If you create a rule to accomplish a broader goal then this is a terrible argument because you end up getting rules lawyered and then you have to add sub-rules and sub-sub-rules and then exceptions to those and etc. Eventually you end up enforcing things that are non-sensical just because someone used a loop-hole once and you have to plug it. No one thinks this is a good outcome.
In your metaphor the town wants safe roads -- they don't care if someone is going 54 or 56, and the enforcement should reflect that. If you really think that anyone going over 55.1 should be pulled over no matter what, and that people driving with a blindfold on going 54.9 should not, then I don't know what to say .
Statistics show the least accidents occur at up to 15% over the speed limit, because that is the speed the good drivers go.
I would fully support a speed limit system based on driving skill. However, since we have a purely speed based system those driving the limit should not get tickets.
First of all, I was disagreeing with the metaphor on premise, and thus that it is a 'purely speed based system', because it is not. Emergency vehicles can drive faster, and you can argue with a cop or in court that you had a good reason to drive faster and be relieved of the offense.
If you really believe in only 'the letter of the law' then why do we have courts? It isn't just to determine guilt or innocence, since only some of the courts do that and only some of the time.
In your metaphor the town wants safe roads -- they don't care if someone is going 54 or 56, and the enforcement should reflect that. If you really think that anyone going over 55.1 should be pulled over no matter what, and that people driving with a blindfold on going 54.9 should not, then I don't know what to say .