> No one expects the police to pull over every driver that is going 36 in a 35
Why not? If it's ever OK to pull someone over for 1 MPH over the limit without any other violations, then why isn't it always? Where do you draw the line? Why not codify that instead of the strict limit?
If there is supposed to be discretion, then the law should acknowledge this by not providing a strict limit and requiring that the state prove a case that the driver was being unsafe by traveling the speed they were. If there is a strict limit, then it should be set such that one can reasonably say that it's always wrong to exceed it. Saying it should be strictly enforced for some and loosely for others just leaves room for that discretion to be weaponized.
---
It's also worth noting that at the moment speed enforcement has a much greater impact on the poor than the rich.
For the most part if you can afford to hire a lawyer speeding tickets can be converted in to zero point off-the-record offenses and are then just a fine, and since fines are not scaled by income in this country anyone who has sufficient disposable income becomes effectively immune to them where a person living paycheck to paycheck already who then likely has to take some or all of a day off of work to go to court might be ruined.
Fix that and I could be in favor of strict enforcement as long as it was truly universal. I feel like if everyone was actually forced to obey the posted limit strictly we'd get some progress on killing speed trap towns and fixing the many places where a fast road has been built with an arbitrarily low speed limit that no one ever follows because it's insane.