Faith in a non-predatory system is the crux of the issue, not the presence itself of more cameras. For instance, a well designed system only issues a ticket fo

Faith in a non-predatory system is the crux of the issue, not the presence itself of more cameras. For instance, a well designed system only issues a ticket for an improperly crossing plate after an opposing light has turned green, and fines are proportional or variable eg- to a person's wealth or the extent of the violation. Ideally, there would be a manual review request built into the automated process, a limit on the revenues allowed from the cameras, and the source code would be open for scrutiny in court. In the US through the 2000s, companies licensing red light cameras to cities were designing them to issue tickets immediately upon red and sometimes sooner, the process to contest was cumbersome in time and cost and heavily in favor of the cameras, and people in areas that were ticketed most were less likely to be able to afford a lawyer or else not equipped to test and evaluate the cameras in the absence of any oversight. And so the cameras had the opposite effect. It made better sense to speed through yellows than chance getting caught crossing around a red, ensuring that collisions were more destructive and fatal. Others who were afraid of ghost lights would stop at yellows or else slam on brakes coming up to yellows, creating a high risk of rear end collisions. Those effects linger today in many formerly camera'd intersections, and neither is an improvement in safety for pedestrians or cyclists.