please add your Gatso story here
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/wo.../27camera.html

I know there are a lot of Brits that read this forum, so you guys can chime in about your personal experiences with these contraptions.

What is the best/worst (depending on your point of view) example of one being destroyed that you have ever seen?

How many times have you been caught? Was it always in the same spot?

I understand that the Japanese also use similar traffic cameras everywhere, so anyone who is living or has lived in Japan would be encouraged to give their experiences too.

I used to live in the states, and I've seen a much different version used in intersections. They are placed to catch people who run red lights, but the timing is so unforgiving that even if you are in the intersection when the light turns red, the camera will snap a pic of your license plate! Luckily we didn't have the Gatso version that the British have, but maybe they have been busily installing them since I left.

Funniest paragraph in the article:

Sticking to the speed limit, :eek: who does that? I was on the Suncoast the other day doing about 75 (speed limit is 70) and I was passed frequently and quickly.

The woman who said that has probably never been on any major US Highway on a Friday evening. :)

I do. I get uncomfortable going over 65. (Although as a teenager I had a '72 Chevelle that could - and occasionally did - go almost twice that fast.)

A couple of years ago I was pulled over for doing the speed limit with both hands on the wheel. Really. I asked what the problem was and the state trooper said "You had both hands on the wheel and were barely doing the speed limit." I said "That's what I'm supposed to do." Then he searched me and my car (I have long hair, but I don't drink alcohol or smoke - anything.) I think he was disappointed when he had to let me go.

My wife, however, regularly drives 80 - 85 mph on the highway and is apparently invisible to the police.

I generally drive no more then 5miles over the speed limit. So 70mph on the freeway, 45 or 50 mph on surface streets depending on where I am. Arizona has some of the faster speed limits doesn't it?

Yeah it does. And Arizona has some nice flat, long, stretches of road. Oddly, I've done my fastests driving in Missouri, where things are far more hilly and twisty. I think I got that car up to...oh, I'll let you all guess.

I got caught on the highway doing 96 or so once. The officer was really nice about it...gave me a ticket for going 75 and told me to cut it out :) (which I did, actually) The thing that got my goat about that situation was the driver behind me, who insisted on tailgating me at 95 mph! Why would someone need to go about tailgating me at that speed?

And to respond to the original post: The only problem I have with the machines is they don't account for situations. What if my best friend just ripped his thumb off with a buzz saw? I'm not slowing down if I don't have to... I wonder if you can contest the tickets in court in the case of an emergency?

Hmm, still haven't heard from any of the British members. I'm hoping to find out how much/little these Gatso machines make the British drivers angry. I've seen a few photos where the Gatso was placed directly behind other large street signs to block them from being seen. I also find it very funny that the machines themselves are encased in armor from top to bottom to protect from… who knows what!

Not a Brit but love ale
 

Greetings ThreeBKK, I'm in the throes of dealing with a traffic citation from our relatively new system here in Albuquerque. We only have license plates on the rear of our vehicles, so the automated system shoots only rear pics as one passes through the intersection.

Our system had originally only been set to snap those who failed to stop for the red. It has recently been upgraded to snap those who exceed the speed limit as they pass through.

As I was about to pay for my citation online, my son said, "Dad, there's no way you failed to stop. Look, you're entering the intersection, and the light's still green."

So, rather than pay, I mailed in the form saying I'd like a hearing to protest. Well, instead of receiving an appointment for a hearing, I've received a delinquent letter, doubling the original fine of US $150 and adding it to the original, for a total of US $450!!

Aaarrrggghhh!!! :mad:

And to add my stupidity ("I'm Dim... of Scotland Yard") to the problem, after mailing in my request for a hearing, upon closer scrutiny of the citation, I discover that I wasn't being cited for failure to stop, but for exceeding the speed limit. Which, I'm sure is correct. Aren't posted speed limits more of a suggestion rather than a mandate?

"Officer, I wasn't speeding... I was qualifying."

So, the toll free phone number gets me to someplace in America's heartland, the central clearing house for the entire southwest region's STOP program, as it's called. Then I'm given a local number for the gendarme in charge, and upon calling was able to leave a voice mail message.

To be continued...

Scottsdale, AZ, just cancelled its photo speed enforcement program. The cameras are now covered. It was certainly unpopular.

Speed laws only survive because very few people are actually persecuted for ignoring them. Once you create the ability to snag nearly every one, there will be mass uprising since nearly nobody favors speed limits. The NHTSA says that 85% of US drivers exceed the limit regularly.

I assume "persecuted" was a typo, not hyperbole. :)

I grew up on Cape Cod and live an hour from Boston. I am intimately familiar with traffic hazards and crazy drivers, but virtually everybody I know favors speed limits. Opinions differ slightly about what the limits should be, of course, but not by very much. My wife - who speeds regularly - is even in favor of traffic cameras.

85% may exceed the speed limit, but that's not evidence that most people are opposed to speed limits. It might be evidence that many beleve the limits should be raised. How many exceed it by 5 - 10 mph and how many exceed it by 15 - 20 mph or more? I think those numbers would better correlate to preferred speed limits.

I noticed that also. I drive out there two times a week from Peoria to go to school. I think Scottsdale has some of the worse drivers and they should keep the speed cameras. I don't seem to like the people I see out there too much. Most seem kinda stuck up with all their monies and all.

It was purposely typed as fact.

You can't compare the nightmare that is Boston roads and traffic with what is found in many other parts of the country. Here for example the roads are wide, with excellent visibility and few curves. What would be suicide in Boston is exceedingly safe here and in other places with newer road designs.

You are correct, most people are hypocrites. Most people want rules to be enforced against the other guy. This is part of the point on why speed laws survive; people like to see them being enforced on others and figure if they can get away with it, the rules are good. Its when the rules are enforced against them that they have a problem.

So yes, I think most people think speed laws are good as long as there is a very low statistical probability of getting caught. As soon as they start getting tickets daily (has happened to a few people here), they will revolt, and they will be against the laws or at least the cameras.

In the area where we had the cameras, the norm is 10 over with many dong 15-20 over. The limits are way too low. Very few people would do the limit or even just 5 over; I mean, maybe once a week I'd notice someone at the limit. The NHTSA's own studies have consistently found that DIFFERENCE in speed is the real danger, not speed itself. Artificially low limits will be ignored by most people, but the few slow ones actually create the hazard.

What exactly is the fact - people are being persecuted, or there will be an uprising?

persecute - verb [ trans. ] (often be persecuted) subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs

Getting ticketed for speeding is not persecution. Regularly flouting the law might get you prosecuted and likely deservedly so. If a law is unfair there are mechanisms for changing them. The U.S. is a democratic republic, the fact that changes may be slow doesn't change that.

uprising - noun an act of resistance or rebellion; a revolt.

Well, I suppose there might be angry letters, calls to officials and politicians, ballot initiatives, etc., but uprising is still a bit of an overstatement. As you said, camera enforcement in your area ended - with nary a shot fired, I presume. ;)

I wasn't comparing inner city driving to driving on the interstate in Arizona. There are, however, long stretces of road where 55 mph seemed too slow (495, the Pike, etc.) and now the speed limit on interstates is 65 mph. That seems about right to me, but I don't think everybody going 66 and above should be ticketed. And it is not unreasonable to make the case that the speed limit could be a little higher, especially in places like Arizona.

But I wasn't just thinking about the highway; speed limits in residential areas are a necessity. I don't think there can be any argument that a 15 mph zone in a crowded neighborhood should be raised just because the road is straight.

And I drive a 7 year old Kia (well maintained, in good shape, but still a Kia.) There is a chance that what you consider exceedingly safe, no matter how straight and smooth the road, may seize my engine. :D

I think it is human nature to be somewhat hypocritical, but I don't want to get too misanthropic. If somebody is getting ticketed daily, maybe they should change their driving habits. If the law or it's enforcement seems unfair, there will be a change. As happened in Arizona. Persecution, or democracy in action? ;)

That is true, but the very fast ones are a danger, too. People underestimate stopping distance.

Driving is a privilage, not a right. I think that too often people are more concerned with rights than resposibilities. The roads need to be as safe as possible for the largest number of people possible, pedestrians (where foot traffic is legal) included. Speed limits are part of that. Don't forget - there is a minimum speed, too (although it's not always posted)

This is hardly worth arguing over. Gee wiz. I understand what Carlos is saying and I agree.

If cops would crack down on speeding, there would be less people speeding which could mean a lot less high speed accidents. Driving on the 101 to school the other day, I saw 4 accidents.

I say they keep the cameras in Scottsdale. Im not sure what everyone's hurry is. I typically drive 5 mph over speed limit but people I see pass me going at least 20mph over is crazy.

Um, he saidbut you sayI agree with you about the need for enforcement. I said but, perhaps more importantly, I also agree with you that this is not really worth arguing over.

j

So, anyway, just in-case nobody actually read the article or followed any of the links; These Gatso boxes have been getting blown-up, literally, by angry motorists! The government body in charge of the upkeep has decided to start using a new version which is on a very high pole. I've seen pics of the new versions, and they sit at least 20' off of the ground. Again, they are armored from top to bottom, but now they feature twin cameras that face opposite directions.

We have only had a little bit of revenge against the cameras here. Sad considering we were a nation founded on self-reliance and rebellion, while the country we struggled to be free from is now full of the people taking action against these abominations.

Personally I could care less about the cameras. They don't affect me. I have all of my property held in a trust and offshore corporations and the license plates cannot be traced back to me. All the photos in the world will do you no good. But I still fight these things on principle.

That's a common myth, but untrue.

SMITH Vs. THOMPSON 154 SE 579 (1930)
The right of a citizen to travel on the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common law right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property and to pursue happiness in safety. It includes in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege.


II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

Sorry about going off on a tangent.

I did read the article. My father lives in Birmingham. We hear about how ubiquitous surveillance cameras are over there, often as an illustrative point during news stories about controversial surveillance here in the U.S., so the reaction to them over there seems surprising.

Still no Brits?
 

There haven't been any stories in the Albuquerque press regarding mayhem directed toward our boxes. Of course, none of these are in a semi-rural area as is the one depicted in ThreeBKK's link. All of ours are on the median dividers at the most busy of the city's intersections. They wouldn't be impossible to vandalize, but it would require creativity.

Excellent finds my black-bearded sea-faring friend! I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said to me: "driving is a privilege, not a right". Does the same apply to sailing the high seas?

I'm not sure I stand corrected about that. I haven't finished following the links I found, but so far the majority lead to sites like landrights.com, usff.com, sites making claims like "Another victory against "licensed" "driving" (http://www.uslawbooks.com/travel/flbrief.htm -the "victory" was "I bargained out with a nolo-contender plea $150.00 in court cost and judgment of guilt withheld.") but I want to see something ending in, say, .gov before I will be persuaded.

Seriously?

Seriously?

I can't wrap my head around that way thinking.

It seemed to me that both of CA's quotes give him the absolute right to use public thoroughfares; but not the right to drive any vehicle that requires an operator's license. Those quotes as I recall from my muddy recollections of history had to do with states erecting toll barriers at state borders to use their roads.

Vis-a-vis the topic; I remember an article in Scientific American years ago in which the speed limit on a new highway in California was set after a few weeks of measurement to determine the average speed folks drove on it. Their take was that the 'average' driver was a safe driver, neither too slow nor too fast. They set the speed limit at that average.

Best excuse ever
 

.
Best excuse for speeding ever (true story, published in the internal magazine for the California Highway Patrol), was from a guy who was really stressed when he was pulled over:

"Officer, please... I am sorry, but I’m really in a hurry. When wife is about to conceive a baby – and I really want to be there when it happens!"

Hard to argue with that. :D

A few more thoughts...
 

What a brilliant and radical idea!

Apropos being tailgated at 95 (or 70); I usually tap my brake lightly a couple of times. If that doesn’t work, I just remove my foot from the gas pedal, forcing them to pass. I am convinced that it is very contrary to my well-being to be anywhere near idiots like that.

It is a fact, however, that lower speeds (when embraced by drivers) save lives. Many lives. And it’s not a pretty sight seeing what happens to a body that continues travelling at a high speed – after the vehicle has come to an abrupt stop.

Do you have any friends or family members who have had a couple of hundred stitches sewn in their face after being hit by someone who felt it was perfectly legitimate for them to drive 20-30 miles over the speed limit?

I have.

I will grant you, however, that "speeding" all depends on circumstance. And it may well be that freeways in wide-open Arizona deserve more lax enforcement than the roads on Cape Cod or the Monterey Peninsula, or other places where there are scores of crossing roads.

As a general rule, I believe people should be ticketed for unsafe driving. People should not, however, be ticketed primarily as a source of government income. In Norway, radar controls (mobile or automated with cameras – don’t know if they’re from Gatsometer BV) are generally set up where they are likely to catch the greatest number of offenders – and not where exceeding the speed limit is most unsafe.

Sorry for not being more light-hearted in this post.

Best regards,
ArcticStones
.

The NHTSA guidelines say that all roads should be set to the "85th percentile" speed. That is, the speed that 85% percent of people drive naturally. That is the safest speed limit. In addition they have specific road engineering guidelines. Unfortunately, few places use any of those rules, relying on arbitrary numbers instead.

The high seas aren't controlled by any one jurisdiction, but there are international treaties that pretty much do apply as a right to everyone.

Being interested in other peoples' rights even if they don't affect me?

Too bad it didn't catch on. As CA says, the rule is now 85% of the mean, but for the most part no one pays attention. Speed limits tend to follow rather arbitrary rules in each state or province.

I got my driver's license in Nova Scotia in 1952 (I was 15, but there was a special rule for those that lived outside towns). At that time there was no speed limit; the rule was 'safe and prudent'. If you were cited, it was your word against an RCMP constable's and you had no option but to pay. On the other hand, if you lived at the end of a long winding country road, typically unpaved, during the day you could see a dust plume of someone coming, and at night, headlights served the purpose - you knew you didn't have the whole road for sliding your turns in the gravel and slowed down. The peril was farmer's tractors or herds, but you learned where they were likely to be encountered.

The real problem with speeding is that folks who don't have the skills required to go fast on a winding road still do, and folks with short little spans of attention think they can go fast AND eat their lunch, talk to their girlfriend on the phone, read a map, etc.

A Brit's Reply...
 

There's a few responses to various points made in this thread, so apologies for the potentially disjointed paragraphs :D

The general view is that speed cameras are designed purely to increase the money that the government makes from drivers, rather than to "prevent accidents" and "save lives".

The counter-arguement to the "prevents accidents, etc." line is that drivers spend more time looking out for cameras than paying attention to the road, thus reducing the liklihood that they will be able to avoid anything that may result in an accident.

While cameras were initially hidden, it is now required by law for the reverse of the camera housing to be painted in red and yellow diagonal stripes so as to make them more visible.

When Gatso's were the press's flavour of the month, there were occasional instances of vandalism (setting on fire, taking a chain-saw to them, even trying to blow up with explosives!), but it was never country-wide anarchy as some people may have been led to believe.

However, there is a good chance that the whole debate may be re-ignited with the introduction of new types of speed cameras:

- licence-plate recognition systems involving two cameras a set distance apart which calculate your average speed over the given distance (usually a number of miles).

- laser cameras with a range of around 400m (~1/2 mile) which can pick out individual lanes. Current radar cameras work at a range of about 100ft and can get confused if there are multiple objects moving at different speeds.

- gps tracker systems in your car to determine your speed at any given time. These are unlikely to appear anytime soon, but certain insurance policies make use of such devices to determine when and where you drive so as to better tailor your premiums.


Personally, I've never been caught by a speed camera -- but then again, I don't drive on a regular basis. However, I was caught by one of the cameras that catch people who jump red lights. I was in slow moving traffic and had stopped with my front wheels about 1m over the stop line. When the lights changed to red, I was snapped. Hardly what you'd call "jumping the lights". :mad:


Finally, with regards to speed limits, it is my view that people will ALWAYS go up to 15% over the speed limit as this appeals to the rebel in them because they are speeding, but is not speeding by that much so as to feel dangerous. This is probably why the NHTSA use the 85% rule --- they know that it will ensure the majority of speeders will still be below the 100% mark.

Well that's my two cents....

Last year I was in a wedding in Tiburon, and realized the groom's ring was at my apartment in San Francisco about 20-minutes before the wedding. It's about a 30-minute drive on a good day...so I got in the car and dropped the hammer. I'm not even sure that I used the breaks until I was on my block.

The ONE TIME I had a chance to speed with a good excuse I didn't get pulled over. I had the tuxedo, wedding ring, and stressed facial expression, everything I should need to get off a ticket. I didn't want a ticket...but I did want to play that card.

I made it to the wedding in time, with the ring and a full flask fo Macallan :D

Now that is what I call impeccably civilized behaviour! :cool:

I think the important thing to remember here is that in the majority of US cars the driver is going to be at least a quarter mile from the point of impact anyway ;) so speed limits on most roads are irrelevant.

Oh and in case anyone tries to jump on their high horse.... I'm kidding!

I suppose the ideal solution would be technological – a system that actually prevents drivers from getting closer than X feet to the car in front for every Y mph they’re travelling. Ah, finally a cure for tailgaters!

I’m kidding too.

I have been flashed about 3 or 4 times over the years, but luckily, I did not get the dreaded notice through my door.
I suspect that the cameras that did flash me where empty, the theory going around was that the plebs filling hem could not fill them all as soon as the film ran out. I suspect now that most of the cameras are digital.

I have at times had people tailgate me. when this happens and I know there is a speed camera up ahead.
I can usually time this so, as I move over one lane but keep my speed up just long enough, so as not to let the tailgater pass without having to go faster. By the time they realise there are cameras, I have already slowed enough to watch the cameras go Flash,Flash on them.


The overall feeling here in the Uk is the cameras started as a good idea in stopping speeding, but soon that good idea got taken over by how much they could earn the authorities. (millions).

The government was forced to make the notices and cameras more visible because road safety groups and the public expressed anger at the the placement of these cameras just to make money and not to calm traffic speed.

Recently on the M1 (motorway) 'approximate speed' speed cameras have been install, These measure the approximate time it take a vehicle to travel from camera A to camera Z, a to z being about a mile apart.

This sound like a very good way of slowing traffic in spots that are more prone to high speed accidents. But the problem is, if a driver enters the zone in lane 1 and exits in lane 2 or 3 then the cameras can not register the speed, Now the joke is the Authorities are thinking of asking drivers to play fair and exit the same lane as they started in.

Another interesting fact is that the national speed limit program in the UK was not introduced for altruistic purposes per se. It was introduced after an AC Cobra was driven up the M1 at over 170 mph. The UK government was so shocked that the speed limit was the response!

Particularly the full flask of Macallan :)

The NHTSA found that lowering or raising speed limits had no effect on the average speeds on a road. Their findings are that drivers have a comfort zone based on current conditions and that 85% of drivers agree. My observations are the same. The only real effects came from VISIBLE speed enforcement by police and with weather situations.

In some cases I've observed a REVERSE corelation. I used to commute between Tucson and Phoenix frequently, which is a 100 mile drive on a wide open, flat, straight road. Back when we had a national speed limit of 55 MPH, I and many other drivers would travel the road at about 90, while most people did 75-80, and the occasional dangerous situation would arise when one guy would do 55-60. Now that the limit on that road is 75, I notice almost everyone, myself included, keeps it under 85 because our highway patrol doesn't look for people until they are 11 over. And still, the average driver is doing 75-80, no change. Fortunately however there is nobody doing 55-60 any more, which was the real danger.

Back when the limit was 55 I figured I might as well go as fast as I want, since I was going to get ticketed anyway if spotted.

Back when the limit was 55, one had to be insane to go 55 on any really busy artery - you might as well have stopped in your lane. I commuted 75 miles a day on Route 128 - the inner ring road around Boston - and except for trucks merging, no one went below the 'flow' at 75 - three lanes, spacing about 25 feet at 75, one slow lane (the double-nickel lane) for merging - how would a speed trap have worked? Not a hope. Same on the Mass. Freeway Extension into the center of the city and on I-95 and I-93 feeding 128. Never got a ticket on any of them.

Up in Maine, the Maine Turnpike had a neat trick though - you picked up a card at your entry point and submitted it on exit to pay the toll. If you had averaged more than 10 mph over the limit for the distance, you got a ticket for speeding. I consulted about 40 miles up in Portland, but stopped for coffee part way.

I HATE speed camera's...:mad:

fine if they are outside a school... or somewhere where it matters...

But why do you find them hidden around corners at the bottom of very steep hills!??!:mad:

The best way to deal with speed cameras is to chuck a car tyre over it, fill the bottom of the tyre with lighter fluid, light it and cook the thing.

Brits are to easy going, we need to fight yet another stealth tax on the generally law abiding middle class! :D

Oh! Is that how it's done? I didn't realize there was flammable liquid involved. :eek:

Darn it! Next to Conclusion Jumping, High Horse Jumping was my best Olympic event!

It is a misstatement to say that the rights of others don't affect you. They are your rights, too, so it is in your interest to support them, and it is your resposibility as a citizen and member of the community not to infringe them. But I think it is safe to say that we agree more than disagree at least about that.

Resorting to glibness was a cheap shot and intellectually dishonest. That was not a legitimate conclusion to draw from anything I have written. Although I may differ with you about what rights we have and to what extent they apply, I am certainly not uninterested in the rights of others - quite the opposite - and I absolutely did not say anything that could honestly be portrayed as befuddlement about your concern for the rights of others.

About my previous comments, I'll be more specific.

You seem to, if not admire and condone the vandalism, at least minimize it. And abominitions? Speed cameras do not sink to the depths of slavery, antimiscenegation laws, etc., true abominations. Enforcement of traffic law is legitimate and necessary (although I do not beleive it should be pursued as a fundraising mechanism.)

A trust to protect your assets? Can't argue with that. But (and this is my belief in general, it is not meant to be a value judgement about you) offshore corporations and other tax shelters are too often abused. I find the lengths to which some go to hide their assets puzzling at best, dishonest at worst. I was a business owner before becoming a stay at home dad. I find most complaints about taxes to be overstated. I think a lot of loopholes (as well as wasteful government spending) need to be eliminated.

I am also puzzled by the percieved need to protect oneself from scrutiny carried so far as to hide behind a paper trail in matters as mundane as vehicle registrations.

By your own admission, you were among the minority traveling at the highest speeds. You were in fact a danger to the other drivers, especially the ones who were fully complying with the law. It defies logic to claim otherwise.

You were traveling at speed which many cars simply cannot safely maintain under the best of conditions. And you slow down now? But only enough to avoid a ticket? The people who are no longer traveling 55-60 are simply continuing to obey the law, as any citizen who respects the law, and their duty to obey it, would. Part of concern for the rights of others is living up to the responsibility not to abridge them in any way - that includes not putting their lives in danger.

According to my wife, I'm probably a lock for the gold. :o

Probably another biased judge from behind the iron curtain?

Rather a backhanded bias. Sigh.

VERY loud groan!!! ;)

I admire it, and would help fund it given the opportunity. Say a pool that could be claimed by anyone removing a camera from service.

Sure, I agree. The corollary is that our courts are abused with frivolous suits and our citizens are abused by a corrupt tax system, so the only available solution is to make everything you own untouchable. You may or may not agree on specifics of tax law, but surely you agree that there HAVE been proven instances of the IRS summarily garnishing someone's property only to later be proven wrong. I can't afford that.

There is no question that I'm a lunatic when it comes to privacy and any matters dealing with government. I freely admit that. However the registration is carried by the trust in order to be legal so the fact that it is untraceable is just as much a free side benefit as anything.

If by many cars you mean a 1961 Volkswagen bug with 300k miles, sure. Any modern car can be driven on a straight road at 90 MPH with total safety.

As far as the law, I have no respect for civil statutes whatsoever. I mostly hold them in contempt. I respect personal responsibility and ethics, but not law, which is artificial and man-made (usually to the benefit of the rich and powerful).

Shades of Robert Heinlein.

You support vandalism, yet respect personal responsibility and ethics. You abhor the law for being "artificial and man-made" yet personal responsibility and ethics, which you hold in esteem, are also human inventions. Some mental gymnastics going on there.

Of course I agree that tax laws are sometimes misapplied. It is wrong and unfair when it happens, which isn't as often as some would believe.

Of course I mean nothing of the sort, but I suspect you already know that.

That is simply not true. It is possible to drive at that speed without incident. In my youth I did so, a few times in my mother's old Bug, and faster in my old Chevelle, on the narrow curved back roads of Cape Cod. But that does make it safe. A flat tire, strong gust of wind, or animal darting across the road, will have very different results at 90 mph than they would at 65, even in a shiny new, modern car - especially a small, lightweight model

The poor, weak and powerless don't have offshore holdings. ;)

I enjoy ranting debates as much as anybody else, but we've drifted a bit from the original topic - and we certainly won't change each other's mind. Shall we call a truce? :)