I really don't understand this type of enforcement.
To me, it's just revenue generation.
Why do I think that way?
What good would it do, in the above situation, if they had a dangerous driver go through the area, and, say, bowl over a "construction worker," because they didn't see an enforcement vehicle in the area?
Wouldn't some proactive SAFETY, be much better?
How about just stationing a fully-marked, lights-blazing, patrol vehicle, with its Ka-band blasting constant-on, wide-open, down that stretch of highway?
I'd bet that would get EVERYONE's attention, and actually slow everyone down.
What's the good of this kind of entrapment?
Does it really promote safety?
I don't think that such scare tactics work at all. Particularly for out-of-area drivers who, going through such an area, may not know, at all, that it's targeted for enforcement.
This is the same reason why I completely oppose such "undercover" traps - or any kind of speed-traps, for that matter - in active school zones or other high-risk areas.
Instead of setting traps, why don't they actually do something that will cause traffic to actually slow and become safer, such as a highly visible enforcement vehicle or vehicles, each broadcasting the fact that they are there, ready to chase-down anyone who flagrantly defies the law?
What good is it going to do the family of the enforcer that gets runs over by a dangerous driver, on such a "sting" operation? What good will it do me, as a parent, if a speeder runs over my child, while the enforcers sit, concealed?
If it's really about safety, they'd do things completely differently.
In a high-crime area, you don't just "sting." You also beef up VISIBLE police presence to DETER crime.
I firmly believe that the proper way to enforce traffic SAFETY
is just by such deterrence.