The whole idea of speed limits needs to be reworked. Isn't the root of the speed limit a concern for safety? Are speed limits fair?
Where speed "limits" are treated as if they were speed "minimums" they already are ineffective in their ability to regulate speed. Try just going at or under the limit. All the other drivers will be pissed. So, any stop for speeding is a judgement call from law enforcement.
It would make better sense to endorse drivers and their vehicles according to their ability to drive without endangering others or themselves.
If my car has a top speed of 155 mph and I'm driving on a long and deserted stretch of highway, while my driving ability, and other conditions would make it essentially safe to go over 100 mph, then why shouldn't I? Because aerial surveillance will send a patrol car after me? We all should know that to be the real reason. It is not really a safety issue.
You should have some electronic signal you can turn on when you are going to want to drive at speeds that might generate a wreckless driving stop. Law enforcement could intercept that signal and see that your individual endorsements show you to have the training, testing, properly equiped car in good repair, compared with your driving record, road conditions, traffic, weather, etc.
People will seek out better driver training. They will avoid being wreckless.
Drivers would not always be fined for infractions, but probably be required to take a class, or a test. They might need to just slow down in the junk car they drive.
I would bet that cops and drivers would have more sensibility in dealing with one another. And as a motorist, you would have a better chance if you were unreasonably cited to be able to have a judge reconsider the claim.
It should be a crime if a police department sets a quota for their traffic cops. It should not be profitable for police departments to issue citations.
This came to mind because of this
ridiculous story.
Done with rant.