we don't need the limits, just post the recommended speed. then for any extreme case, it's up to the officer to prove reckless endangerment, which is what speed limits were ostensibly designed to prevent (though practically, it's served many interests, including fuel rationing in the 70s).
It's much better to have selective enforcement of a law that says "this is a judgement call" than to have selective enforcement of a law that says "this is a crime".
The latter is literally encouraging the populace to commit crimes. The latter is hard to challenge the selectivity of in court because it is theoretically strict liability. The latter results in the unelected enforcement officials making up the criteria entirely instead of being given criteria by the elected officials.
no, i'm saying reduce instances of selective enforcement by reducing ineffective and needless laws. reckless endangerment is already a crime that's selectively enforced.
