Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
If any of the above are illegal then no it would not be wrong, what is so hard to understand regarding my comments.
What I'm trying to say is that the discussion of "if you didn't break the law then you wouldn't need the camera database" is a moot point, just like telling a smoker or drinker that they are damaging their health or trying to convince a religious person that God doesn't exist.
But its not a moot point at all, its a very valid point, smoking and drinking DOES damage your health, a speed camera database does NOT automatically mean you are using it to assist you to break the law....however, in this case if you are so dependant on it that you make nonsical demands that it be supplied, the chances are that it IS being used to assist you to drive illegaly.
I offered one simple solution to the dilema that faced those that had to do without the mobile cameras.....DRIVE LEGALLY WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT AT ALL TIMES.
I'm not wrong and to be honest I don't even have to defend myself on the matter. _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Well I find it ironic that neither of you accept critisism and yet you have just bullied me off the forum, well done give each other a pat on the back.
Quote:
I promised I would not respond anymore but this is unbelievable, how many times do you want the answer to your really really simple question?
classy56, glad you stayed. :D You'll see we are not in the minority.
Everything has been explained but some will not accept it. I suppose the next thing people will want is an un-verified traffic light camera database for every set of lights..... Just in case. :P
Quote:
however, in this case if you are so dependant on it that you make nonsical demands that it be supplied, the chances are that it IS being used to assist you to drive illegaly.
I offered one simple solution to the dilema that faced those that had to do without the mobile cameras.....DRIVE LEGALLY WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT AT ALL TIMES.
_________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Being caught by a mobile trap, fair enough.
Being caught by a GATSO, might have been hidden so, ok.
Being caught by a SPECS, careless. You had long enough to adjust your speed.
Being caught by a Traffic Light camera, what a dumb ass! You deserve all you get!! _________________ TT GO 1005
Joined: Jun 06, 2006 Posts: 40 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject:
Classy, it seems to me your taking all this rather personally... The only reason I responded to you in the first place is because you said that you could not understand someone elses point of view. As a result of my clarification, you proceeded to say I must be blind and incapable of driving without the database, like Im some kind of retarded speed freak.
You continually launch personal insults at me and question my motives for using this database like Im some sort of scum criminal that is only out to break the law and tear up your streets without getting caught, when in fact, the point of this thread is to discuss the merits of the database, if you continue to force me to respond by personally attacking me, then I shall.
The bone of contention here seems to be that you say we have no right to request this extra catagory, a catagory that as it happens, you don't want to see added either.
The fact that you argue against this feature, a feature that you could easily turn off if it was added, is that you don't think others should be permitted to have it just because you don't want it. OH, wait... forgive me, but is that an incorrect assumption ? Do you really think that those of us that are asking for this, SHOULD be allowed to have it if we want, despite the fact that you personally won't be using it ? Judging by your arguments this far, somehow I think the former rather than the latter, correct me if Im wrong.
Agreed, at no time have you said 'your not allowed to have it', but on the other hand you have said that you don't want it, and also that we have no right to ask for it. The very fact your arguing against adding this, is nothing more than attempt to stop others from having it, you can easily turn off any part of the database you choose, but instead you argue that we have no right to ask for it.
And the basis of this arguement ? You continually say that we must be incabable of driving with the speed limit and all we want to do is break the law, the fact is how I drive is my concern, and I really wouldn't enter in to that area of my driving ability (or lack there of according to you) after all, you know nothing about me.
Have I critisized you driving ? NO, have I critisized your visual awareness ? NO, have I questioned your ability to stay within the law ? NO, have I expressed concern at the way you choose to use the database or whether or not your an upstanding member of your comunity ? NO, in fact, all I have done is ask why you want to argue that we have no right to ask for this feature, what difference does it make to you if it's included or not ? Your not obliged to use it ! Will it really make the database useless to you if you have to disable one catagory ? is it really that abhorrent?
Contrary to what you say, I don't think everyone that uses this database is a boy racer or that they have a problem seeing speed limit signs (as you seem to think it's natural to assume), some people consider it safer to keep up with the flow of traffic, rather than potter along as a rolling road block at 30mph and risk some moron who gets impatient and tries to over take, from causing an accident. I have attended many such accidents in my career, and they are seldom pretty. There are some pretty impatient people on the roads, and I for one don't fancy getting involved in a wreck because one of them tried to over take me when it wasn't safe to do so.
The mobile camera's that come and go on motorway bridges are not there to monitor accident blackspots, they are just there to look for out of date tax discs and issue speeding tickets, there is a mobile camera sitting on a motorway bridge not to far from here, on a stretch of the M74 that has never had a fatal accident on it in my life time, and thats quite a number of years... hardly an accident black spot then...
Finally, you didn't bring racism in to the conversation any more than you brought terrorism in to the conversation, yeah, if you say so buddy, if the shoe fits...
The 4 or 5 people that are continually arguing against this option, are only doing so to prevent those that are asking for it, from getting it. As it has been said many times, if its there, and you don't want to use it, then don't use it. If you really believe adding it, will make the database worse, even though you can turn it off, make your point without suggesting others only want to use it to break the law.
Didn't you infact say at one point 'if you want to have false alerts every 10 miles, so be it' ? If thats the case, why critisize us and suggest we are all law brakers for asking for it ?
I don't care that there is a red light warning, even though I don't agree with it, Im not arguing that it should be removed or that those that want it, have no right to ask for it. I find the whole idea of warning you when you can 'jump a light' and when you can't, to be laughable, never mind the 3 points you might get from an unverified mobile camera, Im talking fatal accident enquiery stuff, that happens all to often when people jump lights, but the database actively encourages that !!!! LAUGHABLE !
If you had stayed on topic from the start, and said why you didn't want the new catagory, without resorting to calling me a blind speed freak, none of this would have happened, you opened this door, not me, I have never insulted your abilities, but you have repeatedly suggest mine are questionable.
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:48 am Post subject:
Quote:
General Rules
While debate and discussion is to be welcomed, we will not tolerate rude or insulting posts, personal attacks, unnecessarily inflammatory posts or posts of a sexual nature. Our decision is final in these matters.
1. Anyone has the right to ask for un-verified cameras to be included.
2. PGPSW have the right not to include un-verified cameras.
3. It's been explained why they will not be included
4. Anyone has the right to look elsewhere for a database which suits their requirements. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:43 am Post subject:
And STILL no comment from anyone in the Pocket GPS Team, which is what is really bugging me.
OK, let me ask a different question. In his original post in this thread, MaFt said "can I request that people submit mobile cameras whenever you see them even if they are already in the database" and "The idea is that in 6 months time we may be able to reduce the number of mobile locations if they haven't been used for a considerable amount of time."
But then in the very next update a week later 1000 mobile locations were removed, with no mention or explanation of the change being given. Resulting in the post which started this thread. So what happened? Why the sudden change in that week? Can't we at least have an explanation from someone in the Pocket GPS Team of what they're doing? Because it definitely changed from one week to the next.
As for the silent few - I would like the unverified cameras BUT, in 5 years time with more and more unverified mobiles then where will that leave the database? How and when and should they be removed?
Assuming the unverified mobiles are resurrected, I suggest we move this thread forward to look at how to maintain the database in the long term.
Joined: Oct 14, 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:51 am Post subject:
Quote:
what I did say is that you have no right to demand that the forum owners supply it to you, and if they choose not to then that is that, end of.
Sema_4, I dont recall anybody demanding - we simply are asking. And as I said previously, if the owners would actually take 2 minutes to 'choose' and tell us their decision, we could all get back to working together to solve people's problems instead of arguing with each other. _________________ Alan - iPhone 5 64GB, with CamerAlert, TomTom Europe & CoPilot
Joined: Jun 06, 2006 Posts: 40 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:19 am Post subject:
alan_dr ? now Im confused... the quote you posted, was not said by me, they are someone elses words and opinions... and Im uncertain if your post should perhaps be addressed to the person who did write those words instead of me ? Sorry if Im being dumb and missing something, I share the same opinion as you regarding that quote and Im just not making sense of your post on the basis that I wholeheartedly share your sentiments...
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:28 am Post subject:
alan_dr wrote:
Sema_4, I dont recall anybody demanding - we simply are asking. And as I said previously, if the owners would actually take 2 minutes to 'choose' and tell us their decision, we could all get back to working together to solve people's problems instead of arguing with each other.
I think that quote is actually from classy56. Unfortunately I think the owners have already made their decision. They're just not very good at communicating with or listening to their customers.
Joined: May 12, 2006 Posts: 710 Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:35 am Post subject:
a wrote:
As for the silent few - I would like the unverified cameras BUT, in 5 years time with more and more unverified mobiles then where will that leave the database? How and when and should they be removed?
Assuming the unverified mobiles are resurrected, I suggest we move this thread forward to look at how to maintain the database in the long term.
Did you miss out a not before that resurrected?
A suggestion that has been made before is that a file of pending cameras be included with the database so that users know which cameras need verifying and so can help in that process. It seems to me that would satisfy both camps - unverified cameras would be available for those that wanted to use them, and the accuracy of the database would be improved.
Joined: Aug 31, 2005 Posts: 15156 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject:
bmuskett wrote:
In his original post in this thread, MaFt said "can I request that people submit mobile cameras whenever you see them even if they are already in the database" and "The idea is that in 6 months time we may be able to reduce the number of mobile locations if they haven't been used for a considerable amount of time."
very different reason. we get lots of remove requests for mobile sites as people say 'there was no camera there, please remove from database' - the idea of having a 'last reported' section for mobile sites is so that when we get a remove request we can see how frequently it is being used and whether or not the remove request is valid or not.
we have only held back the unverified sites not all the ones with remove requests sitting next to them - as an estimate about 250 sites.
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!