It was primarily intended to raise revenue.
What was??? I don't understand what you mean?
People driving over the limit or under?
Or having the 3km buffer
As I understand it, there is zero tolerance, so even going 1 kph over is a punishable offence.
Hence, my argument is, a lot of people might argue that exceeding the posted limit by say, 5 kph, to safely pass a car being driven under the limit, is a safer option than taking a long time to pass exactly on the speed limit.
Such a degree of enforcement suggests revenue raising rather than an attempt to reduce the hazards of vehicular travel.
This degree of fear induced by punishment has been known to lead to reckless acts provoked by the situation described in the topic as "frustrating" (to alter the part of speech from a past tense verb form of the adjective, to a present continuous form of the verbal adjective).
Also what's wrong with raising revenue? If you don't like it, then don't do it and be caught. IMO.
Not an entirely new notion, but I was making the observation in the context of over-exacting enforcement.
