I don't fully understand the blanket 'No, it's against the law' position. Just because something is 'the law' doesn't mean it is right. Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law. Then there's a possibility that the law gets changed. OK so poor traffic management systems are not in the same league as colonial exploitation, apartheid or oppressive dictatorships, as justifying civil disobedience, but the principle is the same.
Many, if not most traffic lights are entirely sensible and well-designed systems for controlling traffic. There is no justification for failure to observe them even if it causes a minor inconvenience from time to time. This is a compromise that preserves the safety and convenience of all road users.
Sometimes there are lights whose design and operation causes significant inconvenience or even danger to one or more groups of road users because they prioritise the interests of one group over others or, more commonly in my experience, they have simply not taken into account the interests of all road users. In such instances I feel morally entitled, or even obliged, to break the law. This is Jim Callaghan's "contingent right to break a bad law". You should not inconvenience or endanger any other road user and you have to be aware that you are breaking the law and be prepared to accept the sanctions. However most law enforcement agencies recognise that some laws are bad laws and exercise their discretion not to enforce them. If you are a sensible RLJer, exercising your discretion responsibly, the police are quite likely to agree with you!
