Precedent isn't as big a concern as many might think, most of Europe does not operate under a precedent-based justice system: it doesn't matter what were the previous decisions of courts on similar cases, the law is the only thing that matters.
Can you elaborate? I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the value of precedent is to have courts rule on matters in a manner that is consistent with past rulings. Are you suggesting that courts can interpret the law completely differently from how past courts have ruled? Do you feel like that makes court decisions unpredictable?
To be clear, the law changes over time, so newer laws have less precedence, and I expect courts to respect new laws even though no courts have made ruling based on such a law before.
When electric scooters were reclassified as «small electric vehicles» they suddenly came under the same drunk drive laws as motorbikes and cars. So the lower courts ruled a bunch of drunk driving of electric scooters as severely as they would drunk driving of a 2000 kg car that can go 200 km/h. Essentially they just followed the precedence of previous rulings on drunk driving without taking into consideration the intent of the law. People got huge fines and lost their car licenses for several months on the assumption that if they were careless enough to drink and drive an electric scooter they would be just as likely to drink and drive their car.
Eventually a case went all the way to the Supreme Court where they actually thought it through and and decided that there wasn’t any reason to assume that a person would drink and drive a car just because they did so with an electric scooter.
