The only disconnect is that it took the state this long to institute what is common in most other states. A rash, by definition, is a multitude of instances of something occurring more or less during the same period of time, and does not represent the norm, nor does it last long enough to become the norm. Using your logic, if you get a heat rash then you should apply an ointment, and keep on applying it forever just in case it ever happens again.
Your litmus test that separates "good" drivers from "perfect" drivers is pretty severe, as there are many good drivers who occasionally incur an infraction that do not otherwise pose an inherent risk to the public. You want to toss imperfect drivers in with the habitually dangerous and reckless drivers, and treat them all as if they were a menace to society. That's a little silly, IMHO, especially considering that most speed limits are arbitrary with no supporting data whatsoever to support them, and the 85th percentile will drive a safe and prudent speed based on driving conditions irrespective of the posted speed limit, anyway. Most of those in the 85th percentile would be considered good drivers, but few would be considered perfect.
You get a ticket for a minor moving violation, pay the fine so the state gets their revenue, go to school, possibly become a better driver, don't accrue points and thus no increase in insurance premiums. Everyone is happy. Except those who think one speeding ticket should be grounds for forever losing your license.
