Some of that is rather worthless.
1) Insurance surcharge: While the math does support the assertion that this creastes $10.2 billion in income to insurance companies, it must be remembered that income is not profit. It must also be remembered that a significant portion of those who receive speeding tickets are repeat offenders who are at a statistically higher risk for being involved in an accident. The average payouts for these accidents are well in excess of $300/each which means that the losses from insuring risky, ticket-receiving drivers very likely negate most or all of the additional income from the surcharges. Finally, a significant number of tickets are plead down in traffic court or are deferred and therefore never show up to the insurance company in the first place. This means that the actual increase in income for insurance companies is well below $10.2 billion even if the higher costs of insuring risky drivers are never taken into account.
2) Texas Speed Traps: Speed traps are typically set up in areas where there is high throuput. While there were only 56,000 residents of the areas in which the speed traps were set up, the roads certainly saw far more unique drivers than the number of residents in the towns would suggest. For example, along I-90 here in WA, there are several unincorporated townships with fewer than 5,000 people. However, because of I-90, tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people drive through these communities every day. For the Texas speed trap information to be useful, they would need to cite total traffic throughput, not population size. Essentially, the data here have been manipulated for the purposes of sensationalism.
3) Out-Of-State Tickets: Out-of-state drivers are also significantly less likely to be familiar with an area which increases the likelihood of them making erratic maneuvers (and thereby drawing an officer's attention) or of being unfamiliar with the speed limit on a given road and driving faster than permitted. A similar phenomenon, though to a lesser degree, occurs when people are driving outside of their usual metropolitan area. This alone is sufficient to explain the higher ticketing rates for out-of-state drivers as well as the higher ticketing rates for drivers outside of their usual metropolitan area.
4) Radar Guns: The tests cited were performed in 1979. Radar equipment has progressed a hell of a lot in the past 31 years. Additionally, I have heard of only a handful of cases (certainly not "many") where a stationary and automated speed camera issued the ticket to a parked vehicle rather than the speeding vehicle. In all cases, the ticket was dismissed because the photo taken by the automated machine clearly showed that the ticketed car was, in fact, parked. The issue was not with the radar itself, but rather with the automated system that isn't smart enough to recognize target error. Human operators do not have this failing.
ZV