HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chaw@cs.Stanford.edu (Sudarshan S. Chawathe)  
Subject: Re: seatbelt tickets
Originator: chaw@Pluto.Stanford.EDU
X-Disclaimer: Blame it on the cat.
Reply-To: Chaw@cs.Stanford.edu (Sudarshan S. Chawathe)  
Fcc: log/outgoing
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date:  8 Jan 93 06:03:15 GMT

markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz) writes:

>so the best way to adviod getting one of those is to 
>'belt' someone you love [yourself]

The best way to avoid getting _any_ kind of tickets is not to drive at
all.   And to avoid taxes, get fired... etc. etc.

-Chaw

_________________________________________________________________________
Chaw@cs.Stanford.edu                                         tat tvam asi
From: sobelman@cco.caltech.edu (Steven M. Sobelman )
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Fastest way from Campbell to LA ?
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:48:41 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

Definitely the 101 -> 152 (you were right) -> 5 -> LA.  The 101 all the way
adds 2-3 hours and going up and around to the 580 adds about an hour.  The 152
between Gliroy and Los Ban~os (where it intersects 5) was improved recently and
takes almost no time (about 20 minutes actually).  It's _a_lot_ less curvy than
it used to be and you can still go as fast as you want on the straight downhill
bit.  The 5 is of course a straight shot.  I've made it from San Jose to LA in
less than 6 hours this way without going over 70 and with a stop.

Steve Sobelman
From: chucko@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Never constructed SF freeways
Keywords: Maps?
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:55:33 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Recom Technologies, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA


480, the no-longer-extant Embarcadero Freeway, was supposed to wrap
around the waterfront between the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges,
connecting the two.  I think 280 was supposed to connect to the Bay
Bridge instead of ending nearby without connecting.  There was
supposed to be a 19th Ave. Freeway from 280 to the Golden Gate, but I
believe it would have been SR 1, not 280.

I have no idea whether 380 was supposed to go through to the coast,
but the stub ramps certainly do suggest that possibility.

 -- Chuck Fry  Chucko@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov
From: jet@boxer.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: new law
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:58:41 GMT
	<C0K3wI.M61@rahul.net>
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames


> [attribution lost]
>
>    I know no one personally who has been saved from injury by
>    *wearing* a belt.
>

I have been saved from injury by wearing a belt.  I was driving my
convertible Karmann Ghia (top down) at 45mph down a divided four line.
A driver decided they could make it across my two lanes from the
median, unfortunately they decided this while I was *very* close to
them.  My brakes didn't even have time to lock up.

Both myself and the passenger (my younger brother) were wearing belts.
Neither of us were injured.  My Karmann Ghia was totaled.  We had
decellerated from around 40mph to zero with the only injury being a
bit sore in the stomach the next day (lap belts only, unfortunately).

A year earlier I had almost the exact same accident (only it was my
fault) while driving a 69 Bug -- I was doing 40mph and rear-ended a
stopped car (fell asleep while driving).  I was *NOT* wearing a seat
belt.  I went face-first into the windshield (pulled glass fragments
from my face for a month), dented the metal dashboard with my kneecaps
(couldn't walk for several days), and bent the steering column with my
chest (damaged the muscles in my chest).

I vote for wearing belts, regardless of the law.

--
J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311 (DoD# 0378)
"It is the cunning of form to veil itself continually in the evidence
of content.  It is the cunning of the code to veil itself and to produce
itself in the obviousness of value." -- Baudrillard
From: alan@ikkyu.Eng.Sun.COM (Alan Marr)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: new law
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:17:12 GMT
Reply-To: alan@ikkyu.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ikkyu


    I know no one personally who has been saved from injury by
    *wearing* a belt.

If they weren't dead, you would have had a chance to meet them.

Alan.
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: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:25:02 GMT

In article <44034@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>
>Where do you think "loss of freedom" starts? Freedoms are given up one
>at a time. Apparently, by the time YOU think it has gone too far, it
>may be too late.

...

>You may feel that the decision to wear a seatbelt is a trivial matter.

...

>The issue is not whether I want to wear a seatbelt or not. For the
>record, I have always worn it, even before the government told me that
>I had to. The issue is whether we are going to have the government
>dictate every move we make no matter what, if any, impact it has on
>someone else. I am not interested in living in a prison without bars.
>
>I would think twice about dismissing as trivial a matter of personal
>safety that the government has seen fit to devote resources
>and require the paying of significant fines in an attempt to enforce
>it. Obviously, the government does not consider it a minor matter.

What I'm referring to as trivial is, well, let's put it this way.
Most of the time, when I see arguments from people about stuff
like seatbelts or speeding laws being infringements on freedom, 
that's the *only* thing they care about.  They're not into protection
of freedoms except for matters that they would rather not do the
way the law provides, so they call it freedom infringement.  When
other issues get brought up, where are they?

The issue of wearing seat belts is not a trivial matter.  It trivializes
freedom to argue that a law mandating the wearing of one is an infringement
of personal liberty.

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?


-- 
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.
From: ehill@rose.hp.com (Eric Hill)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: What is the number to call in smoking cars?
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:56:06 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: HP - Systems Technology Division
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]


 

I heard the number is 1-800-exhaust


 Eric Hill
From: markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: schoolbus'flashing' red lights
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:40:49 GMT
Organization: The Palmtree BBS - 310/453-8726 - Santa Monica, CA

thats why a lot of drivers, act like crossing guards, when assiting kids
across the street,
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: dhepner@cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner)
Subject: Re: What is the number to call in smoking c
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:05:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

From: chucko@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry)

>The excessive nitrogen oxide emissions common to Diesels are inherent
>in their extremely lean burn design.  The soot is more likely a matter
>of fuel choice.

The soot (carbon particles) has almost nothing to do with fuel choice;
while one might theoretically buy some bad diesel which would create more 
soot, one would hardly choose this result, and it is not at all common.

Historically, all diesels emitted carbon when under heavy load. Over
the past five years or so engine manufacturers have begun to attack 
this problem.  Turbochargers help a lot, and Dodge Cummins products
have added an "intercooler" specifically to reduce soot output.

The original diesel post was fundamentally correct in suggesting
that diesels were not proper targets of polluting vehicle call
numbers, despite an overly enthusiastic defense of diesels.  These
numbers are well intentioned for use reporting gasoline cars
which are burning oil, or are emitting unburned gasoline (which
is indicated when a gasoline engine is emitting soot).  Diesels
would be proper targets if they too were in need of repair, and
burning oil, and some of course do.  But it's clear based on some
postings here that a lot of people might not understand the difference
between an accelerating bus emitting a cloud of carbon (for which
there is probably no repair possible), and a bad diesel engine
burning motor oil.

>There is a misconception that Diesels are inherently more reliable
>than gasoline engines; the truth is the commercial engines and
>Mercedes-Benz passenger car Diesel engines are designed for extremely
>long lives.  The short-lived GM automotive Diesels, designed to
>gasoline engine standards, demonstrated this fallacy.
> -- Chuck Fry  Chucko@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov

These were the Yugos of diesel engines, proving the undisputed
point that one can design a bad one of anything.  While diesels might 
not be "inherently" more reliable, all reasonable designs have
been shown such given proper maintenance.  GM continues to build 
automotive diesels which have by and large (ten years after) eliminated 
the bad taste created by their fiasco.

Dan Hepner
From: eapg124@orion.oac.uci.edu (Douglas Gerhard Jahn)
Subject: Looking for a mechanic in LA.
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:14:52 GMT

I need help!  I just moved out to LA and I need to find a mechanic
for my 84 VW Gti, preferably in the orange county area.
Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
			
				Many Thanks,
					Doug (eapg124@orion.oac.uci.edu)
					     (dgjst1@vms.cis.pitt.edu)

"Hey Duke, let's go do some crimes!"
"Yea, uh, let's get some sushi and not pay."
		---Repo Man
From: zombie@EBay.Sun.COM (zombie)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Speed limit change on Mission Blvd.
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:26:05 GMT
Organization: None of your business
Distribution: ba
Reply-To: zombie@EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: redeye.ebay.sun.com

Did anyone else notice the speed limit on Mission Blvd., north of
the north 680 entrance, has changed from 45 to 40?  It was done
very quietly too.  Does anyone know why this was done?  Does anyone 
know if changes to speed limits have to be published anywhere. 

---
    _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/     _/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/
        _/   _/  _/  _/_/ _/_/  _/    _/    _/    _/       
     _/     _/  _/  _/  _/ _/  _/_/_/      _/    _/_/
  _/       _/  _/  _/     _/  _/    _/    _/    _/
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/     _/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>                    zombie@redeye.EBay.Sun.COM                    <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 5 Jan 93 03:26:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

I only brought up an extreme example due to talk of drawing lines.

You brought up some fine points about smoking.

But freedoms begin to erode when people don't care about taking responsibility,
and only complain about things that are merely inconveniences.  I brought up
not being safe in your own home, too, and that's not a cliche, it's true.
We have in fact eroded our liberties to a freightening degree.  It appears
that the prevailing slant is for feel good talk and instant solutions.  It
bothers me that we talk about the little bitty stuff, when we're losing the
battle wholesale.

-- 
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.
From: markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Stopping for School Bus flashing red lights (DMV Test)
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:59:55 GMT
Organization: The Palmtree BBS - 310/453-8726 - Santa Monica, CA

I  have heard of a lot of drivers, who don't stop for those flashing red
lights, and then wonder why the school bus driver yells at them
From: aubin@cadillac.asd.sgi.com (Mark Aubin)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Insurance for 1990 Ford Escort
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:15:11 GMT
Reply-To: aubin@cadillac.asd.sgi.com (Mark Aubin)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: cadillac.asd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec31.210641.29645@netcom.com>, aclark@netcom.com (Al
Clark) writes:
|> In article <42924@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Thomas
Marvan) writes:
|> >
|> >What's the minimum insurance (legally) for a Ford Escort I just
|> >bought at the deadlership.  I.e., what does it have to cover?
|> >
|> >
|> >And, anyone with a similar car have any idea what such insurance
|> >will set me back?  I'm only 24 (which I understand is a problem) and
|> >just got my CA license (I've been driving wiht my foreign Australian
|> >license up to now).
|> >
|> >Can anyone suggest some reputable companies here in Sthn Ca where I
|> >could get the best deals.  So far the dealer who sold me the car is
|> >trying to make me buy with a private, small operation company whose
|> >front man seems a bit shady to me.  Any suggestions?
|> >
|> >
|> >(help.)
|> >
|>     Stay away from small insurance companies; there are multiple
|>     reasons including offshore operation, cancellation for trivial
|>     reasons, etc.  Go with a major company; I use Allstate.  Their
|>     rates are reasonable if you have a safe driving record.  Their
|>     agent will tell you the minimum you need.  My son who is 19
|>     has a 1984 Ford Escort, and his insurance premium for liability
|>     is about $740 per year.  However, this includes multiple car
|>     discount and renewal discount, which he gets by using my policy.
|>     I have no connection with Allstate other than satisfied policy
|>     holder.

Larger companies aren't always that much better. I also use Allstate 
and am not going to renew my policy when it expires.  On December 18, 1991 I
filed a claim for hit and run.  The total was about $1200 and I had
a $500 deductible.  Then this last summer a friend was driving my car 
and rear-ended someone.  This time it was about $1400 and my deductible
was $250.  Up to this point Allstate was great.  They took care of 
things quickly and effortlessly.  Then I ding someone's door in the 
parking lot here at work on December 21, 1992.  I call my agent and talk
to him about it.  He says that if I claim it, they will cancel me.  He
says that after the third claim in a year and you get canceled.  I 
explain that the first was a hit and run, the second was another driver
and he doesn't care.  I explain that the first was over a year ago (barely)
and he still doesn't care.  And I explain that the first two claims
were relatively small and he still doesn't care.  So I guess I don't 
care to have anything to do with Allstate anymore.

--Mark Aubin, opinions are mine.
|> -- 
|> Al - aclark@netcom.com - My opinions are my own.
From: devesh@bombay.oracle.com (A Rice Queen)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: new law
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:33:06 GMT
Reply-To: devesh@bombay.oracle.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: Oracle Corp., Redwood Shores CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <JET.93Jan8165841@boxer.nas.nasa.gov> jet@boxer.nas.nasa.gov (J.  
Eric Townsend) writes:
> 
> > [attribution lost]
> >
> >    I know no one personally who has been saved from injury by
> >    *wearing* a belt.
> >
> 
> I have been saved from injury by wearing a belt.  I was driving my
> convertible Karmann Ghia (top down) at 45mph down a divided four line.
> A driver decided they could make it across my two lanes from the
> median, unfortunately they decided this while I was *very* close to
> them.  My brakes didn't even have time to lock up.
> 
> Both myself and the passenger (my younger brother) were wearing belts.
> Neither of us were injured.  My Karmann Ghia was totaled.  We had
> decellerated from around 40mph to zero with the only injury being a
> bit sore in the stomach the next day (lap belts only, unfortunately).
> 

I was saved 2 years ago when I had (foolishly) taken my eyes off the road at
about
75-80mph and the rented Plymouth Acclaim went off the highway down the  
embankment,
tumbled on its side about 3 times, including jumping over a fence into
the adjoining field, before coming to a rest. The car was totalled, the
roof caved in. There was a co-passenger, both of us were wearing seat-belts,
and neither of us had a scratch; I shudder to think what might have happened
if we hadn't been wearing seat-belts. 

While a few posters have pointed out specific instances (mostly side-on
collisions) where not wearing seat-belts claim to have saved their lives, 
most collisions are of the rear-end or head-on or flipped-on-the-side type
and wearing seat-belts is definitely going to save more lives than not
wearing them. 

Note: I am commenting on the issue of seatbelts saving lives, not on the
issue of whether we need laws to enforce these. 

> 
> I vote for wearing belts, regardless of the law.
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Devesh S. Khatu                        Office: 3OP3 #307
  Strategic Technology Group             E-mail: devesh@bombay.oracle.com
  Applications Division                  Phone : (415) 506-4488
  Oracle Corporation                     Fax   : (415) 506-7293
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Fastest way from Campbell to LA ?
From: wallich@ncd.com (Ken Wallich)
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:45:02 GMT
Reply-To: wallich@ncd.com (Ken Wallich)
Distribution: ca

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 ?

Well, like everything else, it depends on how much traffic there is,
and what time of day you are going (so you know which direction the
traffic is heaviest).  Let's assume you are leaving at 2:00am, and
that there are no road closures, or accidents of note.  Traffic should
then be light in all directions.

101 S. to 152 to 5 would then be the fastest route, from my personal
experience.  On Thanksgiving day weekend, for instance, I left
Mountain View at 2:00pm, and was in Anahiem at 8:00pm.  This was
including a lot of traffic on 5 for 2 hours of the trip, and a lot of
traffic in the L.A. area (just north, actually) for another 2 hours.
With no traffic, going with the flow of traffic, it probably would
have taken closer to 5 hours.  Note that this was with the flow of
traffic, not necessarily under the posted speed limit.

I think it will add about an hour to go north and take 580.

101 all the way will take something around 8-10 hours.

I did highway 1 back that weekend, and it took about 14 hours
(including a long stop for lunch, and another for dinner, and *really*
bad traffic near Santa Barbara)

If you drive any of this when there is the possiblity of traffic on
the roads, or if there is construction or any other obstructions, all
bets are off.

-- 
---
Ken Wallich

wallich@ncd.com ~ ken@wallich.com ~ kmw@al.org ~ [...]decwrl!vixie!amber!ken
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:14:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan3.031852.22013@netcom.com>, altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) writes:
> In article <44033@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
> >In article <13758@optilink.COM> calley@optilink.COM (Chris Calley) writes:
# ##1. It attempts to protect passengers, especially children, whose idiot parents
# ##would otherwise not use seat belts for their children.
# #
# #Who is raising the children, the parents or the state?
# 
# Well, *somebody* has to, if the parents aren't!

There are certainly parents out there that are arguments for government
regulation.  But aren't you just a little worried that a government
powerful enough to protect you from everything, is also powerful
enough to take everything?

# ##2. Automobile injuries and fatalities impact all of our insurance rates as well
# ##as health care costs.  If a seat belt saves a life, or if it reduces the level 
# ##of injury we might all be able to save some money.
# #
# #I am so tired of this old wornout argument. If people chose not to wear
# #a seatbelt and injuries to those people incrementally cause insurance
# #rates to rise, then consider that a cost of retaining personal
# #liberties. How much are you willing to sell your freedom for, anyway?
# 
# It also cheapens freedom when you start arguing about such trivial stuff
# as being infringements on freedom.  We've gotten society to the point
# where we can barely feel safe in our own homes and you worry about whether
# or not you can be fined for not wearing seatbelts is an intrusion on your
# personal freedom.
# -- 
# John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com

Why aren't we safe on the streets?  Because the government, under
the guise of "protecting us," has made it effectively illegal for 
law-abiding people to defend themselves outside their homes.  (If
they used the same laws against us at home, we wouldn't even be
safe there.)

I ALWAYS wear seatbelts.  My kids ALWAYS wear seatbelts.  But I
resent like hell being TOLD that I MUST do something that I would
do anyway -- and if other people are too stupid or recalcitrant to
do likewise, that's their business.

If worrying about health insurance is an adequate excuse to tell
us to wear seatbelts, then the time for sodomy laws should be
ripe.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: jimiii@nimbus.com (Jim Warford)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: new law
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:32:06 GMT
Reply-To: jimiii@nimbus.com (Jim Warford)
Distribution: ba
Organization: Nimbus Technology, Santa Clara, CA USA

In article <1993Jan9.223306.6351@oracle.us.oracle.com> devesh@bombay.oracle.com writes:
>
>While a few posters have pointed out specific instances (mostly side-on
>collisions) where not wearing seat-belts claim to have saved their lives, 
>most collisions are of the rear-end or head-on or flipped-on-the-side type
>and wearing seat-belts is definitely going to save more lives than not
>wearing them. 
>
 Most deaths in side impact collisions are caused by a ruptured aorta due
to he sudden acceleration.  The mass (weight) of the blood is sufficient
to rupture the walls of the veins and arteries.  In a case like this I
doubt the seatbelt makes a lot of difference.

--jimiii


-- 
Faster Horses
Younger Women
Older Whiskey
More Money!
From: barry@mothra.rose.hp.com (Barry Fowler)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:07:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Organization: HP Networked Computer Mfg. Operation