HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: best route ? (Sacramento to Irvine, Orange County)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 08:31:34 PST

In <1993Jan11.215639.10998@unocal.com>, Richard Ottolini writes:

>In article <C0pF51.7vt@inews.Intel.COM> ighosh@fws415.intel.com (Indraneel Ghos
>>
>> 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.)

>Both are on the same expressway: I-5.

The next question, though, is this:  What is meant by "good route?"  Time?
Scenery?  Some "happy medium" between the two?

I live in San Jose, and when I'm going to Southland and I'm in a hurry, I use
I-5.  When I'm not, I use 101.  PCH (Route 1) is nice, but that's a lot of
driving on windy roads--too much for me.  I took 1 from Morro Bay to Monterey
once, and it took 3 hours.  It's a very challenging and demanding drive for
long periods of time.

Incidentally, I think the fear of 152 is overstated.  Most problems on 152 are
caused by people going too damned fast up or down the hill from Pacheco Pass.
Keep it under 65 when going down the hills (on the 4-lane sections) and you'll
be fine.

If you are *really* not in a hurry, and you can handle several hours of
constantly winding road, then go ahead and take Route 1.  It's beautiful.

If you are in a hurry, then a straight 6-to-7-hour drive down I-5 would be in
order.  But be warned that the scenery is exceedingly boring and that you
and/or your passengers might fall asleep.

If there's no reason to be in a big hurry, I find 101 to be a happy medium
when considering time and scenery.  Of course, 101 is a bit out of the way
starting from Sacramento (then again, 1 is even more so).
options available to you:

Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
"Dammit, Jim!  I'm a programmer, not a doctor!"
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: marks@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Schaeffer)
Subject: Re: Never constructed SF freeways
Organization: The Palmtree BBS - 310/453-8726 - Santa Monica, CA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:51:44 GMT

I was curious about this subject, except with respect to LA.  I did my
research at UCLA, where transportation documents are scattered among the
engineering, arts (which, due to library merger, contains the urban
planning collection) and general research libraries.  I imagine UC Berkeley
or SF State has a similar collection.  The California State Library might,
also.  Or you could check with Caltrans, which I guess has a public
documents office.

BTW I have seen a road map with I-380 extended to Pacifica.  Then again, it
shows Route 1 as a proposed freeway from SF to south of Pacifica, at least.
I bet both are low priority projects.
From: erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Fastest way from Campbell to LA ?
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:56:18 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Bleeding Edge Technologies - 'Sliding Down The Razor Blade Of Life...'

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 ?

It's been my experience that the fastest way to get to LA is to get on a plane.
Barring that (they *are* cheap nowadays) taking 5 is probably your best bet -
at least until you get to the Grapevine.  If it's windy through there, it
gets kinda nasty.
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG                    erc@apple.com                   801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
From: Renee@cup.portal.com (Renee Linda Roberts)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Fastest way from Campbell to LA ?
Date: Mon,  4 Jan 93 17:07:32 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: ca

Take 101 to 152 East. Go to 5 South. After the grapevine, choose the freeway
you need (405, 58, stay on 5, 101, 10, 210, etc). Should take 6-7 hours.

Renee Roberts
From: msm@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Mitch S. Mohlman)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: What is the number to call in smoking cars?
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:48:06 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Chevron Oil Field Research, La Habra, CA.

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?
>
>Renee Roberts

The number is 1-800-CUT-SMOG, or 1-800-288-7664.  

You will need to have the following information:

	1) License plate number
	2) Make of vehicle
	3) Color of vehicle
	4) Time of day and location (cross streets)
	   where you observed the vehicle
	    
I am not sure exactly what is done with this information.  I 
believe the vehicle owner is contacted by mail and informed that
his/her vehicle has been reported.  I would be curious to know if 
more heat than that is put on if more reports are made for the same
vehicle.  I know they (I think they is the DMV) don't ask for the 
name of the person reporting the smoking vehicle.  If I remember, the
next time I have a vehicle to report I will ask some questions.
--
From: erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Seatbelt and child seat law question...
Date: 8 Jan 93 09:29:03 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Bleeding Edge Technologies - 'Sliding Down The Razor Blade Of Life...'

In article <C0I71s.3Gq@cup.hp.com> dhepner@cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) writes:
>From: daveb@Ingres.COM (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418)
>
>>If I have a station wagon with 5 seats, and they're all occupied by
>>people wearing seatbelts, can the two more legally sit in the cargo
>>area without belts?  What if they are children?  What if it's a
>>pickup truck?
>
>Good one.
>
>I read in the paper lately that it is only required to use available 
>seat belts, but when I looked in the CVC, I could find no exception
>to the strong statement in 27315(d) that  "No person shall operate
>a private passenger motor vehicle on a highway unless that person
>and all passengers four years of age or over are restrained by
>a safety belt, ...".  This goes on to list exceptions, but none
>seem to suggest that if no seatbelt is available, one need not
>be used.
>
>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...
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG                    erc@apple.com                   801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
From: mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton-John)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Never constructed SF freeways
Keywords: Maps?
Date: 6 Jan 93 05:54:41 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix

Starting a new job in San Francisco, and an avid driver, I have
always wondered where the proposed freeways for San Francisco were
to be routed. You've seen them too, the ramps that go off to
nwhere...

Is there something at Cal Trans in Sacramento or in San Francisco
that would show where never contructed freeways would have been
built?

For example, was 280 supposed to connect to 480 (The Embarcadero
Freeway), and then continue north to connect to 101 and the Golden
Gate bridge? What about the Central Freeway (101)? Was that
supposed to go through the middle of San Francisco all the way to
the Golden Gate? Will they ever extend 380 (SFO) from 280 to
highway 1?

It would be interesting to see where those "ramps to nowhere"
whould have gone.


-- 
#############################################################
# Scaramento Public Access UNIX     sactoh0.SAC.CA.US       #  
#  (916) 649-0161, 722-6516 & 722-5068    E-Mail & USENET   #
################## default .signature file ##################
From: pnelson@cobra.Tymnet.COM (Phil Nelson)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: best route ? (Sacramento to Irvine, Orange County)
Summary: use I5 unless you have lots of free time to burn
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:52:35 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1993Jan11.215639.10998@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>In article <C0pF51.7vt@inews.Intel.COM> ighosh@fws415.intel.com (Indraneel Ghosh - EPG) writes:
>>
>> 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.)
>
>Both are on the same expressway: I-5.


You will see by looking at the map that the Pacific Coast Highway is far
out of your way, while I-5 is direct. I guess it will take about twice as
long on Highway 1, but the scenery is much more interesting.


Phil Nelson . pnelson@tymix.tymnet.com . San Jose, CA, USA . 408-922-7508

	 When words are many, transgression is not lacking,
           but he who restrains his lips is prudent.       Proverbs 10:19
From: clt@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Christy L. Thierstein)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: new law
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:03:56 GMT
Organization: CPTC, La Habra, CA.



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.

-- 
 Christy Thierstein
 clt@chevron.com
From: sobelman@cco.caltech.edu (Steven M. Sobelman )
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Fastest way from Campbell to LA ?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 03:28:09 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:

>   And this winter, there's all that nasty white flakey stuff laying
>   around on the pass....

>   Allegedly the 101 route is just as fast these days...now that it
>   is all freeway.  Just watch out near Solvang for stamp vendors.

No way.  The 101 still twists and turns and goes through hills and is not 65
the entire way.  There will be snow on the Grapevine, but if you call ahead
you can find out if you can drive on it.  Caltrans often keeps it clear, if
possible.

Steve
Newsgroups: ca.driving,alt.civil-liberties
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: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:27:27 GMT

In article <wallich.726196642@lupine> wallich@ncd.com (Ken Wallich) writes:
>parents, I just want to point out that the state already makes
>decisions about how you are allowed to raise your child (no corporal
>punishment or other 'severe' punishment like I had (or had the threat
>of) when I was a child, or my father had, or his father before him).
>I think the folks who complain about not feeling safe in their homes
>should look at the type of citizens our state-enforced "kinder and
>gentler" child-rearing techniques are turning out.  
>

Sorry, but this is the kind of thing that turns out the type of citizens you/
we are talking about.  I'm not advocating a let-them-do-what-they-want
style of parenting.  That's child abuse as much as spanking is.  They
need discipline.  But we *must* get beyond equating spanking with
discipline.

>I'm not trying to blame all of societies ills on not being able spank
>your child with your belt, but societies' problems are complex, and
>most of it stems from people not wanting to take responsibility for
>their own actions, and *requiring* that the state do it for them.  In

I agree - we must take responsibility for out own lives.  And for
our own government.  In a democracy, we *are* the government.
It is important for each person to be informed and make the right
choices for our representatives, etc.

>
>This, of course, has almost *nothing* to do with driving, except for
>those who drive with children passengers.  I'd suggest taking it to
>alt.civil-liberties, as my 'followup' would indicate.
>


-- 
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: aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: new law
Date: 6 Jan 93 05:27:25 GMT
Organization: Helen Keller Bondurant's Performance Driving School for the Blind

In article <1i044gINNkdf@gap.caltech.edu> pvmason@cco.caltech.edu (Peter V. Mason) writes:
>BTW, a piece of news that will be irrelevant in 7 hours;  the 
>compulsary seat belt law was effective in all of 1992, according
>to the Califoria Vehicle Code for 1992.
>Peter Mason

Only as a secondary violation.  The thing that changed for 1993 is that
lack of a belt is itself adequate reason for stop and citation.  See
CVC $27315(k).


--
Alan Denney      aland@informix.com      {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!aland

  Smith and Wesson: the Ultimate Point-and-Click User Interface.
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 5 Jan 93 03:31:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <32640019@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com> defaria@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria) writes:
>>/ hpcuhe:ca.driving / altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) /  7:18 pm  Jan  2, 1993 /
>
>>>>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!
>
>If the state is going to charge me with the responsiblity of caring for the
>child then give me the right to do so as I see fit.  If my decision is wrong
>and the child is hurt then I am solely responsible for it.  Otherwise I am not
>raising the child the state is and the USA becomes USSR.
>

You might be solely responsible for it, but the child is hurt just the same.

>
>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.

I expect adult behavior, and I expect people to provide that whatever way
government behaves.  Imagine - we may actually be able to come up with
better government if that happened!

-- 
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: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:10:24 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan2.080726.1369@pro-palmtree.socal.com>, markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz) writes:
> Up in Canada, the seatbelt laws have saved lives. 

I'm sure they have here, too.  So would a law requiring you to
get permission from the government before you had sex with someone.
"Have they had a test for AIDS?  How about other communicable
diseases?  Please have these forms filled out, and come back in
three months, and we'll tell you if we are going to unlock your
chastity belt or not."

Reducing the speed limit to 15 mph would save an ENORMOUS number
of lives.  Should we do that too?

This country wasn't founded on the principle of saving lives.
It was founded on the principle of individual freedom.
-- 
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: defaria@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:08:59 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino

>/ 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.
From: cathy@octel.com (Cathy Kearns)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Fastest way from Campbell to LA ?
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:45:24 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.

In article <1iaicpINNouo@gap.caltech.edu> sobelman@cco.caltech.edu (Steven M. Sobelman ) writes:
>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 ?

>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 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.

Well, LA is an awfully big target, taking over 2 hours to get from 1 border to
another.  Much over two hours if you happen to hit LA at rush hour.  So, 
here is my experience from many trips from LA to the San Fernando Valley
and Los Alamitos.

If the weather is clear, and the GrapeVine is open to all vehicles, and 152
is open (all of which is not necessarily true this time of year) 101 ->
152 -> 5 is fastest for most of LA (excepting the extreme west part of LA,
the Calabasas area).  If your final destination is the southern part of the
San Fernando Valley, ie Woodland Hill, Tarzana, Encino, I have found taking
101 all the way is about 1/2 hour slower than the 5 route.  (Assuming both
are clear and you don't speed within 20 miles of King City.)  If your final
destination is downtown LA, or closer to the Orange County border, 5 is
pretty much always an hour to an hour and a half faster.  If you are planning
on hitting LA at any time that may resemble rush hour, 5 drops you off along
the mountains where there are lots of choices of freeways that are not as
crowded as 101 or 405.    

These times are assuming a speed of 65 while driving 101 and 75 while driving
5.  Of course, your milage may vary.  

							Cathy
From: ross@cheshire.ucsb.edu (Richard Ross)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Radar Detectors, Whats the deal?
Keywords: radar, cops
Date: 8 Jan 93 06:15:54 GMT


This should probably be in the FAQ, but it doesn't say much on the  
subject. What kind of radar is being used in CA these days? I have
a five year old Passport detector that I feel is basically useless.
Are the power levels used by the cops so low that you can't pick them up  
unless they're right on top of you or is my detector on the outs?
On my last few long trips I picked up every Home Depot and fast food  
joint, but the cops kept finding me first (luckily I have good eyes).
Should I trash the thing?

richard
From: levine@dinsdale.ics.uci.edu (David Levine)
Subject: Re: What is the number to call in smoking c
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:39:19 GMT

Chuck Fry writes:

>In article <2B4B598F.20365@ics.uci.edu> levine@dinsdale.ics.uci.edu (David Levine) writes:
>>Diesel engines are more thermodynamically efficient than gasoline
>>engines.

>This is a fallacy.

Not with the high compression ratios of typical diesel engines.

>The excessive nitrogen oxide emissions common to Diesels are inherent
>in their extremely lean burn design.

. . . and high CR.

David
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: mandel@dms.agames.com (Glenn Mandelkern)
Subject: Re: CHP Hot-spot
Organization: Atari Games Corp.
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:00:58 GMT

In article <76081@apple.apple.COM> erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.172015.9910@netcom.com> suleman@netcom.com (Dani Suleman) writes:
>
>>Hey ! I think we should compile somekinda list of those "CHP hot-spots" in 
>>the bay area. I got a ticket for that tinted windows about a month ago
>>driving down 880 South around the Automall area, there's this CHP who is 
>>always there on weekends around 8-9am, since I got that ticket on 
>>Saturday...I started noticing that she's always around that area in the
>>morning on weekends giving tickets !! So those of you who are driving down
>>880 South on weekend morning...BEWARE when you are reaching the Fremont
>>area ! :) 

Another hot-spot in the Bay Area which I remembered reading the last few
posts about a quick way from Campbell to LA is found where 152 and 101 
share the same road, i.e., in Gilroy between Leavesley (G9) and 
Pacheco Pass Road.
From: markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: seatbelt tickets
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:42:04 GMT
Organization: The Palmtree BBS - 310/453-8726 - Santa Monica, CA

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