"There is absolutely NO excuse for pilots taxying over lights, if they are illuminated.
None, nil, zip."
1. Not true. Many lights are hardened and sunken into the surface just so they CAN be taxied over. Not red ones, I grant you.
2. AC 150/5340-30B states that, "Where operations are not conducted below 1200 ft RVR, neither taxiway centerline lead-on or lead-off may be installed within the confines of the runway. Further, if the taxiway is perpendicular and dead-ends into the runway, the taxiway centerline light nearest the runway must be installed 150 feet from the centerline of the runway. Otherwise, taxiway centerline lights must not extend into the confines of the runway…" Taxiway Q at MIA was configured according to the FAA standards for marking and lighting.
Why for the love of the aviation God why is this a requirement? No matter what the RVR, and 1200' is not excessive, at night in heavy rain you need all the help you can get to stay on the hard stuff; especially with ATC asking you to "expedite vacating," which is not unheard of in USA. (they push tin on the ground as well.) To deliberately not have guidance lighting extending into the runway service, when sunken light systems are available, seems an accident waiting to happen. Is this a case of 'not designed and built here so don't want it.'