🚀 go-pugleaf

BS (grimrod@NOSPAMmindless.com) wrote:
> Colin R. Leech wrote:
> 
>>Agreed, but we live in the Real World (TM). It is difficult to capture and
>>charge, let alone convict, people of assorted offences like lane
>>discipline, dangerous driving, etc. Speeding is much simpler because there
>>is a black and white line, and the technology to enforce it in an
>>expeditious manner.
>>
> The counter to this is a video camera in the car.  They already use
> them to protect the officer in a traffic stop, now if they would just
> leave them on while driving, they'd have it on film.

Again I agree this is a good idea, but the number of incidents you can
capture is very limited. A car travelling with the flow of traffic sees 
a very limited number of vehicles compared to one stationary at the
roadside. On multilane highways, there could well be incidents warranting
a closer look all around you that you won't necessarily see because you're
looking at something else at that moment and don't capture the whole event
(eg. you're looking straight ahead when somebody two lanes over beside you
does something stupid). The camera likely wouldn't pick up the licence
plate, so the camera operator would have to notice the event personally
and then use the film as the evidence to corroborate the eye-witness
account. This also means two policemen in the car. Plus, the police would
have to start buying unmarked cars that don't stand out in the traffic
(many unmarked cars are still spotted by the average person).


--
####    |\^/|     Colin R. Leech     ag414 or crleech@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\|   |/|_  Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### >         <  Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
####  >_./|\._<   "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown