From this BoingBoing post
"...if the objective is to make as much money as possible from red-light cameras, the best thing to do is shorten the yellow signal, eliminate the pause, and enrich the city coffers (even as you kill its citizens)."
A brief overview of the safety/red-light-camera-for-profit issue can be found here
, and also here
Here's another article
, on increased length of yellow lights reducing the need for Red Light cameras.
And here is the list
of 6 US cities guilty of shortening yellow lights to raise revenue. (Spoiler Alert: Albuquerque isn't one of them.)
Before the backlash begins, I'm certainly opposed to people running red lights, and I think that cameras in place to catch people breaking the law are, in this instance, fine and a perfectly legitimate way to enforce the law. But I'm also a big fan of intelligent practice that understands how people work and is designed to function with and not against human behavior. I'm also skeptical, given the battles between Martin Chavez and Bill Richardson over red light camera revenue, that such a manipulable source of income has been used in the best and fairest manner.
Should the lengths of yellow lights be lengthened? Should there be a longer pause in the switch from red to green? Are red light cameras a danger precisely because of their revenue generating potential? Let's add these questions to the stew of debate already rich with epithets that don't need to be expressed anew here. So, any thoughts?