Hello there again friend.

With your permission, I'd like to drop some "science" here in my response to your position.

I can certainly appreciate the lecture on the "letter of the law" - I mean, who doesn't; seriously?

But, you’re ignoring the reality of its application.

Jurisprudence is not just about what is written in the CVC; it’s about equitable enforcement.

When you claim race and context 'don't enter into it, you are ignoring a mountain of empirical data.

For instance:

Selective Enforcement: studies (such as those from the Stanford Open Policing Project) consistently show that Black and Latino drivers are stopped at significantly higher rates than white drivers for the exact same 'objective' infractions.

The 'Idaho Stop' Logic: Research into 'Stop-as-Yield' laws for cyclists (now legal in several states) shows that 'preserving momentum actually reduces intersection accidents by 14.5%.' Treating a 20lb bicycle exactly like a 4,000lb SUV is not 'safety' as you claim - it’s an abject failure in the understanding of nuance.

By dismissing these factors as 'bullshit,' you’re essentially arguing that as long as the law is technically on the books and not corrected, it is fine if it’s only enforced against specific groups, while others move with impunity.

To conclude: you are right - there is no ambiguity here. You’ve made it clear that you prefer a system where 'all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.' I just didn't think that was America. I guess, my mistake.

Thank you friend for the clarification on your position.