HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 9 Jan 93 03:18:15 GMT
Organization: Helen Keller Bondurant's Performance Driving School for the Blind

In article <13830@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) 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."

Please, drop the straw arguments and keep to the newsgroup charter, or
take it to *.politics.

>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!

This is laughable -- you're forgetting that slavery was still popular then.
Some "principle of individual freedom".  The word "freedom" doesn't even
appear in the Declaration of Independence... 
                             but the term "merciless Indian savages" does.

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

  Smith and Wesson: the Ultimate Point-and-Click User Interface.
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Fastest way from Campbell to LA ?
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:00:52 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

>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 ?
>
In article <76080@apple.apple.COM> erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp) writes:
>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.

   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.
From: karen@berkp.uadv.uci.edu (Karen Latora)
Subject: accident
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Organization: University Advancement, University of Calif., Irvine
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:48:30 GMT

Help, I was in stopped traffic last week and let my foot off the brake and 
the car ***bumped***  the car in front of me.  There was no apparent dammage 
to our car, hers has a scrap from the license plate (that's it!!)

Now they are claiming injuries and the police report says I was going 2mph 
can they really get away with this.  They were fine and walking around and 
talking and the one girl called the police and held the phone on her 
shoulder and turned around and everything.  

Am I just being paranoid, or what is the worst that can happen.
From: tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Thomas Marvan)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Driver's License Test Question
Date: 5 Jan 93 04:04:56 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1993Jan4.021604.1157@oracle.us.oracle.com> devesh@bombay.oracle.com writes:
>In article <1i3hkqINNc44@gap.caltech.edu> maskiell@ugcs.caltech.edu (Andrew R.  
>Maskiell) writes:
>> eduardo@power.amasd.anatcp.rockwell.com (Eduardo Malamut) writes:
>> 
>> >Sorry if this seems naive, but I'm taking a California Driver's License
>> >Test, and the following question is asked:
>> 
>> >  You must report to DMV the sale or transfer of your vehicle within:
>> >     A.  5 days
>> >     B. 10 days
>> >     C. 15 days
>> 
>> >I have in my hot little hands the California Driver Handbook, and can't
>> >find any mention of sale of a vehicle in it.  Does anyone know the
>> >official answer to that question?
>> 
>> Well, I just took the exam two weeks ago, and that question appeared on it.
>> According to the woman grading my exam the correct answer is A. 5 days.
>
>Wrong!! This was one of 3 questions that I got wrong, probably the only case
>where conservative guessing didn't work. The correct answer is B. 10 days.




BUt I had the same question and guessed 10 days and it was scored as
incorrect.  (I later asked an experienced driver who thought also
the answer was 10 days).


So what is the answer...?



*******************************************************************
*  Thomas (Tom) Marvan         Phone: (619) 450 3670              *
*  Dept. of Political Science, E-Mail: tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu     *
*  University of California,   Snail Mail: 9450 Gilman Dr.,       *
*  San Diego,  USA.            #92092-0644, La Jolla, CA, 92092.  *
*******************************************************************

"Two men say they're jesus, one of them must be wrong," M. Knopfler
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:20:41 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan4.072502.27732@netcom.com>, altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) writes:
> In article <44034@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
> >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?

Right here.  I wear seatbelts all the time.  I think people that
don't wear them are incredibly stupid.  But if the individual who
has the most to lose from not wearing one doesn't want to, the
government FORCING him to do so is perilously close to "Government
as Mother."

> 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

If it was yourself, I would be hesitant to pass a law against it.
Yes, it's true that others will suffer as well, but the major
loser would be you.

Mr. Altinbay is clearly arguing for laws to regulate his private
sexual behavior.  After all, some things that consenting adults 
do in private are potentially quite dangerous.  Perhaps we need
a law telling him how he is allowed to have sex?  Perhaps the
sex police need to come into his bedroom occasionally, and make
sure that he is doing it right?  After all, if he gets or gives
AIDS, the public will pay for it!


-- 
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: vat10@diag.amdahl.com (Victor A. Tirva)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: What is the number to call in smoking c
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:54:28 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Cupertino, CA

In article <1ifjpcINNqa1@male.EBay.Sun.COM>, zombie@EBay.Sun.COM (zombie) writes:
|> In article a4zH02jz30ja01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com,  vat10@diag.amdahl.com (Victor A. Tirva) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan5.153450.2589@nimbus.com>, jimiii@nimbus.com (Jim Warford) writes:
|> >|> 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 ----------- 
|> >|> 
|> >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.
|> 
|> 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.

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

Oh, SMELL = UNHEALTHY POLLUTION

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.
I'm sure that one bus with 20 people pollutes less than 20 cars and the fumes
will be giving someone else a headache.
From: erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: How about driving from Utah to SF?
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:55:40 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Bleeding Edge Technologies - 'Sliding Down The Razor Blade Of Life...'

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.  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
"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: rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:30:44 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <13758@optilink.COM> calley@optilink.COM (Chris Calley) writes:
>
> 
>I guess a five year old child whose parents did not buckle him/her in deserves to
>be removed from the gene pool.  Or isn't that what you meant? 
 
No it isn't.  Correct me if I'm wrong [ I'm sure you or someone else will]
but, the child seat law is a *separate* law from the seatbelt law.

[ deleted ]
> 
>The "natural selection" argument in this context is ludicrous.  Do you really
>believe that the human gene pool would be helped by non-seat belt users dying 
>off? 

Yes I do.  Just like "natural selection" has taught Zebras to watch out
for Lions in the tall grass.

> Somehow I don't think that you have completely thought this through.

I have thought it through.  I have *always* worn a seatbelt [ and shoulder
belt before they were made into one ] *whenever* I have driven a vehicle.

I have enough brains to know the need to wear one.  I always have worn a
helmet when riding a motorcycle too, for the same reason.

It did not take an act of congress [ passing a law ] to get me to wear my
seatbelt or a helmet when it was necessary.  Besides it being an
infringement on my personal freedom, it is an insult to my intelligence
for the government to say [ by passing the seatbelt law ] that I do not
know when I need to wear it.

>
>BTW, the seat belt law has been around since approx. 1986.  The only change
>is in the CHPs (and possibly other agencies) enforcement policies.
>

I knew this, but it is not relevant for the above reasons.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Russell Hockins               |  This civilization is recyclable           |
| Innovative Interfaces, Inc.   |              ( well most of it anyway )    |
| My own opinions  no one elses |  packet : ka6foy @ ki6yk.#nocal.ca.na.usa  |
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: daveb@Ingres.COM (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418)
Subject: Seatbelt and child seat law question...
Originator: daveb@lotus
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company
Distribution: ca
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:38:04 GMT

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?

I believe I understand that if there is a seatbelt location available,
you have to use it.  But if there isn't, the legality is unclear to me.

No morality discussion, please.

thanks
-dB

-- 
Windows/NT - the VMS of the 90s
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Driver Courtesy
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:31:29 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

I have noticed that when I drive my Ferrari, I get a lot more courtesy
from other drivers on the road. Specifically, they will pull over to the
right to let me pass.

Normal behavior on a 2 lane road coming up to a passing lane is for the
cars ahead of me to split into 2 groups and block both lanes for the
duration of the passing lane. With the Ferrari, amazingly they all move
over to the right, let me by, and then form up to block both lanes!

Also, I rarely get someone accelerating as I pass to try to prevent me
from passing. In my old underpowered firebird, they would, causing me
to eat up lots of ground in the left lane raising the danger. (I've had
people speed up from 45 to 75 as I tried to pass.)

P.S. In my old Dodge people still try to speed up as I pass, but they
have forgotten about old '60s muscle (!).
From: rfisher@uswnvg.com (Robert Fisher)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: doomsdayer
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:56:34 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


NO NO NO!!! you dont get it do you!!!
Distribution is not the issue.  Pure population volume will outpace the
total oput of consumable goods producable with the expected level of tech.
by the year 2050.  No matter how it is distributed.  Current starvation is
a direct result of bad distribution, and mindless waste by developed countries, but it is nothing compared to distribution in 60 or so years.  Immagine, the
U.S. having to import 33% of its food to support our population.  Then immagine a distribution problem!!
From: walterp@atc.boeing.com (Walter Pietrowski)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Recommendation on PRoFasT
Keywords: info, help, recommendation, computer, services, dealer
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:40:43 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle

I am looking for a recommendation on a local PC and Network dealer called
PRoFasT.  Are they knowledgeable, reliable, customer oriented?  Any
input would be appreciated.
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:15:14 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <1993Jan6.203239.1873@voodoo.ca.boeing.com> jdt@mistral.ca.boeing.com (Jim Tomlinson) writes:
>In article <crystal.726264016@glia> crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal) writes:
>
>>Anyway, when people start blinking at me and acting like a$$holes, I look at
>>my speedometer, and if I'm going over 55 (simply because I'm keeping pace with
>>the majority of the traffic) I will let the turkey by and hope he gets nabbed.
>
>If you're not in the right lane and you're blocking traffic, Crystal,
>it's because you're driving illegally:

You know it's funny, but I believe she said she moved over.

Therefore she is not blocking traffic.




     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.


>Let's all read that again.  Thank you.  I just blink my lights; I don't
>want to be an a$$hole, but I'm generally in the left lane for a reason.

And Crystal said she will move over and let you by.




     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: mnb@mira.ca.boeing.com (Mike Burr)
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Organization: BoGART Graphics Development
Distribution: seattle
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:02:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.183435.3518@seanews.akita.com> billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick) writes:
>
>Like everyone else, you are simply choosing which laws you wish to obey
>based on your personal preference.  You are *not* legally driving if you
>are in the left lane and there are people waiting to pass you.
>

Bill, I find it doubtful that the law reads something like "It's illegal
to obstruct anybody at anytime regardless of their speed."  If I'm in the
left hand lane in order to pass slower traffic on the right, AND I am 
traveling at the legal speed limit, I have as much right to be there as
you do.  We are both passing slower traffic on the right.  I don't beleive
the fact that you want to do 70 holds much legal weight.

I have yet to see any shred of evidence to the contrary.  On the other
hand, I've seen plenty of evidence that it's illegal to exceed the 
speed limit in such situtations.  I will gladly
eat my words if you can produce a valid reference to your claim, but I don't 
beleive you can.  In such a situtation, it may be a courtesy for me to get 
out of your way so you can do 70, but I doubt that it's a *legal* requirement.  


Happy motoring,


Michael Burr  Boeing Computer Services, Bellevue WA
              Email:mnb@voodoo.ca.boeing.com
-- 
Michael Burr  Boeing Computer Services, Bellevue WA
              Email:mnb@voodoo.ca.boeing.com
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:23:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

Sorry Kevin, but I gotta ..

In article <klg.726775104@statsci> klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:
>The LAW does not enforce laws they don't like.

Just like we do not follow laws we do not like.

Wonder who loses when this happens?



     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
From: food@fylz.wa.com (Restaurant Information)
Subject: Veggie Restaurant List
Organization: FYL
Distribution: pnw
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:55:18 GMT

This is a dual-purpose post.  First, I want to let readers know
that a list of vegerarian and vegetarian-friendly restaurants is
posted monthly to rec.food.vegetarian.  (You can get a current copy
of the Washington State portion of this list by sending a message to
    listserv@fylz.com
and put the following in the body of the message
    get listserv veggie

Second, I would like to solicit input for this list.  If you have any
additions to the list please send them to food@fylz.com.  I will add them to
the list and forward them to the person who posts the international lists
to the net once a month.
-- 
Keeper of the restaurant list(s)
Currently, this means Phil Hughes
E-mail: food@fylz.com or nwnexus!fylz!food 
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: jdt@mistral.ca.boeing.com (Jim Tomlinson)
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Summary: Be nice; keep right
Organization: BoGART Graphics Development
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:32:39 GMT

In article <crystal.726264016@glia> crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal) writes:

>Anyway, when people start blinking at me and acting like a$$holes, I look at
>my speedometer, and if I'm going over 55 (simply because I'm keeping pace with
>the majority of the traffic) I will let the turkey by and hope he gets nabbed.

If you're not in the right lane and you're blocking traffic, Crystal,
it's because you're driving illegally:

In article <1550@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>It is also the law:
>       Keep right except to pass.
>       Slower traffic keep right.
>If there is a lane to the right of you, and you are blocking traffic, you
>are legally required to move over to let them pass.

Let's all read that again.  Thank you.  I just blink my lights; I don't
want to be an a$$hole, but I'm generally in the left lane for a reason.
-- 
Jim Tomlinson    email:jdt@voodoo.ca.boeing.com    PROFS:SGDI03(S0069741)
         "Airplanes are cool." - the man on the street in Seattle
From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Summary: Off the road!
Date: 9 Jan 93 06:15:58 GMT
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-

In article <1993Jan7.012336.7228@voodoo.ca.boeing.com>, mnb@mira.ca.boeing.com (Mike Burr) writes:
> The speeders have taken over the left lane, and the folks who wish
> to drive less than the speed limit are in the right lane - so where do
> the people who wish to obey the law and drive *at* the posted speed drive?
> 
> You've got 3 groups of individuals and only 2 lanes.  One group clearly
> has to "conform" to one of the other driving methods if everybody is going
> to be on the road at the same time.  Who should it be?  The really slow
> folks in the right lane are there for a reason.  Either them or their car
> can't handle anymore speed... they are incapable of conforming.  That leaves

... someone or their vehical or both is dangerous and shouldn't be on road.

     I nearly got nailed today by some old geizer who decided to change lanes
into my lane without bothering to see if it was already in use.  People who
are physically or mentally incapable of handling driving shouldn't. Vehicals
which are unsafe should either be repaired or retired.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Reply-To: klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross)
Organization: Statistical Sciences, Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:58:24 GMT

crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal) writes:

   
   You still have to wonder why anyone would BE passing cars that are going 55.
   (left lane or not).
   
   And my guess is that few people even KNOW that law...have you studied that
   left lane lately...not much has changed, and it has been, what, since July 1,
   1992?
   

The LAW does not enforce the "Slow Traffic Keep Right" in the metropolitan
area, they removed the signs from the area and in fact, wish strongly to
slow traffic down. The LAW does not enforce laws they don't like.
-- 
-Kevin L. Gross          klg@statsci.com           Disclaim THIS: 
 This message is protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution
 of the United States of America. I'm protected under the 4th, 5th, 9th
 and 14th Amendments among others, or at least I used to be.
Xref: sparky seattle.general:4325 pnw.general:3091