HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: howard@hasse.hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Subject: Re: Gas Tax Debate on NPR
Summary: Politicians are a two-edged sword.
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:57:17 GMT
Reply-To: howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Distribution: ca
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc., Campbell, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: hasse.hal.com
In-reply-to: llueker@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Lorna Lueker)

In article <36324@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, erabani@ucsd.edu (Ely Rabani) writes:
>Every now and then, policiticians an bureaucrats blunder or
>otherwise settle on something remotely like 'the right thing', but
>that's not exactly the right issue.  History also shows us that they
>can be dragged into doing sensible things.  Nixon, for instance,
>signed some (then) quite progressive environmental legislation.

Politicians can sometimes "be dragged into doing sensible
things," where "sensible" means beneficial to the environment.
However, there is a great danger.  In order for policiticians
to be able to do things that are beneficial to the environment,
they need a great deal of power, which can also be used to harm
the environment.  And sadly, history shows they usually use
their power for harm rather than good.  Thus, reducing the
power of politicians will, on average, benefit the environment.
--
Howard Gayle
HAL Computer Systems, Inc.
1315 Dell Avenue
Campbell, California 95008
howard@hal.com
Phone: 408-379-7000 ext. 1080
FAX  : 408-379-5022
From: thomasjr@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov (James Thomas)
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Subject: Reply to Michael Smith
Date: 31 Jul 1992 14:52:46 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.243.144.52

Michael Smith reminded us this morning that, "psychological damage to drivers.
And those most seriously affected are, of course, the least aware of their
illness."

Michael, I change my mode of commuting quite regularly.  I use my little van
for a time so I can get home a lot sooner.  After a while I begin to tire
of the traffic and switch back to BART, but after a while I get tired of
getting home much later and get back into my van.  There is really no one
method of commuting that is psycologically stable.  The BART is better on
the environment but my van is quicker.  The really big problem on the car
side is all those people out there who are in commute traffic, driving while
using their laptop computer with cellular phone gramped under their right ear,
looking into their briefcase for that one special reposrt -- CRASH!!
Those guys scare me.

I agree, public transportation is better but even that get psycologically
depressing after a time.

Wishing for a heliocopter,
Ron

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 
   ** views above probably not agreeable to anyone **
          ** disclaimer disclaimed as needed **         
JR of  thomasjr@bevsun.bev.lbl.gov
From: defaria@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:02:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Front license plates --- $50 fine?
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: ca.driving

>/ hpcuhe:ca.driving / leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger) /  1:11 pm  Jul 27, 1992 /

>There no exceptions.  I know of one case pesonally where a limited
>edition Corvette was in a similar situation (no place for a front
>plate).  He was cited for the failure to have a front plate on and was
>made to have the bracket and plate mounted. 

I had gotten a fixit ticket for this :-(.

I heard that the CVC says that the lisence plate must be mounted on the front
of the car.  No mention whether or not in needed to be visible! :-)

Xref: sparky ca.driving:1809 rec.autos.driving:4687
From: johnj@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (John A. Johnston)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:07:56 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins Univ. Welch Medical Library

In article <1=nmxy-.esprit@netcom.com> esprit@netcom.com (Alan F. Perry) writes:

>Sorry, but no tricks like putting both plates on the back of the car.

Reminds me.  Before MD started issuing little stickers for the tags
for the Month AND Year, this guy I once met had Two '69 road runners,
both with the same tag, each had one plate on the back!
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: rfrench@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Robert S. French)
Subject: Radar detectors
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:22:30 GMT

I posted this before, but it doesn't seem to have gone out...

I haven't seen many (any?) radar detectors in CA.  Are they illegal,
or just not popular for some reason?

		Rob
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
From: kk@mcnc.org (Krzysztof A. Kozminski)
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Organization: MCNC Center for Microelectronics, RTP, NC
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:24:05 GMT

In article <1=nmxy-.esprit@netcom.com> esprit@netcom.com (Alan F. Perry) writes:
|More importantly, CVC 5200 states: "When two license plates are issued
|by the department for a vehicle, they shall be attached to the vehicle for
|which they were issued, one in the front and the other in the rear.  When
|one license plate is issued for use upon a vehicle, it shall be attached
|to the rear thereof."
|
|Sorry, but no tricks like putting both plates on the back of the car.

Then how about mounting the front plate facing towards the car :-?
Still ugly, but at least stops worries about the photo radar :-)

KK
-- 
"Legalize freedom.  Vote libertarian"
Xref: sparky ca.driving:1784 rec.autos.driving:4642
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:55:44 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

Enforcement seems to be extremely sporadic and/or localized.  In my
nonscientific survey of nearby parking lots, roughly one car in
20 had no provision for the front plate, had it obscured or obviated
by optional equipment, displayed sports-affinity merchandise instead, 
or just plain didn't have one.  At that rate, they'd be writing tickets
like confetti if the infraction were taken seriously.  (The only time
I've been ticketed in eons, the cop didn't even check.)  

HOWEVER, as someone pointed out, the Golden State and cities therein 
could use a little dough, so if this little bit of civil libertarianism
is indeed ticketable, it will probably get discovered before long. 
Expect LOTS of things that used to draw a fix-it ticket or be ignored
outright to start eliciting real tickets.  And I hardly need to inform 
spirited drivers that the price of tickets here and elsewhere has been 
approaching the heart-palpitation level.

So, if you plan to run without a front plate, better be prepared to 
offer a plausible excuse while hastily reaffixing it under the 
officer's baleful glare -- and to perhaps make a nontrivial "involuntary
contribution to reduce the public debt" regardless.  If photo radar 
isn't used in your regular haunts, it might be less expense and hassle 
to just knuckle under and bolt the thing back on.

Lawyer fodder:  Naturally, neither my employer nor any person or 
organization who ever breathed the same air as them would endorse
any violation of the law.

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Traffic Survey
Date: 20 Jul 92 20:55:08 GMT
            <1992Jul15.220812.21230@informix.com>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <1992Jul15.220812.21230@informix.com>
 by todd@crayola (Todd Katz):

: I've been following this net for a few weeks, but I still don't
: understand the significance of traffic surveys. What difference
: does it make whether a survey has been done if there is a posted speed  
: limit?

The difference is that they're supposed to have used the survey in
determining the posted speed limit.

Therefore, if they nail you for exceeding the posted limit, but they 
haven't done a survey in 20-odd years, you might be able to argue that 
the limit is antiquated and no longer valid, and push for dismissal.

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, batteries not included, void where prohibited.
Don't let people drive you crazy when you know it's in walking distance.
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: tonyj@sco.com (newt technology baffles pissed old hack)
Subject: Re: Traffic Survey
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:11:15 GMT

svaldez@ocf.berkeley.edu (Steve Valdez) writes:
 >By law in California, any radar-backed citation on non-local roads
 >(non-residential -- exact definition in CVC) must have a traffic
 >survey to justify the posted speed limit.  This survey must of been
 >done within 5 years preceding the date of citation.

owen@asilomar.tdd.sj.nec.com (Owen DeLong x3822) replies:
 >My interpretation of CVC 22350-22352 was as follows:
 >	[ explanation of 22350-22352 deleted ]
 >This information is somewhat dated, but I am sure the section numbers
 >have not changed.  I need to get by DMV one of these days and get a 
 >new copy of CVC.

But see also CVC sections 40801 thru 40805 (Speed Traps).  These are
the sections that cover Steve's example.  By the way, the latest CVC
includes an amended s.40802, to take effect from 1 Jan 1993, which
applies to all roads; the exemption for 'local roads' in the
current s.40802 is not in the new s.40802.

tony.j
From: svaldez@ocf.berkeley.edu (Steve Valdez)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Radar detectors
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:33:53 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
X-Posted-From: tsunami.berkeley.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Jul30.182230.9954@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> rfrench@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Robert S. French) writes:
>I posted this before, but it doesn't seem to have gone out...
>
>I haven't seen many (any?) radar detectors in CA.  Are they illegal,
>or just not popular for some reason?

They are not illegal in CA.  Either the average Joe doesn't believe in them
or the fact that the CHP doesn't use radar (unless given to them by local
govt's) is  a factor ...   They are around -- just look.
Xref: sparky ca.driving:1806 rec.autos.driving:4682
From: dean@fringe.rain.com (Dean Woodward)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:22:21 GMT
Organization: A sure sign of a sick mind.

jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes:

> Enforcement seems to be extremely sporadic and/or localized.  In my
> nonscientific survey of nearby parking lots, roughly one car in
> 20 had no provision for the front plate, had it obscured or obviated
> by optional equipment, displayed sports-affinity merchandise instead, 
> or just plain didn't have one.  At that rate, they'd be writing tickets
> like confetti if the infraction were taken seriously.  (The only time
> I've been ticketed in eons, the cop didn't even check.)  
[stuff deleted]

Personal notes-

1.  I have been pulled over for speeding w/o a front plate and nothing was
    said to me about it (In both Oregon and Calif.)
2.  I have been pulled over for "cruising" with out a front plate (several
    times) and been told to put it back on or get ticketed.  HOWEVER, most
    of the time I put it on *upside down* as a joke, and got away with it.
    The one time I did get stopped again, I just kinda went "Duh, Gee, it's
    dark outside and I didn't notice..." and fixed it.
3.  If a car is designed and built without a place to put a front plate, then
    they can't require you to have one. (The '84 & newer Corvettes as my
    example.)  There isn't a Federal law stating that all autos must have
    front license plates, so it's up to individual states.  On the other hand,
    there is a Federal law regarding side marker lights, so all cars *do* have
    to have those, except older cars that weren't built with them (some 
    pre-70's Camaros, I can't remember which year.)

Myself personally, I drive a 4x4, and if I ever get asked about it, I'll just
tell the officer I left it hanging on a stump somewhere in the boonies and 
didn't notice until later... No, sorry sir, I don't know exactly where... 8-)
    
--
Dean Woodward           |  OK.  Last time.  This is my machine. This is my
dean@fringe.rain.com    |     Opinion.  This is my opinion on my machine.
					  Any Questions?               -me
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHAT'S A MATTER YOU?)
Subject: Re: Radar detectors
Summary: yes and no  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: ca
Date: 31 Jul 92 03:14:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.182230.9954@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, rfrench@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Robert  writes...
>I posted this before, but it doesn't seem to have gone out...
> 
>I haven't seen many (any?) radar detectors in CA.  Are they illegal,
>or just not popular for some reason?
> 
>		Rob
They are illegal to sell. They are not illegal to own, as far as I
know.

Typical disclaimer
From: aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Primary Offense Seat Belt Law on Wilson's Desk
Date: 21 Jul 92 04:50:06 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: The Hellen Keller-Bondurant High Performance Driving School for the Blind

In article <18839@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:
>...
>Ie, if I'm driving in my car, following all the rules (except the belt
>rule), and get rear-ended by a drunk going 90mph, I want to still be
>able to sue the drunk who is clearly wrong.  Perhaps I can't sue for the
>same damages as had I been wearing a belt, but not precluded totally.

If you're rear-ended at 90 MPH, unless you're in a Mercedes or equivalent,
you won't live to sue.  You should have seen the "60 Minutes" bit on seatback
failure last week...


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

 "The driver says, 'One more cup of coffee and I'll be all right...'
  'Pop a Bennie, another Bennie'..."             - The Bobs, "Bus Plunge"
Xref: sparky ca.driving:1780 rec.autos.driving:4634
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
From: eoates@us.oracle.com
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Organization: Oracle Corporation, USA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:33:25 GMT
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 <1992Jul25.045107.25146@aero.org>, helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
> In article <collin.712018279@angelo> collin@angelo.amd.com (Collin K. Ong) writes:
>>Is the front license plate legally necessary in California?
>>
>>I would like to leave it off cause it looks better off, is more aerodynamic,
>>(and won't get taken by a front-only photo radar system).
>>However, some of my friends claim to have been cited for not having the
>>front plate.  What's the real deal?
> 
> Yes, a front plate is legally required. Yes, they're ugly, particularly
> on some cars.
> 
<stuff deleted>

OK, a question: at least one car I know of, Ferrari 328, has NO factory license
bracket or mounting holes for a front plate.  And placing one anywhere on the
front with either block lights (turn signals, amber corner markers, or driving
lights) or radiator cooling openings.  The question: are there any exceptions
to the front plate rules?  I've never been stopped in the Ferrari (for front
plates or anything else, except for being followed into a 76 stations near
Tahoe by a CHP who just wanted a look-see :), so I'm just curious.

Ed Oates (my opinions, not Oracle's)
From: billd@informix.com (William Daul)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: SF to Bodie
Date: 21 Jul 92 06:19:51 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In <37830013@hpindda.cup.hp.com> orum@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Jeff Orum) writes:

>Does anyone have any suggestions on the best way to drive from the SF Bay
>Area to Bodie?

>jEFF orum
>orum@cup.hp.comTDT3224355

I have gone through Yosemite via Tioga Pass Road over to Lee Vining...north
on 395 and take the right turn (about 5-7 miles outside of Lee Vining) at
the sign for Bodie.  Does that make sense?

--Bill
-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 William Daul             Advanced Support      INFORMIX SOFTWARE INC.
 4100 Bohannon Dr.        (415) 926-6488 - wk
 Menlo Park, CA. 94025    uunet!infmx!billd  or  billd@informix.com
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: tonyj@sco.com (newt technology baffles pissed old hack)
Subject: Re: Traffic Survey
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:38:58 GMT
Summary: correction

I wrote:
>	[ ... ]	    By the way, the latest CVC
>includes an amended s.40802, to take effect from 1 Jan 1993, which
>applies to all roads; the exemption for 'local roads' in the
>current s.40802 is not in the new s.40802.

Correction.  Last year's CVC included the new s.40802 to take effect
on 1 Jan 1993.  The current CVC doesn't include it; but the current 
s.40802 still has an expiry date of 1 Jan 1993.

Which just goes to show that you can't turn your back on the CVC
for a minute without someone coming along and amending it out from
under your feet.  Gee, I hate it when that happens.

tony.j
From: nancy@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Nancy Feagans)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Death Race 5000
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:10:12 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)

I saw the most amazing thing yesterday.  Driving north on 101 around 12:30 PM,
in the area between Camarillo and Oxnard; traffic conditions, heavy - speeds
ranged from 60-70 mph.  A man RAN onto the freeway from the right shoulder to
retrieve an object (looked like a black leather pouch) from the middle of the
#2 lane.  This was *right* in front of us...we were in the fast lane, with a
car in the middle lane at what seemed no more than 10 car lengths from the
man.  Well, immediate adrelin rush and braking as the guy bent down, grabbed
for the bag, missed(!), grabbed again, got it, and sprinted for the shoulder.
 
By some stroke of incredible luck, the right lane was clear, the driver in the 
middle lane missed him by a matter of FEET as he slid, with brakes locked, and
no one in back of us piled up.
 
It was one of those situations where your eyes see, but your brain doesn't
accept the input!  Up ahead about 1/4 mile, we saw a motorcycle parked on
the right shoulder.  We surmised the bag fell off the guy's bike and he made
the decision to go back for it.  Hence the question:  what on earth could
have been so valuable for him to risk his life like that?  He was no more
than a couple of seconds from certain death.  Maybe even less.  Was it drugs?
Money?  Both?  Was his whole *life* in the bag?  I guess we'll always wonder.

Just had to share this with the net; I truly feel I've now seen the ultimate in
stupidity.


-- 

Nancy J. Feagans     (818) 306-6423
Jet Propulsion Lab   nancy@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious."
From: judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Radar detectors
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:52:14 GMT
Distribution: ca

In article <1992Jul30.182230.9954@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>  
rfrench@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Robert S. French) writes:
> I haven't seen many (any?) radar detectors in CA.  Are they illegal,
> or just not popular for some reason?
> 
> 		Rob
They are certainly not illegal.  I have one and have been pulled over and
a police officer has seen it.  I suppose you don't look into too many cars
because I pass many and see the cord hanging down from the sun visor.  Also,
mine is mounted on the dash and is less visible to passers-by (or is it
passer-bys).  Also, I have seen some that are mounted in the front of the
car and have a remote alerter in the car.
Xref: sparky ca.driving:1789 rec.autos.driving:4647
From: johana!tsw@apple.com (Tom Watson)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Date: 28 Jul 92 05:42:07 GMT
Organization: FBN/GRQ Ink.

In article <collin.712018279@angelo>, collin@angelo.amd.com (Collin K. Ong) writes:
> 
> Is the front license plate legally necessary in California?
>
Well, yes technically, it is.  Realistically, you can leave it off and not
have too much trouble.  While I was driving my car, which had new plates
put on it in 1975 (when I took over the registration from my parents), I
have had the front plate installed (for sign-off purposes on fixit tickets)
for less than (this is an estimate here) 3 hours.  I usually keep it in the
car, and the usual 'excuse' is that it just fell off.  The fact that it has
absolutely NO bugs impaled upon it doesn't seem to affect the judgement of
the officier.  Around here (bay area) it appears that this section of the
C.V.C. is usually looked over, as well as section 22,348 and 22,349.  The
BIG difference is that if the officier gives you a ticket for going over
55mph, its not a fixit ticket (*SIGH*).  I knew of a person who had his plate
fixed to some broom clips (those that hold up brooms in closets) and just
'attached' it to the 'nerf-bars' (excuse for bumpers) when the need arose.
This seemed to fit the 'securely attached' provisions (wire or wire ties
probably won't work here) of the C.V.C. section cited by others.

Loud exhaust systems will probably attract those with white doors on black
cars faster if you want my silly opinion (this comes from experience!!).

Your milage will vary.
------
Tom Watson
johana!tsw@apple.com
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Radar detectors
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:28:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.031428.7025@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WHAT'S A MATTER YOU?) writes:
:In article <1992Jul30.182230.9954@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, rfrench@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Robert  writes...
:>I haven't seen many (any?) radar detectors in CA.  Are they illegal,
:>or just not popular for some reason?
:>		Rob
:They are illegal to sell. They are not illegal to own, as far as I
:know.
:Typical disclaimer

They are perfectly legal to sell, own, and use in California.

Lee

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/354-1163  FTS 792-1163     
|leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
Xref: sparky ca.driving:1797 rec.autos.driving:4661
From: levine@dinsdale.ics.uci.edu (David Levine)
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:17:14 GMT

Bob Hale writes:

>The Vehicle Code says that you have to display as many plates as the
>DMV issues for the vehicle.

Right, CVC 5200.

> How the DMV decides this number is
>anybody's guess.

It's spelled out clearly in CVC 4850(a):  "The department, upon
registering a vehicle, shall issue to the owner two partially or fully
reflectorized license plates or devices for a motor vehicle, other
than a motorcycle [...]."

>Obviously, most cars get two plates and motorcycles
>get one.   ^^^^

_all_

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

From: chrisw@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Chris Wiles)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:04:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA
Newsgroups: ca.driving


I haven't had a front plate on my truck since it was new
84'. I have been stopped several times and just told the oficer
it was destroyed in an accident. They buy it. I do have the plate
and will start to offer to put it on if asked. My dad runs without
a front plate also never hasselled