This is the best summary I could come up with:

A dramatic rise in accidents killing or injuring pedestrians and bicyclists has led to a myriad of policy and infrastructure changes, but moves to ban right on red have drawn some of the most intense sentiments on both sides.

But Jay Beeber, executive director for policy at the National Motorists Association, an advocacy organization for drivers, called it a “fallacy” to assume such blanket bans would make streets safer.

Concerned that cars idling at stop lights could compound an energy crisis, the U.S. government warned states in the 1970s that they could risk some federal funding should cities prohibit right on red, except in specific, clearly marked areas.

Priya Sarathy Jones, deputy executive director at the Fines and Fees Justice Center, is concerned penalties from right-on-red bans will fall disproportionately on lower-income drivers who have to drive to work because they can’t afford housing near public transit.

And in the Chicago area, any discussion of red light policy often conjures up memories of the region’s vilified red-light camera program, which spurred bribery charges against public officials accused of trying to influence the high-profit contracts.

“It generates a lot of money for the city, instead of our decisions being driven by safety strategies backed by evidence,” she said, suggesting that road infrastructure improvements would be a much more effective way to reduce accidents.

The original article contains 1,279 words, the summary contains 222 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!