RE: Dutch hide sneaky m'way cameras

[ndixon]

mcjohn said:

This is a hoax!

According to the German Elise Forum, where this topic has been discussed last year, this is:
- a laser system made by CES CG Switzerland, called LMS-05
- the pictures are taken by Swiss police of Waadt
- the device shown is located in Morges.
- approx 20m in front/behind a camera is needed on a post
- the device is not legal in Germany or Austria
- can be detected by Valentine 1 and LT-400 using Firmware >=2.7
- doesn´t work on speeds > 200kmh 125mls ;->

More Info:
-> OriginalPic: www.police.vd.ch/communique_presse/dossier_presse/061006.pdf
-> TechSpec: http://cesag.com/inhalt/pdf/2006/traf

Cheers

MC

Corect , these are pictures between Rolle and Morges in Switzeland on the Geneva to Lausanne M way

[tr3a]

KUB3 said:

Have you guys heard about the new camera's coming out, to be hidden inside cat's eyes FFS! The end is nigh.

No, I haven't. Then again, I probably have better (ie. factually correct) news sources than you.

KUB3 said:

I'm going to buy an S-class, put it in cruise control and have a nap at the wheel from now on.

I often see people quoting the 'danger of going to sleep at legal speeds' as an excuse to break speed limits. I see it as a good reason to hand in your driver's license. If you can't stay awake at the wheel when sticking to speed limits, you have no business driving a car - any car.

KUB3 said:

What's is the fecking point of performance cars anymore.

Indeed, what is the fecking point of using the full potential of a performance car on today's public roads?

Performance cars are no excuse to break legal (as in: not in violation of the law) speed limits. Nothing is, really, breaking a legal speed limit is just an opportunistic act and any excuse for it is just an 'easy' way to deny your responsibility to obey the law. In a democratic society, that is everybody's responsibility.
If you don't agree with the laws that enable road owners to impose speed limits (and there are many reasons to disagree with them), then work on changing those laws. You have the means. Of course, that is much more difficult than just breaking speed limits, demonising Gatsos and writing indignant articles and 'me too' posting on PH, but it would also be much more effective.

Edited by tr3a on Saturday 3rd February 18:09

[Elsarius]

tr3a said:

breaking a legal speed limit is just an opportunistic act and any excuse for it is just an 'easy' way to deny your responsibility to obey the law.

I'm not advocating fast driving, but try living in a town where:

- A road is marked 40mph until immediately before it merges with the right hand lane of a major dual carriageway
- Not one but THREE locations have three entry lanes marked to roundabouts that are only wide enough for two cars (the locals deliberately straddle the two outer lanes on approach to stop non-locals from colliding with them).

With idiots like that determining what the speed limit should be, sometimes (rarely, admittedly) it is necessary to ignore them!

***Rant On***
Actually what annoys me is people who sit with their number plate attached to your rear bumper when you are doing 30 in a 30, then disappear in your rear view mirror when you hit a 60 section ... then when you hit the next 30 section they catch up and sit on your arse again. Some people seem to want to sit at 40 utterly irrespective of the road conditions. Maybe they can't find the off-switch for the cruise control...
***Rant Off***

Edited by Elsarius on Saturday 3rd February 18:40

[dinkel]

Never been caught speeding . . . but then I only step on it at night or at 120 kmh roads.

Tip: try the Dutch rural roads . . . most land is still farmers and private . . . no scamera's there.

I love to roar 80 mph through the fields.

[flemke]

tr3a said:

KUB3 said:

Have you guys heard about the new camera's coming out, to be hidden inside cat's eyes FFS! The end is nigh.

No, I haven't. Then again, I probably have better (ie. factually correct) news sources than you.

KUB3 said:

I'm going to buy an S-class, put it in cruise control and have a nap at the wheel from now on.

I often see people quoting the 'danger of going to sleep at legal speeds' as an excuse to break speed limits. I see it as a good reason to hand in your driver's license. If you can't stay awake at the wheel when sticking to speed limits, you have no business driving a car - any car.

KUB3 said:

What's is the fecking point of performance cars anymore.

Indeed, what is the fecking point of using the full potential of a performance car on today's public roads?

Performance cars are no excuse to break legal (as in: not in violation of the law) speed limits. Nothing is, really, breaking a legal speed limit is just an opportunistic act and any excuse for it is just an 'easy' way to deny your responsibility to obey the law. In a democratic society, that is everybody's responsibility.
If you don't agree with the laws that enable road owners to impose speed limits (and there are many reasons to disagree with them), then work on changing those laws. You have the means. Of course, that is much more difficult than just breaking speed limits, demonising Gatsos and writing indignant articles and 'me too' posting on PH, but it would also be much more effective.

"Demonising Gatsos"?

Are Gatsos another new class of victims?

[tr3a]

flemke said:

"Demonising Gatsos"?

Are Gatsos another new class of victims?

You know what I mean. I see it here every day: the Gatsos are out to get us. They are supposedly put up as a scam, to wangle us out of our hard earned cash, just because we speed a little. Oh dear, how unfair.

I think they're a tool to tax the stupid. If you have good brains and eyes in your head, properly connected to your right foot, they don't give you any trouble. It's as simple as that.

The whole idea, touted here implicitly and explicitly every day, that they're 'unfair' to motorists is based on the false premise that we should be allowed to speed a little, that we should not have to bear the responsibility of sticking to rules and regulations. Sounds just like a whining kid, trying to see how far he can go, who has just been told by his mother not to steal biscuits from the tin: "it was just one, why is that so bad?".
Come off it. We live in democracies, with democratically defined rules, that are enforced. If you don't like the rules, use your democratic powers, actively or passively, to change them. Not as easy as just violating rules by speeding, but a damned sight more mature. If you don't like the democratic rules being enforced, and you show that by violating them, you've got the mind of a child - or a criminal. Either way, you do not want to bear your responsibility. Speeding, whichever excuse you have for it (apart from a valid one like your wife being about to give birth and you're on your way to the hospital), is not a mature way to show your dislike of democratically defined rules. Ultimately, speeding is an opportunist's way of showing a middle finger to democracy.

And before anyone says "don't you ever get caught for driving over the speed limit?": yes, I'm from the country where Gatsos were invented and it happens to me too. But I don't whine about it, I don't blame the Gatsos or the people who put them up. I say 'that was stupid of me' to myself and pay the fine. Because 'thou shalt not speed' is a democratically imposed rule and it's my own responsibility not to violate that.

There, rant over. Getting off me soapbox now.

[flemke]

tr3a said:

flemke said:

"Demonising Gatsos"?

Are Gatsos another new class of victims?

You know what I mean. I see it here every day: the Gatsos are out to get us. They are supposedly put up as a scam, to wangle us out of our hard earned cash, just because we speed a little. Oh dear, how unfair.

I think they're a tool to tax the stupid. If you have good brains and eyes in your head, properly connected to your right foot, they don't give you any trouble. It's as simple as that.

The whole idea, touted here implicitly and explicitly every day, that they're 'unfair' to motorists is based on the false premise that we should be allowed to speed a little, that we should not have to bear the responsibility of sticking to rules and regulations. Sounds just like a whining kid, trying to see how far he can go, who has just been told by his mother not to steal biscuits from the tin: "it was just one, why is that so bad?".
Come off it. We live in democracies, with democratically defined rules, that are enforced. If you don't like the rules, use your democratic powers, actively or passively, to change them. Not as easy as just violating rules by speeding, but a damned sight more mature. If you don't like the democratic rules being enforced, and you show that by violating them, you've got the mind of a child - or a criminal. Either way, you do not want to bear your responsibility. Speeding, whichever excuse you have for it (apart from a valid one like your wife being about to give birth and you're on your way to the hospital), is not a mature way to show your dislike of democratically defined rules. Ultimately, speeding is an opportunist's way of showing a middle finger to democracy.

And before anyone says "don't you ever get caught for driving over the speed limit?": yes, I'm from the country where Gatsos were invented and it happens to me too. But I don't whine about it, I don't blame the Gatsos or the people who put them up. I say 'that was stupid of me' to myself and pay the fine. Because 'thou shalt not speed' is a democratically imposed rule and it's my own responsibility not to violate that.

There, rant over. Getting off me soapbox now.

Where does one begin...?

You think that all speed cameras are visible to anyone who has "good brains and eyes in your head"? What exactly was the point of the original poster if not that many, many cameras are purposefully hidden? Unless the "eyes in your head" to which you refer have x-ray vision, you won't be seeing them.

As for this "use your democratic powers" fantasy, even if the camera and general speed enforcement system were the result of a democratic process - which it obviously is not - that would not justify it or any other system on the sophistic basis that 50.1% of voters have a view and are therefore entitled to impose it on 49.9%.

[deeps]

tr3a said:

flemke said:

"Demonising Gatsos"?

Are Gatsos another new class of victims?

You know what I mean. I see it here every day: the Gatsos are out to get us. They are supposedly put up as a scam, to wangle us out of our hard earned cash, just because we speed a little. Oh dear, how unfair.

I think they're a tool to tax the stupid. If you have good brains and eyes in your head, properly connected to your right foot, they don't give you any trouble. It's as simple as that.

The whole idea, touted here implicitly and explicitly every day, that they're 'unfair' to motorists is based on the false premise that we should be allowed to speed a little, that we should not have to bear the responsibility of sticking to rules and regulations. Sounds just like a whining kid, trying to see how far he can go, who has just been told by his mother not to steal biscuits from the tin: "it was just one, why is that so bad?".
Come off it. We live in democracies, with democratically defined rules, that are enforced. If you don't like the rules, use your democratic powers, actively or passively, to change them. Not as easy as just violating rules by speeding, but a damned sight more mature. If you don't like the democratic rules being enforced, and you show that by violating them, you've got the mind of a child - or a criminal. Either way, you do not want to bear your responsibility. Speeding, whichever excuse you have for it (apart from a valid one like your wife being about to give birth and you're on your way to the hospital), is not a mature way to show your dislike of democratically defined rules. Ultimately, speeding is an opportunist's way of showing a middle finger to democracy.

And before anyone says "don't you ever get caught for driving over the speed limit?": yes, I'm from the country where Gatsos were invented and it happens to me too. But I don't whine about it, I don't blame the Gatsos or the people who put them up. I say 'that was stupid of me' to myself and pay the fine. Because 'thou shalt not speed' is a democratically imposed rule and it's my own responsibility not to violate that.

There, rant over. Getting off me soapbox now.

My God! Where does one begin indeed Flemke!!

Tr3a, if speed limits must be obeyed for safety reasons, why the hell do you believe you should be exempted from being a risk to others simply because your wife is about to give birth? Sating that in the middle of your stunningly illogical rant makes you one hell of a hypocrite!! Fair play to you for having the balls!

Your last paragraph is a classic. You admit to speeding and brag about gatsos being invented in your country, and relish in telling us that! But in your second paragraph you told us that anyone who gets caught is stupid and doesn't have good brains or eyes in their head!!! "that was stupid of me" as you rightly say!!!

You are one masochistic character!

[bobdylan]

well this is my view, the uk population is over 60million. we are a tiny island and houses go up health and education go down.
so what we need to do is make the roads more dangerous, its a darwinian survivel of the fittest, get the numbers back down sort of plan.
or maybe re introduce wolfs and bears..... that would sort the prentions out too when old ladys keep getting mauled on there way to tesco ?
second thoughts tax alcohol and gambiling more and stop picking on the drivers

[chubbster]

Am I alone in thinking they're a bad idea because they are so vulnerable? All it would take would be naughty person with a can of black spray paint to make them inoperable in a matter of seconds. Naturally this should be frowned upon, because it's illegal.

[tr3a]

flemke said:

You think that all speed cameras are visible to anyone who has "good brains and eyes in your head"? What exactly was the point of the original poster if not that many, many cameras are purposefully hidden? Unless the "eyes in your head" to which you refer have x-ray vision, you won't be seeing them.

I should have been clearer on this. I wasn't talking about hidden cameras, I was talking about speed limits. Speed limits are clearly posted, anyone with good brains and eyes in their head knows what the speed limit at a particular point is. They should also know that it may be enforced.
The whining about the cameras being hidden stems from the false premise that we need only obey the speed limit where there is a risk of getting caught at speeding. Like the child stealing biscuits: first make sure that mum doesn't see it, then it's OK to steal one. The child is very indignant if it turns out that mum was one step ahead of him and caught him anyway. It's the same with speeders: they seem to believe it should be OK to break the speed limit a little bit, especially if the chance of getting caught at it seems low. They're outraged if they get caught anyway. They don't want to be reminded of their responsibility.

Does anyone object to hidden cameras to catch shoplifters? Of course, shoplifters do, because they believe it's unfair to them, they believe that they should get away with shoplifting a bit if they feel they're unobserved and can get away with it. And besides, it's only a paperclip, a lip stick, some knickers. But is the general principle that democratic rules of our society ('thou shalt not shoplift', 'thou shalt not speed') are to be enforced by reasonable means wrong?

And before anyone starts about speeding being a lesser crime than shoplifting: it's about the general principle, not the severity of the crime itself, OK?

flemke said:

As for this "use your democratic powers" fantasy, even if the camera and general speed enforcement system were the result of a democratic process - which it obviously is not - that would not justify it or any other system on the sophistic basis that 50.1% of voters have a view and are therefore entitled to impose it on 49.9%.

I'm the first to admit that a democracy is a compromise. But it's the best one we've got. All our rules and regulations, including speed limits and the powers of those who enforce them, are the result of democratic processes. That is not a fantasy at all. If they weren't democratic, speed limits and their enforcement would be outlawed by the courts in no time at all.
If you don't agree with what's going on with speed limits (or their enforcement), the only proper way of tackling it is by democratic means: voting, petition, getting elected, court action. Not easy, I agree, but any other way (like just breaking speed limits) is at best putting the horse behind the cart, and at worse anti-democratic.




I'm very much willing to discuss this in a civilised way. I won't be reacting to personal attacks though, like the one in another posting here.

[flemke]

tr3a said:

I'm the first to admit that a democracy is a compromise. But it's the best one we've got. All our rules and regulations, including speed limits and the powers of those who enforce them, are the result of democratic processes. That is not a fantasy at all. If they weren't democratic, speed limits and their enforcement would be outlawed by the courts in no time at all.

I don't accept that a process is democratic simply because there is a free vote and someone is elected to a position of power. To be functional, a democracy requires a fair electoral system, an informed electorate, candidates who make clear their positions on all issues that they would influence and who are honest enough to follow through without changing their minds, an infinite amount of time in which to resolve all matters rather than deferring them or allowing unelected civil servants to decide, and provision for fair treatment of the minority in all issues.
The concept that 50.1% of a society should have control over 49.9% is bizarre. And then when the 49.9% go on a procreative spree and get to 50.0001%, do the views of the former minority suddenly become right whereas before they were wrong?


Regardless of whether the system in Britain (or other countries) is a functioning democracy, the question that every man and woman must consider is this:

In the ultimate instance, am I obliged to subordinate my judgment and values to the law always and inflexibly, because it is the law, or should I rely on my own judgment and values? Should the law necessarily dominate?

You seem to be saying that a person has a moral obligation to follow the law's dictates no matter what the circumstances.
I disagree. To my mind, the "law" is not an overarching, omnicompetent ethos. Rather, the "law" is an organising principle, something like a give-way line.

[DoctorD]

flemke said:

You seem to be saying that a person has a moral obligation to follow the law's dictates no matter what the circumstances.
I disagree. To my mind, the "law" is not an overarching, omnicompetent ethos. Rather, the "law" is an organising principle, something like a give-way line.

What was that saying? Something like 'There are two kinds of people in this world, those that follow the rules and those that make them'. Personally I am happy to follow the rules that make sense, but just because some bureacrat tells me to bend down and touch my toes every five yards doesn't mean I will..

This is very different to anarchy where the wholesale respect for law and order is discarded, but it would be hard to imagine many of the most important factors in modern democracy being the way they are without someone having gone 'against' the rules in the first place.

Edited by DoctorD on Sunday 4th February 14:57

[tr3a]

flemke said:

I don't accept that a process is democratic simply because there is a free vote and someone is elected to a position of power. To be functional, a democracy requires a fair electoral system, an informed electorate, candidates who make clear their positions on all issues that they would influence and who are honest enough to follow through without changing their minds, an infinite amount of time in which to resolve all matters rather than deferring them or allowing unelected civil servants to decide, and provision for fair treatment of the minority in all issues.

I agree that democracy is a (flawed) compromise. But it's the best we've got. If you can come up with a better alternative, better for all of society, I'm all for it. Until then, we're stuck with this.

flemke said:

The concept that 50.1% of a society should have control over 49.9% is bizarre.

Is it? That is the ultimate way in which democracy works. What you're saying is that democracy is bizarre. Why? Because the result of the democratic process doesn't suit your personal needs? That goes for all people. None of us get everything we want out of this.

flemke said:

And then when the 49.9% go on a procreative spree and get to 50.0001%, do the views of the former minority suddenly become right whereas before they were wrong?

It's not a matter of right or wrong. It's a matter of majority. If a subject is important enough for enough people, it gets tackled. If not, some people don't get their way. That's how it works.

flemke said:

Regardless of whether the system in Britain (or other countries) is a functioning democracy, the question that every man and woman must consider is this:

In the ultimate instance, am I obliged to subordinate my judgment and values to the law always and inflexibly, because it is the law, or should I rely on my own judgment and values? Should the law necessarily dominate?

I'm saying that in a democratic society, the law should dominate, since laws are the ultimate result of the democratic process. They are the rules of our society, a democratic agreement between us all. For me, any other conclusion borders on the anti-democratic. You at least place yourself above or outside of society by arguing that you feel not bound by those rules.
In my view, it would be much more logical and mature to argue that a particular law is flawed and that it should be changed. Not doing that, but instead breaking the law and subsequently arguing that you should not be held to it is, to say the least, putting the horse behind the cart.

flemke said:

You seem to be saying that a person has a moral obligation to follow the law's dictates no matter what the circumstances.

I already said that there are circumstances where it will not be held against you if you break the law. Force majeure is one, an emergency situation is another. Circumstances that have been pretty well defined by jurisprudence.
The problem with speeders is that they believe they themselves can and should define the situations in which it's alright to speed and that they shouldn't be held accountable if they do decide it's alright. That's just not on. Why should all the other people who break the law be held to it, but speeders should be exempt? I don't get that.

I get the impression that speeders are trying to 'obfuscate' or 'blur' the limits to which they are held (I don't know how to put this in a better way - English is not my first language). They're constantly trying to make it more difficult for the enforcers to keep them to their responsibilities. I think that's very opportunistic. Why should speeders not be held to their responsibility? Is there a good reason for that? Why should the individual need of someone to step over a legal line prevail over the rules of society that have been agreed upon in a democratic process? If you don't like the way the line has been drawn and you think it's important, then by all means use your democratic tools to have it changed. But don't just keep stepping over the line and say that should be alright. That's just opportunism, nothing more.

flemke said:

I disagree. To my mind, the "law" is not an overarching, omnicompetent ethos. Rather, the "law" is an organising principle, something like a give-way line.

I won't go as far as some criminologist I know who will say that that is a criminal way of thinking. But I will say that I think it is rather opportunistic. It fits in today's society, where many individuals routinely place their personal choices and needs above the law and the rest of society. With that, they deny their responsibility towards society. Sadly, denying one's responsibility seems to be a trend nowadays, even at the highest levels. I think that is fundamentally wrong. In the case of speeding, I think it's also a denial of the democratic principles of our society.

[tr3a]

DoctorD said:

Personally I am happy to follow the rules that make sense, but just because some bureacrat tells me to bend down and touch my toes every five yards doesn't mean I will..

Suppose I'm a burglar and I argue like you do now. Would you accept that?

DoctorD said:

This is very different to anarchy where the wholesale respect for law and order is discarded, but it would be hard to imagine many of the most important factors in modern democracy being the way they are without someone having gone 'against' the rules in the first place.

By all means be critical of rules. Go against them if you really don't agree with them. Get them changed if you have a valid argument and you think it's worth it.

But don't confuse breaking the rules out of opportunism with going against them. They're two completely different things.

[bobdylan]

laws are broken regardless of the importance or inforcement such is the way of man. but what i do know is 2day, a glorious day i was happy on the A1 at 90mph inkeeping with the light traffic around me, safe distance and great visability, when distance and visibilty changed my speed adapted 90, 70, 60 what ever i deamed stopable when the unthinkable mite happen.HOWEVER that all changed when i hit the M18 with its average speed camarers inplace, scary traffic bunched up at 50mph little gaps or visability and lane swoping maddness. i would of been happier blind folded at 110mph than in that 50mph mess, glad to be out of it.

[deeps]

tr3a, I think you take speed limits far too seriously, remember a limit is merely an arbitrary number that often gets lowered on a whim, often illegaly. Lighten up, even the law enforcers allow you to break limits after all! Thankyou for the wonderful words below

tr3a said:

I think they're a tool to tax the stupid. If you have good brains and eyes in your head, properly connected to your right foot, they don't give you any trouble. It's as simple as that.

tr3a said:

And before anyone says "don't you ever get caught for driving over the speed limit?": yes, I'm from the country where Gatsos were invented and it happens to me too.

[DoctorD]

tr3a said:

DoctorD said:

Personally I am happy to follow the rules that make sense, but just because some bureacrat tells me to bend down and touch my toes every five yards doesn't mean I will..

Suppose I'm a burglar and I argue like you do now. Would you accept that?

DoctorD said:

This is very different to anarchy where the wholesale respect for law and order is discarded, but it would be hard to imagine many of the most important factors in modern democracy being the way they are without someone having gone 'against' the rules in the first place.

By all means be critical of rules. Go against them if you really don't agree with them. Get them changed if you have a valid argument and you think it's worth it.

But don't confuse breaking the rules out of opportunism with going against them. They're two completely different things.

I know of very few (i.e. none) succesful people that haven't broken rules. The question is which rules are you going to break? Hopefully few if any of those rules are actually 'laws', but occasionally that is sometimes necessary.

Stealing something from someone else is a pretty clear rule/law/commandment that would be foolish to argue in support of, although even that line can become rather blurred in business or sport.

What's important in any democractic society is to ensure the populace understand 'why' a rule is being implemented, but that's a little 'tricky' when they only reasoning behind it is one of 'tax' or misplaced authority.

If only the money being spent on speed traps was spent on driver education, clear road signs and eliminating the kind of bottlenecks on our road systems that encourage combative driving then I suspect the roads would be a safer place. But hey, that would be far too rational and besides it wouldn't allow the bureacrats to make up more rules...

Edited by DoctorD on Sunday 4th February 19:08

[DoctorD]

tr3a said:

I get the impression that speeders are trying to 'obfuscate' or 'blur' the limits to which they are held

Precisely. Whilst speed limits make a great deal of sense in towns and built up areas, they make little sense as a precise quotient on open roads or motorways. Let's face it, driving at anything above 30mph has deadly consequences for yourself or other road users, so it's disingenous to suggest there is a 'safe' speed. Therefore its also disingenous to label drivers as 'speeders'. We all speed. We all drive at speeds that could be dangerous. So which speed is the right speed? That limit changes for different drivers, in different cars and different road conditions.

The limits we currently have were not decided by some higher intelligence, they were set almost by accident and now 'someone' decides there is some logic behind them.

Clearly there needs to be a guideline for speeds, particularly on certain roads and in certain conditions, but setting an absolute level on a motorway where a driver is punished financially for a 5mph discretion is just foolish. There are far more important factors to be addressed in dealing with safety on our roads.

Edited by DoctorD on Sunday 4th February 19:20

[tr3a]

DoctorD said:

I know of very few (i.e. none) succesful people that haven't broken rules. The question is which rules are you going to break? Hopefully few if any of those rules are actually 'laws',

Can't disagree with you there. Rule breaking is all around us. But it's no excuse in itself.

DoctorD said:

but occasionally that is sometimes necessary.

I don't understand. Why is violating speed limits necessary?

DoctorD said:

Stealing something from someone else is a pretty clear rule/law/commandment that would be foolish to argue in support of, although even that line can become rather blurred in business or sport.

I already argued that all rule breakers - especially speeders - seek to obfuscate, blur, play down the standards to which they're kept. Not beforehand, but afterwards, when they've already crossed the line. In that respect, all rule breakers are the same and act out of the same opportunism, personal need, whatever you may want to call it.

DoctorD said:

What's important in any democractic society is to ensure the populace understand 'why' a rule is being implemented, but that's a little 'tricky' when they only reasoning behind it is one of 'tax' or misplaced authority.

I wholeheartedly agree with the necessity of being clear about the objects of enforcement. It too often seems as if it's an (easily avoidable) tax on leaden right feet. But that in itself can never be an excuse for speeding. The rule is clear: 'thou shalt not speed'. Surprise or outrage when it is actually enforced (as I see so often on PH) is never warranted, IMHO. We expect rules for other people to be enforced, why do we expect the enforcement of rules we have to stick to ourselves to be neglected?

DoctorD said:

If only the money being spent on speed traps was spent on driver education, clear road signs and eliminating the kind of bottlenecks on our road systems that encourage combative driving then I suspect the roads would be a safer place. But hey, that would be far too rational

I suspect speed traps handsomely pay for themselves. They're pretty much automated and hence one of the cheapest forms of rule enforcement. That's why they're so popular with those who can reap the financial benefits. If I were you, I would argue that the 'profits' from speed traps should go towards making both roads and drivers safer. That way, politicians can show they benefit all of society, not just the great bureaucratic pot of gold (which, in theory, also benefits all of society, as we should all pay lower taxes because of it, but it's less obvious to us).

DoctorD said:

and besides it wouldn't allow the bureacrats to make up more rules...

Bureaucrats do not make up rules all by themselves. They (can) only make rules they are allowed to make by politicians you & I elect democratically. If they dream up rules out of their own accord, the courts will throw them out immediately. That is how a democracy works, but these days it seems too many people have forgotten this simple principle and decide to put the horse behind the cart.

Illogical, won't get you anywhere, IMHO.