> That doesn't seem logical if the alternative is not having the lights at all.

If the norm becomes (radio clearance and no red lights), I suspect pilots will become conditioned to equate no-red-lights with landing clearance. Not 100%, but maybe at least 1% of the time. So if that happens and the red lights stopped working, you have a problem that wouldn't have existed if the red lights were never introduced.

Perhaps a more resilient system would use green lights to indicate landing clearance. Then if the lights failed, the default would be radioing ATC for guidance?

(I have no qualifications on this topic. I'm just guessing based on a bunch of Mentour videos I've watched.)

These will always only be at a minority of airports and probably always be at a minority of airports with airline service.

Exactly. The lights create a kind of moral hazard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation might be a better fit.

Good point, thanks.

But my understanding is that the plane was taxiing. At this point, the problem isn't just the lack of red lights: the pilot took a wrong turn. There are reasons other than the possibility of crossing an active runway why you follow directions, among them that you want to end up at your destination.

That's a good point; if pilots come to expect the lights, I can see how it could be dangerous for them to fail, even if they're not supposed to be the primary mechanism.

An unreliable system is often worse than a non-existent one.