uk.local.hampshire

Andy Champ < @ > wrote:

> Steve,
>
> If you are sitting in your control centre with half a dozen screens
> sitting there staring at you,

That's someone elses job.

> 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?

Not really, it doesn't help with the current problem, which is incidnet
management, does it?

> 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?

The court may choose to accept or disregard it.

> 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".

You seem to beleive that the primary purpose of CCTV on the motorway is
collection of evidence. If that were so, the system would have been
designed differently.

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

And now you seem to think that the purpose of the cameras is to provide
evidence for civil claims, paid for out of the public purse.

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

So we're just as well off leaving things as they are.