HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: ca.driving

 I wonder if you need to wear one on a motorcycle :-)

 Wouldn't it be ironic to see a motorcycle cop give a seatbelt violation
 citation?  Should we outlaw motorcycles because one could get hurt
 driving one?

 Should we outlaw stairs since people trip on them?

 Howabout outlawing life because it causes death?  (tongue in cheek here)


 I see this as one more reason to be pulled over for a "invasion of 
 privacy" inspection on one's vehicle.
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: alan@lancaster.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Subject: Re: What is the number to call in smoking c
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:49:27 GMT

In article <1ifjpcINNqa1@male.EBay.Sun.COM>, zombie@EBay.Sun.COM (zombie) writes:
|>
|> 
|> On a related note, I have heard that new diesel cars are becomming extinct,
|> due in part, to the rising diesel costs and that it is no longer cost 
|> effective.  If this is true, why doesn't the trucking industry switch
|> to gas for new truck purchases?
|> 
Maybe because if you buy enough diesel fuel, it is considerably less
expensive than gasoline?  Around here (San Jose, Ca) regular gas sells
for $1.25 per gallon, diesel at a gas station sells for $1.25 per gallon,
and diesel at truck stops sells for $1.12 per gallon.  Out on I5 I've seen
it as low as $1.01 per gallon.

Also, diesel oil has more btu's per gallon than gasoline, and a diesel engine
of a given size will outperform a gasoline engine of the same size when it
comes to moving heavy loads economically.

-- 
Alan Hepburn           "An ignorant person is one who doesn't know
National Semiconductor       what you have just found out."
Santa Clara, Ca              
alan@berlioz.nsc.com                              Will Rogers
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: speeding ticket help!
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:52:32 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu

In article <1ivhikINNppf@girtab.usc.edu> brotman@girtab.usc.edu (Sanford  
Brotman) writes:
# 
# Last month I was issued a speeding ticket, the officer said he
# got my speed by using his radar gun...  After he pulled me over
# and was in the middle of writing out the ticket, I asked if I 
# could see the radar gun stating that I did not believe that I was 
# actually going that fast.  The officer first said that this was
# not allowed, then said that the speed was no longer on the 
# radar gun.  I was under the impression that the radar guns keep the
# speed on the display until the officer intentionaly clears it?  
# 
# I requested a formal hearing and need help on fighting this one!!  
# Does anyone know of any rules/regulations governing the use of 
# radar that would apply to my case???  Help!! 

There are several methods of beating a speeding ticket based on a 
radar gun reading.  First of all, under California law, the officer
is required to leave the reading of the speed on the gun and you
have the right to see reading.  Secondly, though it is probably too
late, you can ask the officer if the radar gun was calibrated that
day and as proof you should get the serial number of the gun.  If the
gun was not calibrated that day, then the ticket would be dismissed.
Also, a radar gun can only be used on roads that meet certain criteria,
mainly that it has had a traffic speed survey within the last 5 years.
If it has not, then the road (by definition) is a speed trap and a
radar can not be used on that road.
One other point that is fairly important is that if you fight the 
ticket, the officer must be present.  If he is not, the citation will
be dismissed.  According to some figures, only 10% of the tickets 
that are fought the officer will actually appear.  Thus, even without
any defense, you already have a 90% chance of winning.
There are many other finer points which you can attack after having
read the book "Fight Your Ticket."  I highly recommend it.  It is
easy reading and extremely informative.  Everything is spelled out
very straightfoward.

--
If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because 
maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you 
because, hey, free dummy.

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:17:46 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <1993Jan4.072502.27732@netcom.com> altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) writes:

>If you want to talk about lines, where do you want to draw it the other
>direction.  If I wanted to kill someone, that would be a form of expression.
>Should I be allowed to do it?

Are you serious? Killing a person is a direct infringement upon the
victim's right to live. Where do I draw the line? Anything that has a
direct and quantifiable negative impact on another person is legitimate
fodder for legislation. Can you explain how my failure to wear a
seatbelt, should I so choose, would affect you or anyone else,
one way or the other? (Don't bother with the actuarial crap; the lack
of leafy green vegetables in my diet is already increasing your health
care costs. Perhaps a law about that as well?)

This is not about expression. It is about being able to make personal
welfare decisions without the government intruding at every twist and
turn. The state is quite right to demand driving ability standards and
mechanical safety standards--these affect everyone in the proximity of
other vehicles. But a seatbelt ONLY affects the wearer and no one else,
just as a helmet does on a motorcyclist.

Smoking kills far more people each year than the number of deaths
attributed to failure to wear a seatbelt. And there is a body of
evidence to show that smoking infringes on the rights of others who
wish to breath air free of a local contaminant. Are we banning
smoking? Well, yes, in areas where it can be demonstrated that smoking
assaults the rights of others. But the smoker is killing himself even
when lighting up in the privacy of his own home. The only difference I
see here is that smoking WILL eventually kill you; not wearing a
seatbelt MAY kill you IF you are involved in a major accident.

But then non-seatbelt wearers do not have a multi-billion dollar
industry lobbying for their rights.
-- 
 John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: mandel@dms.agames.com (Glenn Mandelkern)
Subject: Re: Fastest way from Campbell to LA ?
Organization: Atari Games Corp.
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:25:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.171150.8854@netcom.com> suleman@netcom.com (Dani Suleman) writes:
>Hi...I like to find out which is the fastest way to go to LA from Campbell ?
>Up 880 North to 580 East to 5 ? or Down 101 South all the way ? or Down
>101 South, then 152 East @ Gilroy (if I am not wrong) to 5 ?
>
>--dani
>Dani Suleman


You may want to try 101 to 46 to 5 which consists of mostly flat lands.
Since coming to California three years ago, I have heard different
reasons to avoid 152, from CHP common stakeouts to flipped-over buses
and impatient drivers.  

Definitely don't take 101 all the way nor 1 if your primary goal is saving
time.  1 is very scenic, when it is in one piece . . .  

As a public service announcement, I am pleased to inform readers that 
Route 1 has been reopened 23 miles south of Big Sur after the rock 
slide.  I called 1-800-427-ROAD yesterday and today and did not hear the
warning about the closure.




Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: jsweet@irvine.com (Jerry Sweet)
Subject: Results: license renewal & "chemical tests" 
             <9212111812.AA04104@zinfandel.uucp> 
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:00:20 GMT
To: zehntel!sf@uucp-gw-2.pa.dec.com (Steve Frantz)

Some of you wanted to know what happens when you don't sign the
perjury/consent box on the mail-in driver's license renewal form.

------- The original message, encapsulated in RFC 934 mode

Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: license renewal & "chemical tests"
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 92 17:35:47 PST
From: jsweet@fester.irvine.com

Received a mail-in license renewal form from the CA DMV.  To renew by
mail, you're REQUIRED to supply SSN (grrrr....) and then to check off
some boxes about medical conditions.  Then there's a box that you're
invited---but not EXPLICITLY required---to sign, saying "I certify
under penalty of perjury..." blah, blah; standard contractual agreement
giving up your Fifth Amendment rights.

In addition to the perjury language, there is language stating that
you agree to allow "chemical tests" when required by an officer.
Thereby hangs a question: how do "chemical tests" differ from the old
standard choice of breathalyzer, blood test, or spinal tap?

In practice, I see little wrong with offering evidence as to whether
or not you're under the influence when you're pulled over for hosing
up on the road.  The number of morons driving while tanked is far too
large.  However, I detest these nickle-and-dime Constitution
shredders.

Anyway, I sent in the renewal form, but because there was no language
requiring that I sign the box, I decided to see what happens when I
DON'T sign it.

For not signing, I expect that at worst, I'll have to go into the DMV
to renew; at best, I'll get my license renewed without giving up any
more of my rights to the State.

Anyone have comments on the "chemical tests" to which the renewal form
refers and/or what happens when you don't sign?

------ End

Well, I received my license renewal in the mail last week.  No fuss.
What a surprise.

However, I haven't received my 1993 registration tags yet, although
they're paid for.  Hmmm...

Presumably, in the absence of signature in that box, Implied Consent
is still in effect; i.e., if you were to be pulled over on suspicion
of DUI, you'd either have to agree to be tested in one of the three
approved ways, or lose the driver's license for six (?) months.

Signing the box on the renewal form means simply that you no longer
have the option of refusing testing and thus losing your driver's
license.  Which, of course, _ensures_ that you will be prosecuted if
you are found to be DUI.

And Implied Consent may be dead anyway, as noted by Al Clark in
article <1992Dec10.231201.5172@netcom.com> in ca.driving: if you
refuse testing, you may be arrested for "interfering with an officer."

...And I wish I'd known that the SSN requirement needn't have applied
prior to Jan 1, as per article <1992Dec31.184448.4628@netcom.com> in
alt.privacy.  Congress it all!
From: ighosh@fws415.intel.com (Indraneel Ghosh - EPG)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: best route ? (Sacramento to Irvine, Orange County)
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:22:12 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Intel Corporation


 Hi guys,

 I am planning to drive from Sacramento to Irvine, Orange County and back.
 Could you please tell me about a good route to follow ? 
 (I'd like to drive along the Pacific Coast Highway if its not too 
  time consuming.)

 Thanks,

 Indy.
From: chucko@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: What is the number to call in smoking cars?
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:53:50 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Recom Technologies, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

In article <a4zH02jz30ja01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> vat10@diag.amdahl.com (Victor A. Tirva) writes:
>Hold the phone.  Those disgusting buses and cars are mostly diesels and are 
>cleaner than gas powered cars.  The "liquid gasoline" coming out is called 
>water.  The real pollution is invisible.

Geez, are you another disciple of Walt "Diesel Freak" Kosiarz, of
rec.autos.tech fame?

Diesels are notorious for belching out soot and oxides of nitrogen at
a much higher rate than gasoline engines.  The health effects of
diesel exhaust are substantially worse than those of gas exhaust,
assuming both are built to current California standards.

You are right about the liquid out the tailpipe -- it is condensed
water vapor, a natural by-product of burning hydrocarbons.

 -- Chuck Fry  Chucko@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: jimiii@nimbus.com (Jim Warford)
Subject: Re: What is the number to call in smoking cars?
Reply-To: jimiii@nimbus.com (Jim Warford)
Organization: Nimbus Technology, Santa Clara, CA USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:34:50 GMT

In article <72885@cup.portal.com> Renee@cup.portal.com (Renee Linda Roberts) writes:
>What is the number to call in those disgusting cars and buses that are
>belching out smoke and liquid gasoline?
>
-------- 1-800-EXHAUST ----------- 


-- 
Faster Horses
Younger Women
Older Whiskey
More Money!
From: brotman@girtab.usc.edu (Sanford Brotman)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: speeding ticket help!
Date: 12 Jan 1993 14:43:32 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu
Summary: HELP!!!


Last month I was issued a speeding ticket, the officer said he
got my speed by using his radar gun...  After he pulled me over
and was in the middle of writing out the ticket, I asked if I 
could see the radar gun stating that I did not believe that I was 
actually going that fast.  The officer first said that this was
not allowed, then said that the speed was no longer on the 
radar gun.  I was under the impression that the radar guns keep the
speed on the display until the officer intentionaly clears it?  

I requested a formal hearing and need help on fighting this one!!  
Does anyone know of any rules/regulations governing the use of 
radar that would apply to my case???  Help!!
From: prem@prem.lbl.gov (xyz)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: How good is AAA with auto insurance........??
Date: 12 Jan 1993 18:16:46 GMT
Organization: Human Genome Center at LBL
Distribution: world
Reply-To: prem@prem.lbl.gov (xyz)
NNTP-Posting-Host: prem.lbl.gov
Keywords: car insurance, AAA, quality

    Hi folks,

        I just moved to Berkeley, and my Allstate car insurance went up 
    from 520 for 6 months, to 1128 for 6 months. However, AAA-insurance
    gave me a quote of 970 for the whole year, which is less than half
    the Allstate quote.....!!

	Years of dealing with the greedy devils that inhabit our planet
    have made me extremely wary of deals that seem too good to be true.

    What I would like to know is, 
        What is the catch ??
        What am I giving up by taking out a policy with AAA ?? 
        How good/bad are they ?? 
        What should I look out for ??

    Any help is much appreciated.

    Thank you....

    Prem!
    prem@prem.lbl.gov
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: aclark@netcom.com (Al Clark)
Subject: Re: new law
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:06:20 GMT

In article <9021@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com> clt@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Christy L. Thierstein) writes:
>
>
>I have a question regarding the seat belt law.  Our daughter drives 
>a 1973 Camaro in which the seat belt and the shoulder harness are 
>two separate units.  She always wears the belt portion of the unit;
>however, the harness portion is tucked in a slot above the window.
>Is it required to wear both the seat belt and the harness together?
>On the outside of the car it appears that she isn't wearing a seat 
>belt - but she is wearing it.  My husband said that he takes the 
>law literally - meaning wearing a "seat belt", which is being done.
>I have heard that by wearing a seat belt improperly a ticket can
>still be issued.  By the way, we tried using the harness with the 
>seat belt and it is EXTREMELY uncomfortable!  It has absolutely 
>no give at all.  No wonder people didn't use them at that time.
>
>Any insights would be appreciated.
>
   I have a 73 Datsun pickup with the same arrangement, so asked
   this question during my last driver's ed class.  The instructor
   said you have to use all the belts provided.  And she confirmed
   that does mean I have to wear the harness or risk a ticket.
   Actually, I put it on sort of loose, so that I can move around,
   and can lean forward to make it taut in case of an accident.

-- 
Al - aclark@netcom.com - My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:19:36 GMT

In article <32640020@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com> defaria@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria) writes:
>>/ hpcuhe:ca.driving / altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) /  7:31 pm  Jan  4, 1993 /
>
>>>Society should assume that people are good by nature and treat them as such.
>>>If you get out of line then punishment should be swift and fitting.  Bottom
>>>line: we should treat people as good and as adult and only assign punishment
>>>when something wrong has indeed happened, not in anticipation of a bad event.
>>>This is the only way you will ever get an adult, educated and responsible
>>>citzentry, otherwise you'll have a society of childlike, irresponsible
>>>bastards who demand their lives from the lives of people who have decide to
>>>remain responsible.  If you expect adult behaviour then you gotta treat them
>
>>It's awful convenient, isn't it?  We don't have to be responsible for 
>>ourselves.  If we're childlike, irresponsible bastards, all we have to do is 
>>blame the government for treating us like kids.  That's what I conclude from 
>>the above.
>
>Reread it then.  We can be as responsible as we want but government has the
>monopoly on the use of force.  

OK.  I reread it.  Same conclusion.

-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: dhepner@cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner)
Subject: Re: How about driving from Utah to SF?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:52:33 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

From: erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp)

>Now that we have the SF -to-LA route down pat, how about the best route from
>Salt Lake City to SF?  I will be driving this route later this month, and
>want to avoid Donner Pass if possible, since I don't like driving on ice and
>snow up and down hills, especially with a U-Haul.

As bad as it might seem, Donner Pass (I-80) is by far the best of the
Sierra passes.  Recent experience to the contrary, your odds are pretty 
good of avoiding snow on Donner pass even during January.

The best way to go SLC to SF is to get on I80 and stay on stay on
I80 until you get to SF.

Any decent alternate
>routes that wouldn't take me a week?  I assume I-15 to 58 to 5 would take
>significantly longer to travel - am I right?
>Ed Carp, N7EKG                    erc@apple.com                   801/538-0177

Definitely an extra day, probably an extra 700 miles, and even at that 
you aren't guaranteed to avoid snow.  If you've got the time, and are 
that concerned, go to Reno and just hang out until Donner Pass is clear,
they do have, uh, entertainment.

Worst case, chains work wonders, and if you drive slow they make clearing
the pass even when snowing not unsafe.  It's not clear whether that 
U-Haul is a truck or a trailer, but if it's a trailer, get some chains
for your car before you leave.  Either practice in your driveway,
or pay the chain installers to put them on and take them off.  If it's
a truck, and you are forced to drive in the snow, get the chains in
Reno (or more likely one of the large truck stops in Sparks).

If Donner Pass is open, anyone who can drive at all can drive it with chains.
They close it before it becomes a real challenge.  Go for it.

Dan Hepner
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: srcguard@src.dec.com (Lytton (SRC) Guard)
Subject: Speeding Ticket ARRGGHH!!!
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 19:59:48 GMT



	Well, I just got a speeding ticket for the new year.
	How's that for a sign of a new year.

	Now I was going 43 in a 25 zone.  Damn music made my
	mind drift and boom sirens.  She was cute though and
	we're calling each other, but THAT's another story.

	Now, I'm posting because since it is a new year with new 
	driving laws in effect...
	what is the process or how does the system judge my
	bail amount.  Do they determine amount by how
	many mph over limit? or judge by my DMV record or what?

	Any info is MUCH appreciated. (believe me!!!)


							Fallon

Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: dhepner@cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner)
Subject: Re: Seatbelt and child seat law question...
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:41:44 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

From: erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp)

>>Can anyone offer where any exception is suggested?  Other language
>>covers child seats for kids under 4 years, and similarly doesn't
>>seem to have any loopholes.
>
>How about vehicles that don't *have* seatbelts?  Weren't they either optional
>or unavailable for vehicles before about 1964 or thereabouts?  Is the CVC
>going to make them be retrofitted?  What a shame...

The section which requires wearing seatbelts 27315(l),(m), requires 
seatbelts for new vehicles, and 27314 requires 2 seatbelts for every
vehicle made after 1962, and seatbelts for "every seating position"
for every vehicle made after 1968.  Clearly, it is legal to own a
vehicle made before 1962 which has no seatbelts.

Agreed, there is a discontinuity here.  And the Merc claimed that
only available seatbelts needed to be filled up, and extra people
who don't otherwise make the vehicle unsafe were not required to
wear one.  But were does it say that in the CVC?

Dan Hepner
From: zombie@EBay.Sun.COM (zombie)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: What is the number to call in smoking c
Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:14:47 GMT
Organization: None of your business
Distribution: world
Reply-To: zombie@EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: redeye.ebay.sun.com

In article 63Eo02kf31bZ01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com,  vat10@diag.amdahl.com (Victor A. Tirva) writes:
>In article <1ifjpcINNqa1@male.EBay.Sun.COM>, zombie@EBay.Sun.COM (zombie) writes:
>|> 
>|> I don't know what you call that black stuff that diesels expell, but I call
>|> it polution.  Have you ever seen what it does to the area arount the pipe
>
>So anything visible must be harmful pollution.  
>I'm sure your car's emissions are actually helping the environment.
>What about the Carbon Dioxide
>carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons coming out of your tailpipe?  They
>are all invisible, I guess they are not as bad.

No, no, no.  You are missing my point, which is if both pollute, use the one
which is less obnoxious.  Additionally, I am not convinced that diesels pollute
any less.  Aren't their standards set way below gas engins due to the trucking
lobbies?  Can anyone back this up?  In any case, stop patronizing.

>
>|> on busses?  And the *SMELL*!  I can't follow most diesels without getting
>|> a headache.
>|> 
>
>Oh, SMELL = UNHEALTHY POLLUTION

I never said that.  Again, stop patronizing.

>
>if so, I've walked past many people in Santa Cruz that should be banned by
>the EPA.
>
>If pollution bothers you so much, why don't you get out of your car and start
>taking the bus.

Who said that I don't?

>I'm sure that one bus with 20 people pollutes less than 20 cars and the fumes
>will be giving someone else a headache.

I agree.  Now the challenge is to make busses environmentally cleaner
and less obnoxious, but more importantly, make mass transit more
convenient.  If it isn't convenient, people won't use it no matter
how clean it is.

---
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>                    zombie@redeye.EBay.Sun.COM                    <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>