Highway safety and priorities when pulling folks over

I see the rationale for pulling folks over for speeding.  I definitely do.  At high speeds of even the (typically) legally-permitted 60 MPH, a tire blowout can be a life-or-death situation, a sideswipe can be fatal, and running off the road can lead to a rollover.  Obviously when you go even faster the consequences of these things increase as does the likelihood that any one of them will happen.  I understand that it's easier to pull folks for speeding, more reliably measurable, and more objective than for other crimes.  But still.

Why aren't we pulling people for excessive lane changes in traffic?  (See an earlier post for a not-very-eloquent complaint about this.)  Why aren't we pulling people for tailgating?  Why aren't we pulling them for texting or talking on the cell phone?  Why aren't we pulling people for passing semis on the right or for failing to signal or for obstructing the left lane?  In short, why aren't we focusing more on dangerous driving actions as opposed to speeding when it's typically these things that lead to collisions at high speed anyway?

It's true that high speeds can lead you to have a catastrophic accident (and if that's a risk you, the driver, alone in your car, alone on the road, are willing to take on, I don't really care about it), and there is unacceptable risk there in that if I am going 100 on a straight and level road where I can see everything, I can still bust a tire, lose control, and kill a driver in another lane minding their own business.  So obviously speeding should still be a concern.  I would argue though, that speeding is much less of a concern than the person who is passing slower cars on the right without first giving the slower cars time to get a lane over and let the faster one by.  If a person is going 90 (with appropriately rated tires, a non-drugged bloodstream, and a clear view of the road and everyone on it), I think that's safer than someone passing a person on the right at 70.  I'm not hardcore enough to find stats to back this up, but if anyone wants to prove me wrong or right, go for it.  No policy makers are leaning on this blog so I'm not super concerned.

In any case, my argument here is that, in addition to speeding, we should be punishing people who drive recklessly, and maybe even placing more emphasis on those individuals.  The situation as it stands is that if I go 90 (which I never have) I can expect to get a ticket pretty fast, but if I tailgate somebody really closely, or cut it close changing lanes from behind a semi to in front of someone in the fast lane, I can be fairly sure nothing will happen.  Quite honestly, the opposite should be true.

Additionally, speed limit signs should reflect the reality of the environment.  If it's 70 through one stretch and then randomly 65 through the next stretch with no discernible change to the highway's quality, direction, or traffic flow, I do not at all feel compelled to go 65 although I do dock my speed anyway.  If we had reasonable limits that didn't drop to 60 MPH in sections six lanes wide, they might (or might not) be respected a touch more than they currently are.

Again, I understand that it's pretty impossible for cops to patrol the entire length of the highway to catch seemingly isolated driving incidents such as tailgating or improper passing, but although these behaviors are more discrete than speeding (which tends to be a pretty constant behavior over the course of travel) I feel like they are going to be habits and they will eventually be detected.  Cops have cameras in their cars and often shoot video of a violation such as running a stop sign--this can be done with reckless driving.  I know I sound totalitarian (and heck, maybe a little hypocritical), but if the system were actually working right we would drive more carefully than I see.