You want them stopped so that source is gone.
I never said I want them stopped, I said it's sad that they work. In my ideal world, drug companies would simply stop making ads because they wouldn't result in increased sales. Everyone who should be on their stuff would already be on it, and no one who shouldn't be on it would start taking it.
Speeding certainly leads to accidents.
Speeding fines were set back in the days when it required a cop to catch them. The fines were considered fair back then. Deterrent math works out like this:
Deterrent factor = (Likelihood of getting caught) X (fine when caught)
Another reason for fines might be to pay for the cost the society must bear for the fallout from the transgression. This math works out to:
Money available to fix mess = (fine amount) - (cost of catching and processing violators)
In both cases, automating the process of issuing speeding tickets should result in lower fines. If the fine is being used as a deterrent, the likelihood of being caught went up, so the deterrent capability of a given fine amount is greater. If the fine is being used to compensate society, automation should reduce the cost, therefore reducing the amount that needs to be collected.
Here's where your attitude comes in: if the fine amount was acceptable twenty years ago, then it is outrageous in areas with cameras. We should all be fighting against them.
Another thing - these traps don't actually work so well. Violators have much less recourse to address mistakes in the system, and every time someone looks into one of these systems, they are rife with mistakes. Also, they tend to hit the same people over and over again. If they put a camera on your path from home to work, you are thousands of times more likely to be caught than if your path to work didn't happen to go by a camera. Where to put them is a political process, not an engineering process, so it is always abused. Also, going ten mph over the speed limit doesn't raise reduce road safety very much. Almost all of these tickets are bureaucratic victories, not safety victories. Finally, because the same people tend to get hit over and over again, there has been a recent trend of people simply letting the state take their license instead of paying the fines. Once they are driving without a license, there is really not much to hold over them. It's either let them go or put them in jail. Letting them go is admitting that the fines aren't worth it, and jailing them costs way more than the societal cost of speeding was in the first place, so everybody loses.
Perhaps what you don't understand is that there is often half a dozen different drugs that can manage some problem equally well, and the one that is used will depend on patient tolerance, availability, cost, and doctor education.
I've been on some of the most expensive ones on the commercials: Enbrel and Humira, I would have been on Orencia if it had been available back then. The day I walked into my doctor's office, he had a treatment plan. First, try topicals - starting with the least invasive and most likely to succeed. If no response, go to systemics (pills). We tried a half dozen pills - with follow-up visits to check if they were working. When that was exhausted, we went to subcutaneous injections. We would have moved on to blood infusions, but it turned out not to be necessary.
The entire time, he knew more about my condition and the available treatments than I could have possibly picked up from commercials or magazine ads. My input on medical issues would have just been noise. Of course he was receptive to hear how I was feeling and reacting to the medication, but he didn't need to know about treatment options.
The problem is that it's hard for the average consumer to manage usage. They fire up Netflix and it "optimizes" to get the best quality picture. There's no way to ask "If I were to do this four hours a day for the entire month, would I have to pay extra?".
Adaptive clients were invented to be used on a network where you pay for the pipe size and use it as much as you want. Data caps screw up the introduction of next generation services - as they are intended to.
"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)