uk.local.hampshire

Steve Firth wrote:
> Andy Champ < @ > wrote:
>
>> Chris Blunt wrote:
>>>
>>> All that for a motorway camera which the other poster here suggested
>>> wasn't worth having switched on 24/7 anyway?
>> .... and I might point out, a recorder that has 90% reliability is a
>> whole lot better than no recorder at all!
>
> For whom?
>
> There's no legal requirement to record motorway CCTV 24/7, there's no
> budget to do it, and the benefits are dubious. Perhaps if there was a
> fund where people who wanted CCTV to be recorded (and only those
> individuals) could pay for it then there may be some point.
>
> However as usual it's a few loudmouths who want CCTV recorded for their
> benefit at someone elses cost.
>

Steve,

If you are sitting in your control centre with half a dozen screens
sitting there staring at you, you sneeze and lookup and there are two
cars tangled up - wouldn't it be nice to be able to wind back and see
what happened before?

I can't really beleive that if you stood up in court and explained this
to a judge, but that the evidence is not of a sufficient quality to be
shown in court, that it would be disregarded? It is your word as an
experienced witness of what happened. You are not expecting the
technology to be proof - IAC it's not as if anyone beleives any more
that "the camera never lies".

Even if not fit for prosecution, it might be enough for the civil proof
needed for an insurance claim.

And if the unit wasn't working? Well, we still are no worse off.

Andy