I offered a pretty competent response to debunk the major idea put forth in Part 2 (improving safety by extending the yellow phase) the other day. This article is very interesting because it illustrates the quandary I predicted many of these "red-light camera" cities would find themselves in when the issue was first raised months ago. These cities, by installing traffic safety devices that are supposed to serve a legitimate purpose (ostensibly to improve safety) have exposed themselves to civil liability in cases where these devices have unintended consequences or inadequate results.
One other note: When you get ticketed by a police officer who has pulled you over, you have to sign a summons agreeing to appear in court (you'll sacrifice your license if you don't). Until you sign a summons, they have no way to force you to plead guilty or not guilty or pay the fine or fight the charge.
When you are given a photo radar ticket (via the mail), you have signed no summons. You are not obligated to appear in court until you do sign a summons.
That means, don't respond to the ticket. Wait until a police officer shows up at your door with a summons. Until they do that, they have no right to require you to appear in court.
The dirty little secret of photo radar is that most people pay the fine without waiting for the summons, and it's a waste of police resources to personally issue a summons when most people are paying the fines anyway. So ignore a photo radar ticket until you are given a summons. Odds are they won't bother doing so.