I certainly want the police officers I interact with to be capable of and practiced in the art of correctly making a gut-level decision. I would argue that the problem in the US is in choosing who we give that authority to.

I certainly agree that some people are better decision makers than others, and there's plenty to say about who we want to be employed as officers, but frankly I don't think I want any officers deciding whether to give out $100 tickets based on how blase someone puts a pamphlet on their passenger seat. Maybe if it was in a small culturally homogeneous town you could hope to makes a good read there, but otherwise I think there's just too much miscommunication.

Yeah that's kind of where I was going with that. It would be most ideal if the law was applied evenly and not arbitrarily.

I am all for protecting cyclists and pedestrians, however more laws enabling arrest and arbitrary execution of statue seems less desirable to me.

A clear line delineating between a cycling lane and vehicle lane would perhaps be a more effective safety method than employing a person to dispatch donated pamphlets using donated detection equipment. It seems like the line between a lobbying party and the execution of the law is blurred. In this case, its relatively innocuous however this kind of ambiguity of the intent of the law and the blurred line of its application is probably common.