HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: Insurance impossible for out-of-state vehicle purchase?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:59:06 GMT

keith garrard (keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP) wrote:
: 					If I was to have an
: accident in CA, I'd say what anybody else would say, I was on
: vacation.  People are allowed to drive their cars out of the 
: states they are registered in.  

All I'm saying is, if the insurance co. has a fair amount at stake, they
will investigate your residency and all other likely aspects of your
application that might succumb to a fraud examination.  If they can get
out of covering you by voiding the policy, then that's what they'll try
to do.  And if this happens, then either they or the state or both will
start looking at criminal fraud charges.

: As to your questions about bringing non-CA smog vehicles into
: the state, . . .
:
: 							Anyway, upon
: trying to register it, one has to pay a one time environmental-impact
: fee of approx $300, as a "fine" for not having a CA-emission equipped
: vehicle. . . . 
: 								Then
: I would have the "privelege" of paying exorbitantly high CA insurance
: rates, paying through the nose for a CA plate every year, and waiting
: the approximately six weeks that I've been told that it takes for
: one to get a CA drivers license.  I hope this has enlightened you.

Yeah, thanks.  Wow.  So why are you and everybody else and his or her
sister coming to California?  :-)

--
 __D_a l_l m a_n  _ R o_s s _ |dman@netcom.com  /or/  |"You sound like a man|
 l  \\ l\\   /l  /\\  l\\   l |dross@well.sf.ca.us    |with a rubber nose." |
 l   >)l \\ /ll /  \\ l \\  l |vox/fax: 1.510.645.1883| -- One-Lung Bill    |
 l  // l  \X ll/--- \\l  \\ l |350 Perkins St., #108  |     Remmer (deceased)
_l//______________________\\l_|Oakland,_CA__94610-3422|_____________________|_
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos
From: grant@clarinet.com (Grant Robinson)
Subject: Re: Tinted windows law ??
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:19:47 GMT

In article <cfk2t!m@rpi.edu> kaminl@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Matt Garretson) writes:
>
>I'll tell ya one thing: I *hate* driving behind anyone with dark front/rear
>windows, since it makes it impossible for me to see through them to whatever
>is in front of that car. 

As a once and future motorcyclist, I also hate tinted windows.  You lose a
lot of subtle visual clues such as where a person is looking, a sudden
motion of the wheel, or hand to the shifter, etc.

It's easy to say "treat all cars as if they were about to pull in front of
you," and to some degree you must, but in other ways it's a simplification
that doesn't take into account all the subtle complexities of the real
world, and the loss of these simple cues makes a sorely missed difference.
-- 
Grant Robinson -- ClariNet Communications Corp, Sunnyvale, CA (408)-296-0366
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: Tinted windows law ??
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:21:24 GMT

In article <1ghsufINNniq@agate.berkeley.edu> shyguy@ocf.berkeley.edu (David S. Shy) writes:
>>Is there somekinda law in CA that prohibits tinting the front two windows 
>>of a car ? I was given a ticket this morning for having tinted front two 
>
>one cannot tint the front two windows of a car.  however, this only
>applies to third party jobs (i.e., your local garage or done by yourself.)
>if the car was tinted coming out of the factory, it is perfectly
>fine and legal.  

I have heard this explanation as well.  I can't figure out how something 
can be legal coming out of a factory, and be illegal when you apply it to
your own car.  I've always wondered how limousines that are custom built
get around such a law...
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: ross@prpa.philips.com (Ross Morley)
Subject: Re: Do I need Chains?
Organization: Philips Research Palo Alto
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:41:20 GMT

grant@clarinet.com (Grant Robinson) writes:

>We were on I80 while chain restrictions were on all the way from just past
>Applegate to Tahoe City, and you can rest assured, no one drove at
>30 mph.  

Even the ones with chains on? The chain manufacturers say not to exceed
30mph because it wears the chains out too quickly (and I suppose there
is a danger of them flying off if you rotate the wheels too fast).

> We had chains, and limited our speed to 30 - 35 mph, and were
>passed on everything on the road that was operational.   Some of the 4WD's
>were pushing 65, based on educated guessing.  Average speeds were probably
>in the neighbourhood of 45 - 50 mph.  No hard pavement in sight anywhere.

Now I would have been one of those 4WDs pushing 65 if I felt
sufficiently in control :-). But with chains on hard pavement I
wouldn't want to go that fast. Damages tires too. On snow, well no
damage to tires or chains, but why do the chain manufacturers say not
to exceed 30mph with chains on?

I have been made to put chains on on hard pavement before (in my
previous car, not 4wd), on 88 going to Kirkwood. After a couple of
miles of that I stopped and took the chains off. Didn't need them. The
car developed some new rattles it never lost.

By the way, thanks to levine@dinsdale.ics.uci.edu (David Levine) for
the info on the definition of "snow tires". My tires appear to qualify
because they have M/S written on them, although I wouldn't call the
tread deep or aggressive!

Ross

-- 
Ross Morley                   .---.     email:  ross@prpa.philips.com
Philips Research Palo Alto   |  ___\    Phone:  (415) 354 0325
4005 Miranda Ave, Suite 175   \/    \   FAX:    (415) 354 0309
Palo Alto, CA 94304           ^^
From: loftis@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Loftis)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:31:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Why don't people use their lights?
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: ca.driving

|Do you use just your low beams, or are you using your high beams during
|the day?  There's one of those "daytime safety" sections near where I
|live (highway 49 between Auburn and Grass Valley), in which the signage
|requires headlights during the day.  I have no problem with that, except
|about one third of the people seem to think that if a little is good, then
|more must be better, and run their high beams, regardless of oncoming
|traffic.  I guess they feel that, during the day, their high beams won't
|annoy, but I find it very annoying.
|
|-- 
|============================================================================
|Michael Kesti  Grass Valley Group, Inc. | "And like, one and one don't make
    |mrk@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM              |  two, one and one make one."
    !tektronix!gvgpsa!gvgspd!mrk        |         - The Who, Bargain
----------

Yup, they are my low beams.  What is more annoying, High Beams or
Blinkers left on (especially when the blinker points left for miles then
they turn right).....

Kirk

Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: dhepner@cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner)
Subject: Re: Do I need Chains?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:00:21 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

From: grant@clarinet.com (Grant Robinson)

>>Now I would have been one of those 4WDs pushing 65 if I felt
>>sufficiently in control :-). 
>
>I drove a 4WD truck in Canada for the last 4 years, and the important
>thing to remember is that although they get better traction, they don't
>stop any better.

Nor do they handle any better, or corner any better, misleading ads
to the contrary; in fact the only they do better on packed snow is 
accelerate.  (From the kind of serious experimentation most of us
just quit doing when we get older.)  The only merit to those ads
is that 4WD reduces the incidence of "dreaded wheel spin skids"
which occur during acceleration.  Most of us never even knew
this was a problem, as it doesn't really take much intelligence to
realize that if the wheels are spinning, letting off of the pedal
might be appropriate.  Ads showing 4WD as a safety feature when
on wet blacktop are just plain bogus.

>I'm not sure 65mph is out of line on the straights, provided you double or
>triple your space cushion.

This is where all season radials have made a huge difference.  With
bias ply tires, most cars became quite unstable at 55..60 running
on straight unsanded packed snow. In cold climates, it's common enough 
for a groove to be worn in the snowpack; a two-inch groove makes a huge 
difference, and one could then run 75 -- hanging on for life waiting 
to slow down when the groove suddenly ran out.  (more behavior which 
doesn't seem so sensible 20 years later) 

However, last I tried (in Montana, where they just don't as a matter of
course sand snow covered highways), using all season radials, I backed 
off at about 75, but remained stable all along.  60 seemed unexciting on 
straights.  In the Sierra, the passes are usually well sanded, but
65 seems way too fast even then, given the traffic.

Dan Hepner
From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Auto Talk and Way To Go
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:31:47 GMT
Organization: California-Nevada Methodist Homes

In article <20077@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez008208@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Julian Burger) writes:
>Has anybody in the Bay Area purchased an Auto Talk device or a Way To Go
>device?  They provide traffic information "customized for you". 

Yeah, I've heard about the Auto Talk from the commercials on TV.  I
was also curious as to whether anyone else has gotten one, or 
knows the physical aspects of installing it.  I mean, does it
plug into the cigarette lighter?  How does it hook to an antenna,
when the antenna is plugged into the radio?  
--Keith

Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: stssram@st.unocal.COM (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Do I need Chains?
Reply-To: Bob.Myers@st.unocal.com
Organization: Unocal Energy Resources Division
	<1992Dec10.065255.4734@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Dec11.224222.6534@prpa.philips.com>
	<1992Dec16.010322.15451@clarinet.com>
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:12:44 GMT

>>>>> On 16 Dec 92 01:03:22 GMT, grant@clarinet.com (Grant Robinson) said:

Grant> We were on I80 while chain restrictions were on all the way from just past
Grant> Applegate to Tahoe City, and you can rest assured, no one drove at
Grant> 30 mph.  We had chains, and limited our speed to 30 - 35 mph, and were
Grant> passed on everything on the road that was operational.   Some of the 4WD's
Grant> were pushing 65, based on educated guessing.  Average speeds were probably
Grant> in the neighbourhood of 45 - 50 mph.  No hard pavement in sight anywhere.

I'm always amused by how many of those fast vehicles I see stuck in the
ditch on the side of the road a few miles later.

--
Bob Myers                              Unocal Energy Resources Division
Internet: Bob.Myers@st.unocal.com      Exploration and Seismic Technology
Phone: [714] 693-6951                  P. O. Box 68076
                                       Anaheim, California 92817-8076
From: chucko@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Fry)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: I didn't receive a registration renewal notice
Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:02:27 GMT
Organization: I know it's here somewhere
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: westmark.stanford.edu

In article <byafuso.724617874@athena> byafuso@athena.qualcomm.com
(Byron Yafuso) writes: 
>Did anyone else not get a registration renewal notice in the mail?

I just got mine, right on schedule.  Have you moved since you last
registered the car?
 -- Chuck Fry  Chucko@westmark.stanford.edu
-- 
----- Chuck Fry  Chucko@westmark.stanford.edu -----
P.O. Box 60772, Palo Alto, CA 94306  (415) 949-5241
Lines: 32
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 10:46:01 MST
From: earlyd@newt.ee.byu.edu (David Early)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos
Distribution: usa
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Subject: Re: Tinted windows law ??


In article <06j2zt=@rpi.edu>, nobled@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (David Noble) writes:
>wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>>I have heard this explanation as well.  I can't figure out how something 
>>can be legal coming out of a factory, and be illegal when you apply it to
>>your own car.
>
>The explanation I've heard is that factory jobs use windows with tinted
>glass, while third party jobs just coat the windows with a film or sheet
>of plastic or something. The concern with third party tinting is that
>apparently the coated glass is more dangerous when it breaks. Just what
>I've been told, anyways.
>


HOW could it be more dangerous??????

That doesn't make any sense...auto glass is layered with platic films
so that it doesn't shatter into shards.  That is why when you hit a car window
with a baseball bat it usually makes a dent rather than lots of little pieces.
(Before you flame me, this is my understanding, if I am  wrong, please correct)

How could one more layer of film be 'more dangereous?


In Oregon, the reason they gave was that heavily tintied windows prevented
police from seeing the driver, which they said could lead to a leathal situation
when a driver pulls a gun and the cop can't see it...I don't know if they had any 
first hand experience with this.

Dave Early

Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos
From: georgew@hspice.portal.com (George J Wu)
Subject: Tire Rack
Followup-To: rec.autos
Organization: Meta-Software Inc., Campbell, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:53:23 GMT

-
     I recently ordered a set of tires and rims from the Tire Rack, a mail
order outfit.  Since alot of folks on the net recommended them to me, I
thought I'd relate my experience.  Overall, I'm pretty happy, but I do have a
couple of complaints.

     One minor nit was shipping delay.  I ordered the tires on the 10th.  The
next day they called back because I had moved and my credit card address
differed from the shipping address.  Since I was told the tires wouldn't ship
until Monday, I didn't think it was a big deal.  However, after the four to
five business days had passed, I called them and was informed the tires didn't
ship until Wednesday.  Naturally, I was all eager to get the tires, so two
extra days seemed like an eternity.  This isn't all that unusual in the mail
order business, so no big deal.

     My main complaint is about the balancing.  Since I ordered a set of rims
and tires, Tire Rack throws in mounting and balancing for free.  At speeds
above 75 MPH, I get alot of vibration feedback through the steering system.
This probably indicates the balancing isn't correct, so now I need to have the
tires rebalanced.  This is inconvenient, not to mention costs me money for
something supposedly already included.

     When I first asked the net about Tire Rack, several people had positive
comments.  No one had negative comments.  For me, I'm not sure I'll use these
guys next time around.  I'm not pissed, but I wonder if the cost of shipping
and the rebalancing isn't going to negate any savings I might have made.

							George


-- 
----
George J Wu,  Superior Maker of Technical Snafus,  georgew@metasw.com
Meta-Software,  1300 White Oaks Road,  Campbell, CA 95008,  (408) 369-5400
Never be the first to believe.  Never be the last to deceive.  ---  Chess
From: levine@dinsdale.ics.uci.edu (David Levine)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Do I need Chains?
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:50:19 GMT
Distribution: ca

Ross Morley writes:

>Does anybody know the official definition of "snow tires"?

excerpted from CVC 27459, Tire Chains or Snow-Tread Tires:
[..] The snow-tread tires shall be of a type and design manufactured
for use on snow as a replacement for tire chains, shall be in good
condition, and shall bear the marking of M-S, M/S, or other marking
indicating that the tire was manufactured for use on snow, or in
the case of tires purchased before January 1, 1987, shall either bear
the markings or, in the opinion of the inspecting officer, comply
with the tread pattern requirements of Section 558.

CVC 558 Snow-tread Tire
A "snow-tread" tire is a tire which has a relatively deep and
aggressive tread pattern compared with a conventional passenger
[sic: tire :-)] tread pattern.


I think that if a tire (not a passenger :-) says M-S or M/S, it
qualifies as a snow tire.

to accept the universal responsibility of doing | David L. Levine
good to all sentient beings, and if that is not | Internet: levine@ics.uci.edu
possible, to do no harm                         | UUCP: ...!uunet!ucivax!levine
  -- paraphrased from the Fourteenth Dalai Lama | BITNET: levine@uci
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: jet@boxer.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Subject: Re: Sensors at lights (was Re: Red light at 3AM - moral question?)
	<1992Dec8.202916.27650@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<thurlow.724011426@convex.convex.com>
	<1992Dec10.204030.5302@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames
Date: 11 Dec 92 11:13:18
Distribution: usa

"bsk" == Brian Keller <bsk@leland.Stanford.EDU> writes:

bsk> Rumor has it that some composite cars (e.g. Corvette) don't have
bsk> enough metal to trigger the sensor (esp. if the engine is in
bsk> front of it).

Some of the sensors are improperly calibrated.  A good example is the
left turn sensor for the light at Rengstroff and the 101N feeder.
I've waited as long as 4 minutes (with *NO* oncoming traffic) for it
to change -- my 450 pound motorcycle doesn't trigger it.  Immediately
after a car pulls up behind me, the light goes green.  (I've taken to
turning left illegally, unfortunately.)
--
             J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
              '92 R100R, DoD# 0378, BMWMOA, AMA, ACLU, EFF, CPSR
                                "HotHead Rules!"
Xref: sparky ca.driving:2572 rec.autos.driving:7210 rec.autos:29736
From: wesf@boi.hp.com (Wes Fujii)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos
Subject: Re: Tinted windows law ??
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:37:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

David Early (earlyd@newt.ee.byu.edu) wrote:
: 
: In Oregon, the reason they gave was that heavily tintied windows prevented
: police from seeing the driver, which they said could lead to a leathal situation
: when a driver pulls a gun and the cop can't see it...I don't know if they had any 
: first hand experience with this.

Reminds me of the scene in the movie Night Shift where they are cruising
along in the hearse and THEY can see out but the police can't see in! 
I'm still laughing...

Wes Fujii

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Wes Fujii               *           JAPANESE BUSINESS MOTTO           *
* Boise, Idaho            *        You can buy anything you want        *
* wesf@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com *             with a lot of money             *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: (Christopher J. Amow)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Insurance increases (was: Question on RADAR READING)
Followup-To: ca.driving
Date: 11 Dec 1992 21:35:28 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdr170.sdd.hp.com

Is there any reason why an "Insurance company for the people" analogous to
a credit union for banks can't be started?
Obviously the company would only need to be set up to sustain the employees
and an extremely low profit margin - unless the insurance companies
actually have what would be COMPETETIVE PRICING !(?)

bitter as always, :-)
Chris
From: Renee@cup.portal.com (Renee Linda Roberts)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: I didn't receive a registration renewal notice
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 17:06:48 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: ca

Unfortunately, you are SOL about this. We got hit with this a few years ago,
and they showed us DMV regs that stated that it is the responsibility of the
owner of the car to register the car in a timely (i.e. on time) fashion.

Renee Roberts
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: Jim_Brownfield@radical.com (Jim Brownfield)
Subject: Re: Nighttime ticket avoidance!
Reply-To: Jim_Brownfield@Radical.Com
Organization: Radical System Solutions, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 05:38:48 GMT

In article <21190@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The_Chipmunk)  
writes:

[stuff deleted]

> With some exceptions, the cop will generally do one of two things almost 
> immediately:
>   1) Pick out a speeder, and start pacing.  Once a positive lock is
>      determined, the lil' ol' lites come on and it's Revenue Time.
>   2) If he can't pick out a speeder, or if he can't get a positive
>      lock, he'll just cruise for a while, then get back off.
> 
[stuff deleted]

> -- 
> The Chipmunk.

I've noticed that when cars run in "packs" (bunches of cars on the freeway  
separated by spaces with few cars) that a cop will pass all the cars in the  
bunch by weaving back and forth in all the lanes until he is at the front of  
the pack.  Then he will match the pack's speed for 30 seconds to one minute (I  
suppose they are trying to find cars ahead of them that are speeding) before  
hauling ass to the next pack.

When I see this pattern in my rear view mirror, I slow down.  Most of the time  
doing so has paid off.

--
Jim Brownfield (Jim_Brownfield@Radical.Com)  NeXTmail accepted
Radical System Solutions, Inc.
rad i cal \'rad-i-kel\ n -- a basic principle: FOUNDATION
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: ross@prpa.philips.com (Ross Morley)
Subject: Re: Do I need Chains?
Organization: Philips Research Palo Alto
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:42:22 GMT

ajh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Hu) writes:

>According to my memory according to a pamphlet put out by CalTrans
>a few years ago, chain requirements come in three varieties:
>	1.  Chains required.  Four-wheel drive or snow tires OK.
>	2.  Chains required.  Four-wheel drive with snow tires OK.
>	3.  Chains required on all vehicles, including four-wheel drive.

I'm not sure this is still the case. Last year I went up to Tahoe in my
new 4wd Mazda MPV with M+S tires and lotsa ground clearance and a big
red "4WD" on the side (I bought the 4WD version mainly to avoid having
to chain up on hard pavement) and I noticed the signs were different
from previous years. They said something like "chains required - snow
tires O.K." No mention of 4wd!
 
So I got to wondering, do M+S tires qualify as "snow tires"?.  (I
wonder whether they are trying to get more strict because there are now
so many all-wheel-drive cars that are only built for the paved road).
Most people I've asked say snow tires are special tires that have deep
tread with wide gaps between the ridges, and they wear poorly and give
poor fuel economy on pavement, so you wouldn't want your car to wear
them all year round (my paraphrase), and M+S tires are NOT snow tires.
I would be rather annoyed to find that CalTrans now makes even 4wd
vehicles with M+S tires drive 30 miles at 30mph with chains on hard
pavement...  especially after getting 4wd mainly to avoid the horrible
wear on my car and chains this causes.
 
Does anybody know the official definition of "snow tires"?

Ross

-- 
Ross Morley                   .---.     email:  ross@prpa.philips.com
Philips Research Palo Alto   |  ___\    Phone:  (415) 354 0325
4005 Miranda Ave, Suite 175   \/    \   FAX:    (415) 354 0309
Palo Alto, CA 94304           ^^