Appeal to personal moral superiority?

I was in an argument about speed limits (again) and I was pointing out the sheer level of non-compliance frequently over 90% and as high as 97% as indicative that the speed limit was incorrect, I suppose this alone could be seen as argumentum ad populum, but there is a video explaining more as to why that happens. Although even if it was Argumentum ad populum, it wouldn't make the stats on lowering the speed limit without changing the road design being ineffective untrue.
The other person was still trying to state that some people will "drive with their egos" and that they will drive sensibly. Like he's great and everyone is just bad, therefore my argument can still be dismissed.
That claim that someone could be "driving with their ego" to be to me seems a bit of a stretch if you're applying that claim to someone driving significantly slower than the mean traffic flow and still be exceeding the speed limit, that seems like an appeal to the law.
On roads where the limits do match, the road engineering standard compliance can be much higher, sometimes over 90%.
Is there not a fallacy of appeal to the individual or personal moral superiority?

I am a bit lost on this one. I don't see any clear arguments being made by the other person (claim then reason/evidence). The whole "drive with egos" statement appears to be nonsensical or at best, unclear. Perhaps something such as:

People will drive sensibly. Therefore, the changing the speed limits won't save lives.

For this argument, the premise is clearly false so the conclusion does not follow. I find it best to focus on obviously false premises before even nitpicking for fallacies. Otherwise, you risk being a victim of the red herring and arguing about an insignificant fallacy rather than a blatantly false claim.