[JumpCrisscross]

> Laws should be about the outcome, not about processes that may lead to an outcome

They have to be about both because outcomes aren’t predictable, and whether something is an intermediate or ultimate outcome isn’t always clear. We have a law requiring indicator use on lane change, not just hitting someone while lane changing, for example.

[freedomben]

But even this example is a ban on a specific action: changing lanes without using a legally defined indicator with a specific amount of display time.

The equivalent would be if the law simply said, "don't change lanes unsafely" but didn't define it much beyond that, and left it to law enforcement and judges to decide, so anytime someone changed lanes "unsafely" there's now extremely unknown legal risk.

[JumpCrisscross]

> even this example is a ban on a specific action: changing lanes without using a legally defined indicator

This is directly analogous to requiring disclosures and certifications be filed with the state. Those are actions as much as hitting an indicator.

I haven’t read the proposed bill closely. But it seems to be a standard rulemaking bill.