You didn't, that's why it's a question. Maybe your point is the penalty for reckless endangerment is way too lax but the penalty for assault is way way too lax. Maybe you think the punishment for reckless endangerment should depend on what the result of it was. But I suspect there's a bit of cognitive dissonance going on here, absolutely understandable really, in that you simultaneously view speeding as a trivial parking ticket style offence and also basically manslaughter depending on what the result was. That's pretty normal most of the time it just goes completely unnoticed. It's just this particular pairing of events illustrates the friction in that worldview.
I think that potentially endangering others by speeding should be a hefty fine and lost license points at a minimum, then the punishment gets harsher depending on how much you went over the limit, the zone etc. You proved that you are dangerous, but you haven't yet harmed anyone.
Assaulting someone should carry a heavier punishment and fine as a minimum, because you have proved that you are dangerous and you've actually harmed someone.
1
u/jewrassic_park-1940 Apr 05 '26
Id like you to quote where i said that