I don't understand…

It's not as cut and dry as you make it. Having lived in DC when these were first instituted many people noticed that the time between yellow to red was quite a bit shorter at the light with the cameras than the light without cameras. That wasn't done to keep us "safer" but as a pure money grab. I am sure there are some other legal problems with it, but for me it is more about the principle of the matter. $400+ for rolling a red-light right turn. That is ridiculous.

The red light camera issue is two fold in Florida. First, state law does not allow them for traffic violations. Cities have been using them as "code violations" and there is no consistency in what the fines are or how they are judged. Some cities have been using a no-tolerance standard where even borderline situations get charged. Plus, there is only suggested standards for the length of the yellow light in the state and there are a couple of high ranking cash cow cameras in south Florida that have been shown to have yellow light times under those suggested times. Florida's problem is really a lack of standards and legal ability for them to exist. The legislature may change that this session. However, there is also a strong backlash from some who just see the cameras as more ways to get money from the people instead of being true public safety. My guess is that they will pass a bill this session with restrictions similar to the "Waldo Law" on speeding tickets. Waldo was a little speed trap that would write a ticket for anyone going just one mph over the speed limit and collected 2/3 of its city budget through those tickets. The legislature passed a standard that said that a driver could not be pulled over for driving 5 MPH or less over the speed limit, unless there was another violation. Probably applying stronger standards so that the borderline calls are not done and only clear violations can be ticketed would make it acceptable.

Because I've known a lot of people who have been cited based on camera evidence when they weren't breaking any traffic laws.. like, turning right on a red light, which is legal here in California. Then you're forced to go through the bureaucracy of court. The problem is that there's not enough thoroughness in checking to make sure the person is in violation, and there's no urgency for it either---because its primarily a measure to increase city coffers and not prevent any real problem.

I don't have a problem with cameras, but I think violations caught by camera, if they're as simple as running a red light, should be limited to a fine, and it shouldn't affect your record for insurance purposes. The fines can be huge--up to $300--and added to that you get an increase in insurance fees, and possibly, if you're bad enough or unlucky enough, traffic school. Its just too much of a financial burden for minor (and possibly mistaken) offenses.

It's an early step down a very bad road. I don't want to live in Britain, with its CCTV cameras on every corner and in every shop, so that we're all being spied on all the time. One of the essential components of a relatively free society is that where a violation of law doesn't actually cause any harm, we generally don't face officiousness from authorities solely for the sake of "enforcing the law." If it's 2am and there's no traffic in any direction, and there's a clear view of traffic on both cross streets, there's no harm in running the red after stopping and looking. Lots of folks do that. Most of the time, either there's no cop around or, even if there is, they're not going to waste their time writing you up for a traffic violation which puts nobody at risk at all. But the camera doesn't care.

How about we put a sensor in your car to give you a citation every time you exceed the speed limit?

Personally, I encourage civil disobedience with regards to unmanned traffic cameras of all sorts.