HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: georgew@hspice.portal.com (George Wu)
Subject: Re: Do I need Chains?
Organization: Meta - Software
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:37:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.234120.20755@prpa.philips.com> ross@prpa.philips.com (Ross Morley) writes:
>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?

     First time I ever drove to Tahoe, a bunch of us piled into two cars.  It
snowed about a foot on the way up.  It took my about seven hours to reach South
Lake Tahoe, never exceeding 35 mph with the chains.  (Okay, so I really have to
restrain myself.  :-)

     The other car took twenty hours.  They had chains, but ignored the speed
limit.  The chains broke, they had remove them, and make their way back down
to civilization.  By the time they got there, all the stores had closed, so
they waited a few hours for them to open up so they could buy new chains.

     First day after a foot of fresh snow, I had a blast.  The other car, well,
they slept well.

							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
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: Driver's License Test Question
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:30:26 GMT

A Rice Queen (devesh@bombay.oracle.com) wrote:
>  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.


There seems to be some confusion here based on the fact that the law says
5 days to report the *sale* of your vehicle; 10 days to report the
*purchase* of your new vehicle.  So Devesh is wrong.

I have in my hands (well, my teeth, as I type this :-) a Notice of
Failure to Transfer Ownership from the DMV which confirms this.  It
says one the back, regarding the purchase of a vehicle, that "[a]ny
change of registered owner or lien holder must be recorded with the
[DMV] . . . within ten (10) days."  Then, further down, it refers to
VC Sec. 5900 and says "[y]ou are required by law to notify the [DMV]
. . . within 5 calendar days when you sell or otherwise dispose of
a vehicle. . . ."

Once again: 10 days from purchase, 5 days from sale.

--
 __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|_____________________|_
From: erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Looking for NON-800 number for CalTrans!
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:22:42 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Bleeding Edge Technologies - 'Sliding Down The Razor Blade Of Life...'

Does anyone know the non-800 number for CalTrans road reports?  The 800
number doesn't work out-of-state, and directory assistance doesn't have
a number.

Thanks!!  Please email...
-- 
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: ari@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ari Ollikainen)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Looking for NON-800 number for CalTrans!
Date: 31 Dec 1992 23:21:44 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: mordor.stanford.edu

In article <76025@apple.apple.COM> erc@Apple.COM (Ed Carp) writes:
>Does anyone know the non-800 number for CalTrans road reports?  The 800
>number doesn't work out-of-state, and directory assistance doesn't have
>a number.
>

MY Phone book gives the "Highway Condition Information" as 415-557 3755

Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: L697187@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: 3 Re: Tinted windows law ??
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 10:19:29 PST

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
>lsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
> In article <1ghsufINNniq@agate.berkeley.edu> shyguy@ocf.berkeley.edu (David S.
> >>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...

>-
> think the limos are legal because they use D.O.T. approved tinted glass.
>'ve built custom cars, and know you can get it cut to size.  If youv'e got
>hat little DOT etching on your glass, your legal.
>n interior tint isn't legal 'cause the DOT doesn't approve add-ons.
>TW, why not just chance it if youv'e got a light tint?  Isn't it just a
>fix-it' ticket that only requires removing the tint and getting an officer
>o sign it off? (No cost involved?)
>
>ame:        Jim Hart    N6JSS
>nterNet:    hart@donald.etdesg.TRW.COM
>                        I'd rather be LANDSAILING!

The way I understand it is that, yes, the reason that front window tinting
is disallowed is because it does not let light in and hence, does not allow
a law officer to see inside the vehicle.  If you do get caught then usually
it is only a fix-it ticket.  So technically, no, you can't tint your front
windows, realistically, yes you can.  If you go to any detailing shop that is
worth their salt, they will tell you exactly what you can get away with.  If
you get a light tint on the front windows, like my car, then the cops will not
even notice.  Most detailers will not tint the windshield and the cops will
get you for any amount of tinting on the windshield.  If you examine limousines
closely, you'll notice that they stick to the same criteria I used; heavy
tinting on the rear windows, and light tinting on the front.  The darkness
of the rear windows makes the front windows look like they're not even
tinted.
    \    /\
     \  /__\
Scott \/an  \rtsdalen
PP-ASEL
From: pvmason@cco.caltech.edu (Peter V. Mason)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: new law
Date: 1 Jan 1993 00:44:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu

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

Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: Contract cooling off period
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 12:30:00 GMT

Al Clark (aclark@netcom.com) wrote:
:       Quote from an installment contract I was offered:
:       "If you prepay this contract, we'll refund any unearned finance
:        charge using the Rule of 78 ...."

:        I didn't use it, but it was offered by an established lender in CA,
:        Norwest Financial.

Hmm.  Okay.  So I was wrong on that point.  Thanks for bringing it to
my attention.  Do you know if that was for secured loans, or perhaps
only for unsecured?

Good thing I qualified my earlier statement with it being "my understanding."
Thanks again.  <Happy New Year!>

--
 __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|_____________________|_
From: calley@optilink.COM (Chris Calley)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:09:57 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


From article <474@vega.iii.com>, by rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins):
>
> If someone does not want to wear their seat belt, that is fine with me.
> Let natural selection take its course and remove them from the gene pool.
> :=).
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | 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  |
 
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? 
 
Nobody likes to be told what to do.  But the seat belt law is a good law for at   
least two reasons that I can think of:
 
1. It attempts to protect passengers, especially children, whose idiot parents
would otherwise not use seat belts for their children.
 
2. Automobile injuries and fatalities impact all of our insurance rates as well
as health care costs.  If a seat belt saves a life, or if it reduces the level 
of injury we might all be able to save some money.
 
 
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?  Somehow I don't think that you have completely thought this through.

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


-- 
Christopher A. Calley - all opinions are my own... etc.
email: 	calley@optilink.com
From: devesh@bombay.oracle.com (A Rice Queen)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: new law
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:29:21 GMT
Reply-To: devesh@bombay.oracle.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: Oracle Corp., Redwood Shores CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <3450056@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony  
Zugates) writes:
> As of Jan 1 the Police will be able to stop you for being unbuckled.
> 
> They had to stop you for something else in order to cite you before.

A very sensible law, IMHO. Seat belts save lives, I can tell from 
experience. BTW does the law apply to rear seats as well?

Devesh

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Devesh S. Khatu                        Office: 3OP3 #307
  Strategic Technology Group             E-mail: devesh@bombay.oracle.com
  Applications Division                  Phone : (415) 506-4488
  Oracle Corporation                     Fax   : (415) 506-7293
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: Contract cooling off period
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:26:57 GMT

J. Eric Townsend (jet@boxer.nas.nasa.gov) wrote:
: "dman" == Dallman Ross <dman@netcom.com> writes:

: dman> However, consumer loans such as auto loans can always be prepaid
: dman> with no interest penalty.  You don't need to cancel any

: What about rule-of-78 loans?  (or is it rule-of-87?)

My understanding is the Rule of 78ths for consumer loans was abrogated
statutorily in CA some year's back.  (Like, about 1978.  :-)

--
 __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
From: aclark@netcom.com (Al Clark)
Subject: Re: Contract cooling off period
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:58:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.232657.26609@netcom.com> dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross) writes:
>J. Eric Townsend (jet@boxer.nas.nasa.gov) wrote:
>: "dman" == Dallman Ross <dman@netcom.com> writes:
>
>: dman> However, consumer loans such as auto loans can always be prepaid
>: dman> with no interest penalty.  You don't need to cancel any
>
>: What about rule-of-78 loans?  (or is it rule-of-87?)
>
>My understanding is the Rule of 78ths for consumer loans was abrogated
>statutorily in CA some year's back.  (Like, about 1978.  :-)
>
      Quote from an installment contract I was offered:
      "If you prepay this contract, we'll refund any unearned finance
       charge using the Rule of 78 ...."

       I didn't use it, but it was offered by an established lender in CA,
       Norwest Financial.
-- 
Al - aclark@netcom.com - My opinions are my own.
From: georgew@hspice.portal.com (George Wu)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change of Venue
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:52:51 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Meta - Software

In article <1992Dec21.220346.4286@netcom.com> lmb@netcom.com (Larry Blair) writes:

>What are the rules regarding change of venue for a traffic citation?  How,
>exactly, do I go about doing it?

     There are alot of ways to do this, and it gets a little complex.  I
suggest you pick up "Fight Your Ticket" from Nolo Press of Berkeley.

							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: pvmason@cco.caltech.edu (Peter V. Mason)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Driver's License Test Question
Date: 3 Jan 1993 23:53:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu

In article <43008@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Thomas Marvan) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.160052.1370@pro-palmtree.socal.com> markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz) writes:
>>if you are apporaching  a school bus with its red lights flashings, what do
>>you do? 
>>A. go around the bus
>>B. stop and wait for the red lights to stop flashing,
>>C. make a u-turn and go another way?
>
I have been puzzled for many years by the fact that schoolbus drivers almost
never use the flashing red lights.  Obviously the reason for the light is
to protect the little tykes who are so hyper about getting out of school that
they don't look where they are going.  I think this a good idea, and
in many states they are always used.  Why not California?  Any schoolbus
drivers on the net?  Any CHP? 

On another topic, I tried to find out what the legal consequences of crossing
a solid white line are.  I searched the driver's manual and the CVC carefully
and found nothing.  I finally called the CHP and was told by an officer that
there is no legal meaning. You can cross freely.

 You are required to drive within a lane, and
maybe you could be cited for stradding such a line. 

Peter Mason

Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: ed@Tekelec.gecko.uucp (Ed Campbell)
Subject: Re: Tinted window law
Originator: ed@sunbeam
Organization: Tekelec Inc
Distribution: ca
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:19:23 GMT

    This law was first passed at a time when contact paper type
DIY tinted window kits were popular. These kits were usually
installed incorectly, causing blistering and air bubbles to the
extent that drivers could not see out well enough to drive safely.
At around the same time, it was "trendy" on some types of custom
cars to tint the windows so dark as to make night driving hazardous.
This was becoming a major cause of accidents on "cruse night".

Ed Campbell

Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: Contract cooling off period
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 08:49:59 GMT

Phil Nelson (pnelson@cobra.Tymnet.COM) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec30.232657.26609@netcom.com> dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross) writes:

: >My understanding is the Rule of 78ths for consumer loans was abrogated
: >statutorily in CA some year's back.  (Like, about 1978.  :-)

: Judging by the payoff figure given me by Chrysler Credit Co. recently,
: it is not their understanding. I didn't do the math, but it seemed to
: me that the difference between the making the remaining 24 payments
: totalling about $9K and the "pay off" amount should be more than the
: few hundred dollars they quoted (I don't remember the exact amount,
: but it didn't seem like much, it was less than $1K).

What's your interest rate?  Rough math in my head would put the figure
at about a $1150 difference at 9.5%.  Could be way off, but I'm not going to
hunt for my TI MBA calculator and see if the battery pack works and if
I can still remember how to use it.  :-)

--
 __D_a l_l m a_n  _ R o_s s _ |dman@netcom.com /or| /-\o /-()  -- -  --   - 
 l  \\ l\\   /l  /\\  l\\   l |dross@well.sf.ca.us| \_/ \\/ )  -- -    --   
 l   >)l \\ /ll /  \\ l \\  l |350 Perkins, #108  |       |/_\  -- -  --   -
 l  // l  \X ll/--- \\l  \\ l |Oakland, CA  94610 |        \_/ .  . . ........
_l//___AMA Life #585368___\\l_|phone:_510/645-1883|_DoD #696_Suzuki_'82_GS750E
Xref: sparky ca.driving:2623 rec.autos.driving:7283 rec.autos:30296
From: aubin@cadillac.asd.sgi.com (Mark Aubin)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos
Subject: Re: Tinted windows law ??
Date: 22 Dec 1992 05:13:28 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: aubin@cadillac.asd.sgi.com (Mark Aubin)
NNTP-Posting-Host: cadillac.asd.sgi.com

In article <^m#@byu.edu>, earlyd@newt.ee.byu.edu (David Early) writes:
|> 
|> 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)

Actually, only the windshield has this plastic film.  It's called
laminated safety
glass.   The side windows and rear window all use tempered safety glass.  The 
tempered glass will shatter into tiny pieces so that none will be big
enough to 
seriously cut you.  The idea with the laminated glass for the windshield
is that if
something was coming at you while you were driving, you would want the
windshield to
be able to stop it before it hit you.


|> 
|> 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


// Mark Aubin
#include <std/disclaimer>
From: tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Thomas Marvan)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Driver's License Test Question
Date: 3 Jan 93 22:35:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1993Jan2.160052.1370@pro-palmtree.socal.com> markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz) writes:
>okay, here's another Ca driving test question:
>if you are apporaching  a school bus with its red lights flashings, what do
>you do? 
>A. go around the bus
>B. stop and wait for the red lights to stop flashing,
>C. make a u-turn and go another way?
> (I know the answer- but I don't drive!)


Surely it is B.   But I wonder how many actually exercise C in a
real situation.  Having driven in Ca. for only a number of weeks,
I've never encountered this situation...



*******************************************************************
*  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


Newsgroups: ca.driving