speed limits, if majority of cases are not about public safety but generators of revenue. if we all started driving the speed limit the number of accidents would not be significantly reduced while many, many cities/counties/… would fully go bankrupt. I have spent more than a decade in state&local courts records management business and can tell you this first-hand. you can cool deals if you just pay the fine and don’t come to court at all and neat stuff like that. speed limits never were and never will be about public safety
This is a false dichotomy. You seem to think that the way speeds are enforced, with a focus on revenue generation, means that speed limiting is only for revenue generation. That is just not true. At higher speeds your reaction time, combined with stopping distance increases, mean that you need more warning and space to avoid hazards. Cars pulling out of driveways/side streets/parking lots, cars changing lanes, cars stopping to turn, pedestrians crossing roads, bicycles, etc. all take time and space to respond to. That is why we don’t have home driveways or crosswalks on a freeway. We have 15-25 mph school zones because children can and do behave unpredictably and may dart out into traffic, so a drive will have almost no time or space to respond.
This goes in complete opposition to every single study ever performed on this matter. Higher speed very directly translates into higher risk of accidents and higher risk of fatalities or serious injuries per accident. Now, it's true that there are cases of occasional unscrupulous places placing onerous speed limits only to force fines (I've seen places on highways that are normally 100 km/h that have a short portion of 30km/h on flat straight land with no houses around, but with a good place for a police car to stay hidden), but these are the exception and nowhere near the rule.
