[Atlas Sneezed]

We all hate red-light runners. However, these bringers of "safety" are not generally implemented that way.

First, studies have shown that accidents can be reduced by 50% by engineering improvements (timing the yellow properly, ensuring signal visibility meets modern standards).

Second, this creates a perverse incentive for the government to WORSEN safety, and to CAUSE more red-light running (that revenue can be addictive). It makes it "expensive" for a city to improve signal engineering, because revenue will drop. This has occurred in Oregon, where certain signals with the cameras were found to have unjustifiably shortened yellow durations.

Whatever happened to putting a cop on a motorcycle at an intersection with red-light running problems? (I know, they are all out enforcing unjustifiably low speed limits on the safest stretches of highway.)

[Politicalities]

First, studies have shown that accidents can be reduced by 50% by engineering improvements (timing the yellow properly, ensuring signal visibility meets modern standards). Second, this creates a perverse incentive for the government to WORSEN safety, and to CAUSE more red-light running (that revenue can be addictive).

Then change the law. As long as the law says what it says, it should be enforced, and as long as it's enforced, it should be enforced as cheaply and effectively as possible.

Whatever happened to putting a cop on a motorcycle at an intersection with red-light running problems?

Last I heard, the law regarding compliance with traffic signals said nothing about enforcement only at "problem intersections". And a camera is a heck of a lot cheaper than a motorcycle cop, and a lot less likely to let family, friends, and cute women off with a warning.