If a motorist is uncertain of whether the vehicle behind him would be able to stop a full car length before an intersection whose light has just turned yellow, it is safer for the motorist to proceed than to try to stop. The number one traffic law is that motorists are supposed to avoid collisions, other traffic regulations notwithstanding; the traffic signal regulations would be subservient to that. Actually, there was one time I floorboarded my way into an intersection just as my light turned red (I'd stopped for the yellow) because I judged that the motorist behind me wasn't going to be able to stop. Actually, I wasn't expecting to avoid a collision, but merely lessen the impact. As it happened, I got far enough in front of the cars to either side (which were also stopped at the intersection) that the bat-out-of-Hell motorist was able to pass me in the intersection. Otherwise I would have been rear-ended for sure. Did I "run the red light"? Yeah, I guess. If I'd gotten a ticket would I have fought it? You betcha.
Since the red light cameras don't offer any "big picture" view of the traffic situation at an intersection, there's no way to judge whether any mitigating factors are applicable. Further, the existence of such cameras will tend to cause motorists to shift their judgements to the detriment of both safety and traffic flow.
Sorry but I'm not buying any of that. The MAIN rule is don't follow too closely. You never know when a dog, child or deer is going to jump out in front of the car you are following. If someone is following too closely at an intersection and the lead car brakes for an amber light the car behind has 100% of the responsibility to stop. Not the camera, not the timing of the amber, nothing.
I'll grant you that in the situation you described it was justified to run the light (of course you're making a split second decision and hoping not to t-bone that child in the car seat). That is a one in ten thousand circumstance. No system is perfect.