Scamera emails....the saga continues.

[deltaf]

Ok, following on from the other day where it was reported that a certain scamcam group were going to sit around on Motorway bridges looking for victims....and the part where they said about using fixed scams instead of mobile ones, if the mobiles didnt work?
well anyway, i emailled the offending dudes immediately thereafter and have just had this bac. Ill include the ones ive sent too.

Original message as follows:
Message: regarding the usage of mobile scameras to be introduced on the
M4-M5....an idiot from avon and somerset said said:"Fixed cameras could
follow if the mobile units do not reduce the number of accidents."

So if mobile scamera units dont work(they keep telling us they do) then
theyll install Fixed cameras, which also dont work (which they tell us
they do)......
Er.....hmmm...so whats the point? Tis obviously not a *speeding*
problem.....comprende?

To which they replied thus:



There are practical implications of using mobile cameras on motorways.
They
would have to be used on bridges, it is a monumental task getting the
camera
set up on bridges and you also need a generator. If this is seen to be
too
difficult, a fixed camera would be installed because it can be placed
on the
side of the road, and easily attached to the mains supply which feeds
the
lighting, phones etc on the motorway.

Im sorry, but you haven't put much thought into your argument.

Regards....

My final so far:

Hi, thanks awfully for your reply.

You didnt address the "unthought out" point i made though, which is pretty interesting in itself.
Ill repeat it incase you missed it the first time around.

My point is thus: If mobile speed cameras dont reduce the number of casualties...(with me so far? ) then why do you believe that Fixed ones will?

In esscense, doing more of the "same" wont make anymore of a difference than it would if you did nothing, because its obvious to any fool that speed wouldnt be the "cause" of the accidents youre observing...(do stop me if its too hard to grasp).

Theres ONLY a very limited number of reasons therefore to "continue" on your "speed cams solve all " strategy......shall i list them?

Ok ya talked me into it!

1) You want to generate cash.
2) Youre incompetent.

Regarding point 1, id say that yes you do want to make cash,its a prime motivator in your current Empire building, if im wrong about that(apologies), then go to point 2.

Regarding point 2, If youre incompetent, then maybe you should all resign perhaps? I offer the above arguments in para 3 to demonstrate my feelings on that!

I hope that you find this email a little more "thought out" than the last one and would sincerely love to hear your responses.

Kindest Regards.


Wonder why they dont "get it"?

[stooz]

There was a political piece in the paper the other day.. The gov are progressing fines against motorists for two reasons:
1) hit motorists with fines in an attempt to lower deaths
2) increase revenue to gov funds to allievate budget deficit.

The alternative is a 9% increase in income tax

The problem "said the business analysts" is that the deficit is now too high, and by the summer the GOV

WILL BE RAISING VAT to 20% , and possibly income tax 1.5% in an attempt to increase income, but current fines against crimes (traffic, or fining robbers, drunk and disorderly etc) will increase in order to try to aleviate the tax rises.

So there you have it fine anyone possible TOO RAISE INCOME rather than increase TAX, which was a election pledge....

[Godfrey H]

PMSL, Deltaf. If you carry on like this Brunstrom will be issuing a memo about you!

>> Edited by Godfrey H on Wednesday 21st January 15:59

[deltaf]

Godfrey H said:

PMSL, Deltaf. If you carry on like this Brunstrom will be issuing a memo about you! >> Edited by Godfrey H on Wednesday 21st January 15:59

I dont do it on porpoise...honestly!

[Alex]

deltaf, I agree with your sentiments, but I doubt you will get far with the aggressive, petulant tone of your e-mails. Why not write a serious complaint, and then maybe you will get a serious response?

[Apache]

I think he's past caring, they don't ever try to justify their actions when I've written to them and merely roll out another wedge of false statistics. Might as well have a bit of fun

[_Al_]

Godfrey H said:

PMSL, Deltaf. If you carry on like this Brunstrom will be issuing a memo about you! >> Edited by Godfrey H on Wednesday 21st January 15:59

"DELTAFS KILL!"

Which may later be manipulated to;


"KILL DELTAFS!"

[deltaf]

Ill let you in on something a bit later if it comes off!

(not my trousers either you pervs)

[streaky]

deltaf said:

[snip] There are practical implications of using mobile cameras on motorways. They would have to be used on bridges, it is a monumental task getting the camera set up on bridges and you also need a generator. If this is seen to be too difficult, a fixed camera would be installed because it can be placed on the side of the road, and easily attached to the mains supply which feeds the lighting, phones etc on the motorway. Im sorry, but you haven't put much thought into your argument. Regards....

How insulting! Clearly not a CIVIL servant.

And anyway, the answer goes against their original statement of progression.

I feel an e-mail coming on.

Streaky