We all hate speed cameras, don't we? They're not there to slow drivers down and lower the road accidents; they just make money for the government. They trick us, cost us cold hard cash, disturb us from driving properly and are unfair.  Well, here's a surprising thing: what if there were facts that the boring cameras actually saved lives? It's a conclusion difficult to ignore when you look at what's happening in prefix = st1 /France, a country with a historically poor record of road safety. There were 16,617 road deaths in 1972 in France, for example, but that dropped to 8412 by 1995 following rules such as compulsory seat belt wearing in 1990 and a lowering of the blood alcohol limit to 0.05 in 1995.     Last year, the road deaths dropped below 5000 for the first time, or 4.9 percent less than 2004, comparing road deaths to population in 2005, that's about 817 per million people compared withAustralia's 806. And guess what? Last year the number of speed cameras on French roads reached 1,000 and the government plans to double that within the next three years. Okay, you know the arguments regarding increased traffic safety and cameras-for-income, but it seems in Francethere's been a major cultural change brought on by radars and other laws. A three-hour, wine-soaked lunch with a quick rush back to the office is no longer on. Traveling on the highways, it is rare to see anyone breaking the 130km/h speed limits when once few traveled below it. The speed cameras are clearly signed so drivers know when they are coming. There's even an official web site listing fixed and mobile camera locations and it is updated regularly. Maybe it is because of such transparency by government, rather than the secrecy too often used by authorities in many other countries that more French can enjoy the joy of living thanks to speed cameras. Which seems more effective in lowering road deaths in France according to this passage?
Compulsory seat belt. Lowering blood alcohol limit. Placing more speed cameras Eating in a shorter time.