That's not really sound logic - if you see a yellow light and there's enough time to safely stop, you should stop. That's an important qualifier. Indeed, that's why the duration of yellow lights differs based on the expected speed that people will approach them - because it's not, in fact, always safe to stop when you see yellow. (As a thought experiment, ask yourself why we have yellow lights at all, and why they're not instantaneous).

What the city did in this particular case was deliberately shorten the yellow light to a lower time than is actually legal or safe - just to make a few extra bucks.

Now, if your argument was more that "well, the city's wrong, but most of the people who ran the lights are still guilty", then the argument is really similar to the one about the exclusionary rule (evidence in criminal cases can't be used if obtained through an illegal search). Without some way to punish the city, there's no disincentive for them not to keep screwing over people - in this case, in a way that actually increased the accident rate. There's got to be some pain felt for malfeasance, and it sounds like that's exactly what's going on here.

Careful there.

The article doesn't state that the city shortened the yellow lights. They promised to not use cameras with yellows shorter than 4.4 seconds. They then started moving the cameras around to other intersections. It is possible that these different intersections had light programs with yellows shorter than 4.4 seconds.

I also don't see any mention in the article of increased accident rates.

Not disagreeing with the rest of what you said, but I just wanted to point out that the article does state that the city moved the cameras to intersections with yellows shorter than 4.0 seconds.

That's what he said. There's a difference between shortening a time interval of a light with a camera and moving the camera to a light which already has an interval that's too short. Both are wrong and breaking a promise, but the latter can happen by just being dumb, instead of bad intentions.

I don't think "being dumb" should be rewarded, either -- especially when, if allowed to flourish, such accidental stupidity can lead to willful ignorance and worse.

In furtherance of your point, a friend of mine worked for as a civil engineer involved with traffic planning in a medium city. A relevant tidbit (which I only assume to be true as, while it is perfectly logical, is not something I've ever heard taught, so take with salt) is that the solid white lines approaching an intersection are measured, and designed to act as guide markers for yellow lights, at least as originally timed.

The way it's supposed to work, is that if you're doing the spped limit and the light turns yellow, you should not stop if you are within the solid white lines, but should stop if you are outside of them.

Again, I don't know if this is 100% true, or if it is, whether it applies to all metro areas or just in Memphis, TN.

I think thats a good rule of thumb at the very least and it works for me in California.

If you brake really hard, you're probably going to decelerate at around 7 m/s2.

25 MPH / 7 m/s2 ~= 1.6 seconds.

If you get caught running a redlight, you went through the intersection > 0.5 seconds after the light turned red, which is at least > 4 seconds after the light turned amber.

If you can't stop safely in that time, you weren't driving safely, or there were exceptional circumstances (eg. an ambulance, or a tailgating semi-trailer). The video footage of the event will exonerate you in those circumstances.

The total number of accidents increase, but the number of severe accidents decrease.

I love seeing people running red lights getting flashed. It makes my day.

If you brake really hard, you may get rear-ended -- particularly if you're driving a gigantic beast of an SUV and the car behind you is a Geo Metro. I never assume someone's doing something wrong just based on the law; I also check for other factors like who's around them, what those other people are doing, whether the street is wet or oily, et cetera.

. . . and whether the speed limit in a particular area is artificially low to increase ticketing revenue.

If you have, from prior experience, a particular expectation of the duration of a yellow light, and then the city intentionally shortens that time in order to give more tickets, it jeopardizes everyone’s safety. The explicit reason for traffic tickets is to make the roads safer by discouraging unsafe driving: cities who prioritize revenue over safety are abusing the whole system, and should absolutely be shut down.

Everyone knows that yellow has been morphed into meaning, "Speed up!" When really people should be stopping. They don't stop. They should stop.

And they should be punished for not stopping.

Round abouts, when first introduced cause more accidents in america as well. Doesn't mean they aren't better.

American drivers need to be taught that yellow means stop. In this case, the judge is teaching us, "Hey, run the light, if they catch you, maybe you can weasel your way out of the ticket by blaming the system."

I hear your points and i understand the little guy against the state perspective, but it's like blaming the highway patrol in the speed trap because he hid his car so you couldn't see it and slow down before he saw you. You were speeding and you should have gotten a ticket. In this case, people in fact, did run the red light and they should be punished for it because it is more dangerous to try to make it through. Most people don't make it through, even if the yellow is 4.4 seconds.

In my experience, yellow lights are different times in lots of different cities. When I see one, I slow down, i don't speed up. Unless it's raining and I know I'll lose traction. Then I just go through.

We exist in a world with others, not only ourselves. We need to live like it.

From the actual article linked to by the submitted post:

"Schwartz saw the error in the announcement timing as more than a technicality, citing the false assertion of Police Chief Paul Walters that motorists would be given 4.4 seconds of yellow time at enforced intersections. Records show that seventeen of the city’s eighteen camera intersections had yellow times of 4.0 seconds or less. The vast majority of red light tickets in the city were mailed to vehicle accused of entering an intersection less than half-a-second after the light had turned red."

And again, yellow doesn't mean stop. It means "stop if it's safe". If yellow meant unequivocally stop, then everyone would be slamming on the brakes - a recipe for accidents.

I know lots of people who've been caught on red light cameras, but as far as I know, none of them entered the intersection more than 0.5-1 seconds after the light turned red.

Obviously, if you're able to stop safely, you should. But the point is that for lights with short yellows, it's sometimes hard to stop before the intersection without slamming on the brakes.

So how about those who weren't? "Let god sort them out", or what?