This is a hugely complex issue - as clearly demonstrated already in the replies above.
I believe that for most people going about their daily lives, we abide by laws as they are the "social contract" designed to keep us all safe, and with a degree of harmony (for instance, we don't drive at 90mph past schools at kicking out time).
As mentioned above, there are also laws design to coerce and control (such as local laws on bus lanes for instance) and in this case, I believe most people adopt a risk and reward strategy that is influenced by their own morality. For some, a law is a law and must be obeyed, and for others, it's something to be worked around, with the caveat that once the risk (a fine in this case) outweighs the benefit (being able to actually get where you are going) they will then adhere to the law.
There will always be exceptions for extreme cases, but I think these are mostly emotional responses - which it is also helpful to have laws against. For instance, we would all like punishments for rapists and paedophiles to be much more harsh then they are, but if the laws (and subsequent punishments) on murder didn't exist, emotions may well lead to vigilante justice being more widespread, and perhaps administered where no offence has taken place.
Like I said, not an easy issue.
For me personally, I can think of one law I break quite regularly, as do 90% of drivers as far as I can tell - national speed limit. Conversely, I get extremely annoyed by those doing 40 through my village!