There’s a report up on the BBC Website right now, about this very topic. Nice timing!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6571257.stm

In case they don’t publish it, here’s a comment I left:

It’s very timely this report has been published today, as only yesterday I mentioned on my blog (https://lofi-gaming.org.uk/blog/2007/04/speed-cameras-money-not-lives.php) about some new cameras that are being installed near where I live.

I travel a stretch of the A47 in Norfolk each day. About half of my journey is on dualled stretches, the other half on a single carriageway stretch. I’ve done this journey every workday for more than seven years.

On the dualled section, they’re installing new cameras, even through I only recall three accidents in those seven years – none of which were fatalities. They leave the single section camera-less, despite the fact there’s a major accident there about once a week, and dozens of fatalities since I started using the road.

How can they justify that the cameras are there to save lives, when they’re installing them on a relatively “safe” section, and not at a notorious blackspot just a few miles up the road?