Well, then you are dealing with moral hazard before anything else.
Let me put my position another way. If I build a road and people have the choice of whether or not to pay me to use it, if I decide to impose a speed limit of 90mph on it, am I right to do this? What if I decide to impose no speed limit? Am I also right to do this?
You aren't answering the question, and your new example has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The discussion involves an individual choosing to exceed a publicly determined speed limit on a public road. If you build a private road you can do whatever you want with it as far as I'm concerned. Speed limit 1 mph, speed limit 250 mph. Death penalty to those that exceed your speed limit. As long as the rules, consequences, and costs are clearly known ahead of time by anyone choosing to use your road, I really don't care.
But you are stating that a speeder on a public road is not commiting a crime, since there is no victim. I'm asking you to defend your position. You state that the shooter example is a moral hazard. That may be true, but do you consider this a crime?