(ianal) That's usually called Identity Theft, and since they like to use those accounts to try and snuggle up to nasty criminals (drug dealers, gun runners, etc, definitely not jaywalkers or serial litterers) they are also pointlessly and needlessly putting someone else in danger without their knowledge or consent which is Reckless Endangerment. Both Identity Theft and Reckless Endangerment are crimes. So yes, it's already illegal, but guess what, who's going to arrest the cops?

Yes, but what they recently got yelled at for is making and using an account for someone else, thus committing identity theft and reckless endangerment but the only one doing the yelling is the public. In other words, they face no negative repercussions for their illegal and reprehensible actions.
Making and using an account for a non-existent person on the other hand would just be a violation of the user agreement.

"SHOULD", though unfortunately the reality is rather the inverse of your ideal, even though I suspect that I and most other people would agree with your sentiment.

Because far too many of them have little to no regard for the law or it's spirit and intent, but only when it applies to them.

There has been a recent supreme decision regarding that, you can't be arrested for resisting arrest because obviously you must be getting arrested for something to resist to be resisting arrest. Basically if the only charge they have to throw at you is "resisting arrest" it is legally invalid and has to be thrown out. Of course there is the whole problem with cops and their buddies abusing the system and keeping you in jail for months or more while it slowly goes through the system with virtually nobody in charge being on your side. :(

Incompetence is Incompetence, it doesn't matter if it's due to lack of experience or lack of due diligence, it's still incompetence.

No

Don't forget that there are red light cameras that have been proven to be giving tickets to people that are clearly NOT entering intersections during a red, or even a yellow. Sorry, but those things are just a cash grab con/scam by the city governments.

Except there seems to be a very high and highly suspicious correlation of improperly timed yellow light durations at intersections with red light cameras. So yes, you can imply that the red light camera is at fault because the yellow wouldn't have been shortened to generate more revenue if it wasn't there.

I have, but there's not much you can do when your brakes suddenly go out and you have the horrible feeling you are suddenly in a cheap ass hollywood action flick. Got stopped safely. Mechanic said it was a bubble or something in the brake lines.
I can work on computers, missiles, and a lot of other high tech or crazy things, but I don't work on cars because I know little beyond theories on their mechanics.

That's true in some places in the USA, and not others. There's no one set of rules for that nation wide.

I've been in both types several times as a passenger, and the T-bone collisions tended to be more painful over the next couple of weeks. The type of seatbelts they have in cars don't do crap for being thrown sideways. Now the 5 points in dune buggies and the like it doesn't matter which way you get bounced so long as your helmet doesn't fly off.

"The key part of ShanghaiBill's query was "in the intersections studied"."

Of course. It's kind of hard to include statistics on intersections that have not been studied, and there are also often resource issues preventing the study of all intersections in a city.

This isn't exactly news, as various cities have been caught illegally reducing the yellow light durations below the federally mandated minimums for the purpose of fund generatiou by entrapment through red light cams.
There have also been several other studies that show that the red light cams actually increase accident rates.

From the history books I've seen, many written by non-americans, it was pretty clearly stated that if the USA hadn't finally gotten into the war in Europe, Germany would have pretty much steamrolled what was left of western Europe, then turned full forces including it's Luftwaffe on Russia (actually USSR) and overwhelmed them outside of winter. Instead they got beaten back and their forces continually depleted by the Allied forces on the Western Front, leaving the Eastern front vulnerable and less capable, loosing even their initial advances when the lack of supplies and brutal winter devastated their forces.
Things "might" have gone smoother with the American forces in Europe, but they were also engaged in the Pacific conflict at the same time, and needed the shifting of forces from the ending of the European conflict to bring a conclusion to the Pacific conflict. Of course there are the nukes, but those only ended it quicker and with far less bloodshed than would have happened otherwise, even with the most optimistic forecasts. It just goes to show that fighting a war on multiple fronts is never a good idea.