It is human nature to detest regulation in general but insist upon it after the fact of some failure. This can be easily illustrated with automobile speed limits. Almost everyone would be outraged if they were ticketed for driving 2 k/mph over the posted limit. It is a widely held belief that drivers traveling at or just below the maximum limit pose a safety risk because they are too slow. An officer who rigorously enforced posted speed limits would get run out of town. But who's to blame when the officer looks the other way and it results in a crash?
You cite human nature, but I disagree with most if not ALL of what you are saying here. Driving at or just below the speed limit is what the law requires. If the speed limit is wrong, you lobby to get the limit changed or start raising $$ from fines until people get the idea. What you DON'T do is let speed limits become optional else people running over kids near schools will feel like they were morally justified in doing so, because 'Who pays attention to those signs, right?'
You are describing exactly the normalisation of deviance that gets people killed per the 737 Max situation. The Officer in your example is secondarily at fault, the driver is primarily at fault, but the CULTURE that allows these dangerous situations to arise is where the problem needs to be addressed. "Yes, I was speeding/falsifying records, Officer. But everyone else was doing it."
