for the state you're in. There's no mystery. This is a public document that anybody can purchase (and now browse online in most cases). The traffic laws are ALL there. Yes, there is a bit of ambiguity in some edge cases - and those are decided in the courts. But all the stuff being discussed here - there's no gray area. It is all clearly spelled out in the VC's that I've seen. Why bother taking a guess at it? Why bother proving ignorance by claiming knowledge of the law without actually knowing the VC reference? Here's a huge hint for you: No police officer knows the entire VC. None of them. It is a bit like knowing the dictionary. They tend to know their favorite and most often cited sections. But they can't know the entire thing. A mere civilian can know more about the *relevant* section you may be interested in, than the police officer that is citing you. Being given a ticket for something does NOT make that action illegal. It only means that the police officer thinks it is. But he doesn't get to make that call. The court does. The police officer only gets to ruin your day and force you to show up and understand the law.
If you want to test this theory re. how much of the VC that a given officer knows, just try asking one about legal bicycle operation on a public road. That one is usually good for a laugh. I carry the relevant VC section on my bicycle with me because I have yet to meet an officer that knows it. They all THINK they know it. And every one has it wrong so far.
But I don't mean to digress. We're talking about the freedom to speed in a car. The *right* to speed in a car. And I can't wait for somebody (anybody!) to show me a VC reference that shows driving at anything under the posted *maximum* speed limit is illegal for the sole reason that they aren't driving AT the posted *maximum* speed limit. From some of these comments, you'd think that the only way to legally drive a car on a public road is to always drive at EXACTLY the posted speed limit. I mean it is obvious that you shouldn't exceed that... but apparently some folks feel you also should never drive below it. Man, that's a hard needle to thread at all times!
And then there are those who (seriously) contend that the posted limit is a minimum!