If they only installed them based on collision/injury data, and that data identified mostly poor areas, you would be ok with it? Because this is what the data finds over and over. The people most harmed by red light running are the poor people who live in these neighborhoods.
I might question the benefits of making the poor area even poorer via fines they likely can't afford. I might wonder if there are confounding factors like poorly maintained roads and vehicles at play. I might wonder if the yellow lights have the same timing as in the suburbs.
Are the small fines for red light violations costlier, or the impact on health and life from the collisions red light running inevitably causes? I think letting poor areas be high traffic injury areas through deliberate neglect is even costlier to the poor who live there than red light fines.
I might question why you are so opposed to interventions that save the lives of people in poorer neighborhoods (disproportionately not owners of cars).
In my experience it's the rich areas chock full o' Karens that get the latest and greatest in jackbootery because they have all the money for the new hotness, no real problems to divert their attention and almost nobody who's ever been on the business end of government enforcement so they don't see any real problem with dispensing it at the drop of a hat.
Any dataset involving police actions will show high concentrations in poor areas because that's where police patrol the most and where they're most likely to crack down on behaviors that might be allowed to slide elsewhere (in part due to the racial demographics of those areas).
Usually allocation decisions are related to actual car/pedestrian fatality/injury counts + trial placements and measurements. Either way, wouldn't you be in favor of measures that remove police from overpoliced poor neighborhoods in favor of a technology focusing on traffic safety enforcement?
This is a bizarre comment. What level of absence of evidence would you accept to prove "not corrupt enough?" The "corruption snack" language strongly suggests you aren't really interested in changing your mind even if such evidence could be provided.
