> imagine trivial court cases hinging on whether a "reasonable person" would drive a certain speed.
Why is this dystopian? It's literally the point of courts to apply judgment.
Why is this dystopian? It's literally the point of courts to apply judgment.
With a less clear law, how would you know if your speed was legal?
I think I'm a reasonable person and while sober, well-rested and attentive on an empty freeway at sunset on a road drying after 0.1 inch of rainfall in the preceding hour with no other cars in view driving eastbound at 70 mph would be reasonable.
But what if a cop is having a bad day, or has a quota to hit, or doesn't like my bumper sticker, and decides the legal limit is 65 mph because the setting sun might be dazzling in my rear view mirror?
And if I don't want the cost and inconvenience of going to court, should I go at 60 mph instead, just in case?
The reality is the courts are very slow and very expensive for decisions that are being made millions of times per day.
But doing the speed limit is not always legal. It depends on the conditions. If the sunset is dazzling, the speed limit might not be safe for conditions, so you could be ticketed for violating the basic speed law. Or if there's heavy rain or snow or what have you.
>But what if a cop is having a bad day, or has a quota to hit, or doesn't like my bumper sticker, and decides the legal limit is 65 mph because the setting sun might be dazzling in my rear view mirror?
You would take it to court like you do now and fight the assessment.
>And if I don't want the cost and inconvenience of going to court, should I go at 60 mph instead, just in case?
Yes, no different than today