[amaterasu]

Seconded it not being about safety. In Victoria, traffic infringement revenue is included in the state budget. I'm assuming that the NSW government does the same, so at $344-$457AUD per offence, this is likely just another revenue generating exercise.

[sjy]

Total revenue from speed and red light cameras in NSW during the last financial year was $65 million: https://www.revenue.nsw.gov.au/help-centre/resources-library...

Total revenue for the NSW government in that year was $81 billion, with a budget surplus of $800 million: https://www.budget.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/budget-201...

Traffic cameras generate some revenue of course, but let’s be realistic – you could scrap them entirely and not even get 10% of the way towards a budget deficit.

[megablast]

> Seconded it not being about safety.

Drivers love pulling out this stuff for every fine, whether speeding, DUI or this. It is ridiculous. We get it, you don't feel you need to follow the rules.

[leetcrew]

sometimes it is painfully obvious that it is about revenue, even at the expense of safety: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/04/red-light-camera-mon...

[lopmotr]

Why shouldn't it be for revenue? I'd much rather road taxes be paid for by dangerous drivers than uniformly by everyone. Hell, they don't even have to be dangerous. If you could jump through some hoops to reduce your tax, then good! That means people who care about their money will pay less and people who have more important things to do will subsidize them. Just like supermarket coupons. In the case of those mistimed traffic lights, people who don't want to pay can just enter intersections more cautiously, as long as they know how it works.

As long as it is a fine for dangerous activity, then it could even be paid personally to some well known individuals instead of the government! That might be an even better incentive to drive safely if you feel a strong personal sense of unfairness at being fined.

There's no excuse for driving through red lights, speeding, or using a phone while driving. Anybody who can't help themselves doing these things is incompetent at driving and can protect themselves from fines by abstaining. People who occasionally make a mistake are still dangerous, but they won't pay many fines either so it's not a big problem for them to be fined once or twice in their life.

[leetcrew]

> Why shouldn't it be for revenue?

because it creates inappropriate incentives for the state. it incentivizes authorities to knowingly create unreasonable laws for the purpose of increasing revenue. a fine can be a good deterrent against breaking the law, and I'm certainly not saying they should just burn the money, but it's something you should be wary of as a citizen.

the rest of your post indicates a very trusting attitude towards government, so I doubt we are going to see eye-to-eye here in general. I really think you should reconsider the yellow light timings though; it is quite an egregious abuse.

a yellow light needs to have some minimum duration to be useful. you can't have a 1 second yellow on a 50mph road; there's no way anyone can stop that fast. yellow light timings are usually set so that drivers who are too close to the light to safely stop can pass through before it turns red and the cross traffic gets the green. shortening the yellow for one direction usually advances the green timing for the cross traffic. it's not just a "gotcha" fine; it actually increases the chance of collisions in the intersection.