It's all pretty nuanced. I don't know where to draw a line.

For instance: Busy intersections with 4-way stop signs are an interesting example of how laws don't quite fit.

It's obviously important to get the order right since nobody wants to be in a car crash today. But the law (often -- we've got 50 states worth of driving laws and they aren't all the same) says something very specific and simplistic about the order: First-come, first-served; if order is unclear, yield to the right. Always wait for the intersection to be completely clear before proceeding.

That sounds nice and neat and it looks good on paper. It was surely at least a very easy system to describe and then write down.

But reality is very different: 4 way stops are an elaborate dance of drivers executing moves simultaneously and without conflict. For instance: Two opposite, straight-going cars can proceed concurrently works fine. All 4 directions can turn right, concurrently. Opposing left turns at the same time? Sure! While others are also turning right? Why not.

When there's room for a move and it creates no conflict, then that move works fine.

We all were taught how these intersections are supposed to work, but then reality ultimately shows us how they do work. And the dance works. It's efficient. Nobody gets ticketed for safely dancing that dance. (And broadly-speaking, a timid law-abiding driver who doesn't know the dance will be let through...eventually.)

The main problem with the dance is that it's difficult to adequately describe and write down and thus codify in law.

But maybe we should try, anyway.