I'm not sure I agree with respect to things like helmetless riding - I've not quite made my mind up. But I'd suggest that one thing that ought to be done with all law is that the law ought to specify "acceptance criteria" that specify what the law is setting out to fix, and courts ought to be able to set aside laws if they can be proven to not meet the stated goal, and interpret them more narrowly if they can be shown to not be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal.
I think that would be a giant step towards more focused laws, and certainly towards more honestly worded laws, and in many cases it may well be that this would lead a court to direct the legislative to find a different solution or risk having the law struck down.
A large problem with overly broad laws today is simply that legislatives can get away with passing poorly thought out laws and misleading laws because there is no real consequence to it: the judicial system is forced to try to make the best of it if the laws are ridiculous or over-broad, and can't even go "hold on, this law is saying something completely different than what you pretended it was for when you convinced people to vote for it".
I think that would be a giant step towards more focused laws, and certainly towards more honestly worded laws, and in many cases it may well be that this would lead a court to direct the legislative to find a different solution or risk having the law struck down.
A large problem with overly broad laws today is simply that legislatives can get away with passing poorly thought out laws and misleading laws because there is no real consequence to it: the judicial system is forced to try to make the best of it if the laws are ridiculous or over-broad, and can't even go "hold on, this law is saying something completely different than what you pretended it was for when you convinced people to vote for it".