Greedy Police

[Digby]

RobinOakapple said:

You'll get no sense and no -provable facts from Digby when he's on one of his many speed camera rants.

Most of it is on these forums going back years. Nothing suggested ever makes any difference. No matter what you put on the table, the reaction from those who don't wish to look at how some - not all - of this industry is a farce, end up saying they don't care. You also don't care, as shown with comments like the above and many previously.

It's exactly the same when trying to have conversations about the safety of cyclists. Within a few posts, regardless of how sensible you are, how many statistics you can show or how level-headed in terms of ideas you are, someone gets the hump, decides to think up clever responses (the types of conversations nobody would have face to face) and more often than not, starts name-calling etc.

I must have stated a hundred times I don't hate speed cameras, yet you will find as many posts accusing me of exactly that. Like I said, those types of people don't want to listen. They are the true ranters, not I.

You only have to look at how my very first question was ignored to understand how this conversation was going to end up. Nothing new.

Edited by Digby on Saturday 17th September 13:17

[Greendubber]

Digby said:

RobinOakapple said:

You'll get no sense and no -provable facts from Digby when he's on one of his many speed camera rants.

Most of it is on these forums going back years. Nothing suggested ever makes any difference. No matter what you put on the table, the reaction from those who don't wish to look at how some - not all - of this industry is a farce, end up saying they don't care. You also don't care, as shown with comments like the above and many previously.

It's exactly the same when trying to have conversations about the safety of cyclists. Within a few posts, regardless of how sensible you are, how many statistics you can show or how level-headed in terms of ideas you are, someone gets the hump, decides to think up clever responses (the types of conversations nobody would have face to face) and more often than not, starts name-calling etc.

I must have stated a hundred times I don't hate speed cameras, yet you will find as many posts accusing me of exactly that. Like I said, those types of people don't want to listen. They are the true ranters, not I.

Brilliant, you love using the fact I said I dont care about why cameras came about to refuse to supply any supporting evidence to some of your other spurious claims you've made.

Its OK, you cant supply it we get it so we'll let you off the hook you've put yourself on if you want. Or if you prefer type another reply of nothingness as I'm looking forward to reading it.

Or just tell us to go and look ourselves as you cant be bothered (cant) to supply it or any other generic cop out.

Oh well.

[Digby]

You should want to go looking. The fact you choose not to and still won't answer a simple question speaks voulmes.

Have a good day.

[Greendubber]

Digby said:

You should want to go looking. The fact you choose not to and still won't answer a simple question speaks voulmes.

Have a good day.

I think its you that need to go looking to support your claims innocent people were being convicted by speed cameras, I asked you to enlighten me and all you've done is avoid supplying anything to suggest your claim was true.

You have a good day too.

[Digby]

Greendubber said:

I think its you that need to go looking to support your claims innocent people were being convicted by speed cameras, I asked you to enlighten me and all you've done is avoid supplying anything to suggest your claim was true.

You have a good day too.

What's so funny?

Ok, you answer my question from earlier and I will type "Innocent drivers fined - speed cameras" in to Google for you. When I do and I list, for example, a few thousand drivers who were fined for driving legally, will you admit it has happened and thank me for the information?

[Greendubber]

Digby said:

Greendubber said:

I think its you that need to go looking to support your claims innocent people were being convicted by speed cameras, I asked you to enlighten me and all you've done is avoid supplying anything to suggest your claim was true.

You have a good day too.

What's so funny?

Ok, you answer my question from earlier and I will type "Innocent drivers fined - speed cameras" in to Google for you. When I do and I list, for example, a few thousand drivers who were fined for driving legally, will you admit it has happened and thank me for the information?

You're funny.

I've done just as you suggest and located a BBC report from 2001......... a whole 15 years ago so hardly the epidemic you claim but thank you for eventually elightening me to an old problem.

So your turn....ask me what you want....

[Digby]

Greendubber said:

You're funny.

I've done just as you suggest and located a BBC report from 2001......... a whole 15 years ago so hardly the epidemic you claim but thank you for eventually elightening me to an old problem.

So your turn....ask me what you want....

And here we go again, I never said it was an epidemic. Another common tactic used here.

You have ignored my question, no point asking it or any more again.

Not sure why I am funny, but given this is playing out as predicted and despite finding an answer to a problem you refused to accept existed (there are many, many more examples) and as you have failed to admit that even this early on you were wrong, I think we will leave it at that.

[Greendubber]

Digby said:

Greendubber said:

You're funny.

I've done just as you suggest and located a BBC report from 2001......... a whole 15 years ago so hardly the epidemic you claim but thank you for eventually elightening me to an old problem.

So your turn....ask me what you want....

And here we go again, I never said it was an epidemic. Another common tactic used here.

You have ignored my question, no point asking it or any more again.

Not sure why I am funny, but given this is playing out as predicted and despite finding an answer to a problem you refused to accept existed (there are many, many more examples) and as you have failed to admit that even this early on you were wrong, I think we will leave it at that.

Now lets not forget that all this started because you said......

"Oh! Could it be time to bring out yet again the corruption evidence, the doctored stats, the FOI denials, those in the industry or connected explaining it's almost all about money and targets etc, etc, etc?

It's always good for a giggle, because the "don't speed, then" brigade always shuffle off and suddenly have little to say. laugh"

I asked you to enlighten me so how about you show some of this 'evidence' that you said existed?

Instead you steer me towards a 15 year old BBC news report. So yes, I think it is about time to bring it out so we can all see it.

I am happy to accept that some motorists were incorrectly ticketed back in 2001 but your opening posts about corruption etc suggested you had a little bit more to go on than that. So come on Columbo lets see it all.

And I answered your question on page 7, I said I didn't care why cameras came about.... you even quoted it so you must have read it.

[Digby]

Greendubber said:

I am happy to accept that some motorists were incorrectly ticketed back in 2001

Look harder. It's ok to be wrong, label that as "I am happy to..." if you wish.

I don't just pluck this information from thin air, it's all out there. Now you are focusing on some story from 2001 when then are so many more. As I say, look harder.

If you don't care why we have cameras and why many exist and operate in the manner they do, there really is no point in continuing.

I see the name-calling has begun..

Enjoy your Googling!

[Greendubber]

Digby said:

Greendubber said:

I am happy to accept that some motorists were incorrectly ticketed back in 2001

Look harder. It's ok to be wrong, label that as "I am happy to..." if you wish.

I don't just pluck this information from thin air, it's all out there. Now you are focusing on some story from 2001 when then are so many more. As I say, look harder.

If you don't care why we have cameras and why many exist and operate in the manner they do, there really is no point in continuing.

I see the name-calling has begun..

Enjoy your Googling!

You still dont get it do you?

You suggest corruption and all sorts of other stuff and when asked to provide some proof you just tell me to go and look myself? It doesnt work like that, the fact I dont care about why we have cameras does not negate the fact that you are unable to back up your accusations.

Its blatantly obvious that you are constantly dodging the point and are unable to back your accusations up with any credible proof. You just keep picking up on what I said about not caring why cameras are procured by local authorities as if thats some kind of excuse for you to not add any real subtance to your claims.

RobinOakapple was correct when he said I'd get no provable facts from you.

[Digby]

Greendubber said:

You just keep picking up on what I said about not caring why cameras are procured by local authorities as if thats some kind of excuse for you to not add any real subtance to your claims.

The fact you don't care shows exactly why it's a waste of time, surely you see that? Do you often entertain people when they have no interest in what you are saying?

I have already shown you to be wrong and given how easy it would be to do so again, why bother?

The birth of cameras, how they were sold, how they are used, where they are used and who is involved etc is all interlinked. You can't pick and choose which bits you don't care about.

I simply like to look upon things objectively, but for some reason, as is evident here yet again, posters get upset with this approach and turn things in to the equivalent of a playground squabble.

You're not going to stop doing that. You were wrong on your point, I was right and your cherry-picked "2001" response shows how this will play out.

Thanks anyway.

[Greendubber]

Digby said:

Greendubber said:

You just keep picking up on what I said about not caring why cameras are procured by local authorities as if thats some kind of excuse for you to not add any real subtance to your claims.

The fact you don't care shows exactly why it's a waste of time, surely you see that? Do you often entertain people when they have no interest in what you are saying?

I have already shown you to be wrong and given how easy it would be to do so again, why bother?

The birth of cameras, how they were sold, how they are used, where they are used and who is involved etc is all interlinked. You can't pick and choose which bits you don't care about.

I simply like to look upon things objectively, but for some reason, as is evident here yet again, posters get upset with this approach and turn things in to the equivalent of a playground squabble.

You're not going to stop doing that. You were wrong on your point, I was right and your cherry-picked "2001" response shows how this will play out.

Thanks anyway.

Good grief, point still well and truly missed/avoided!!!

[Digby]

It's ok to be wrong

[Greendubber]

Digby said:

It's ok to be wrong

......yet more avoidance.......

[Digby]

Most of my ramblings are on the forums. Go hunt around. That way, you can decide which bits you care about and those you don't.

You don't care about one of the most important aspects, though, so you are unlikely to care about much else.

[anonymous-user]

Those who assert should prove.

[Greendubber]

La Liga said:

Those who assert should prove.

By all accounts its down to us to scrat about the internet looking for proof of his 'ramblings'

[Digby]

Those who dislike assertions should disprove? Or does this only work one way?

I'm supposed to hold a serious conversation with someone who said this:

Greendubber said:

So wheel your stats out all you want, I dont recall any drivers getting done for driving within the law.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and extremely easy to prove.

Pretty much anyone with a modicum of interest in how the camera cancer spread and for what reason knows this has happened and still can happen and anyone with a modicum of interest in what I have to say, doesn't start such a conversation with "I honestly couldnt care less how the cameras come about" Conversation killer achievement unlocked!

Anyway, let's focus on the other thread now running where a lowered limit and obscured sign has fined many, many drivers..

[Greendubber]

Why is 'I honestly couldnt care less' an issue?
You asked me what I thought about the reason behind why local authorities decide to have cameras so I told you I didnt care


Shame you keep using it as some odd excuse though, anyway I'm going to the pub now so I'll have to leave you to ramble on about speed cameras on various internet forums.

[Digby]

Am off to the airport shortly, via those lovely and often unfathomable new M25 speed cameras and subsequent gantry limits.

You know, the ones that often cause congestion and panic braking etc due to single gantry 30 mph limits when you can see five miles into the distance.

Still, we had much of that covered here too by someone who works in that industry. The 'not so smart' smart motorways, ready to remove some of your cash over nothing more than a few slow moving vehicles triggering the limits.

"Tin foil hat" should be coming next seeing as you have played all the regular jokers, now. The pub one usually comes much later, so at least things have sped along to this conclusion.