HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to AAA?
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 20:27:51 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <2fag03SA595.00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:

>  I don't know if this has been mentioned or not already, but the latest
>issue of Consumer Reports rates a ton of auto insurance companies across the
>country.  Pretty good article if you are shopping for insurance.

I think a lot of the companies lied to Consumers, though (maybe they
lie as a matter of course.)  I'm on about the same footing as the 'C'
driver, and I've called several agents in MD, as well
as the direct writers, and all I get is (occasionally along with a
voice which seems upset that I would even try to get insurance there--
thanks a million, Nationwide) pointer to the Maryland (Highway
Robbery) Auto Insurance fund.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: mikel@berlioz.nsc.com (Michael G. Lohmeyer)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Buying a used car -> sales tax
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:02:29 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation

In article <1992Aug13.064136.347@aero.org> helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
>>They get plate tax every year and gas tax on every gallon of fuel you buy.
>>Stop planting flowers and start fixing/building the roads.  This state
>>spends big money on stuff most states just let grow wild.  They should
>>fix the roads first and leave the gardening to nature.
>
>Most states get enough rainfall that something will grow wild. I was
>born here and believe me, south of Stockton, nothing grows wild except in
>the late winter and early spring. By June, most stuff has cured out and
>is nothing but a fire hazard. If we depended on natural rainfall for
>freeway landscaping, it'd be pretty barren. (Nerium oleander grows
>pretty well with no watering but it's fairly scruffy by mid-summer.
>Two dry years in a row, and it's all over.

     As an individual, when you only have so much money, you don't spend
it on extravagant things.  For example, if you can't afford the water for
your lawn or the cost involved in keeping it up, then you have to let it
die, or cover it up with something that dosen't require a lot of money
to keep up.  It doesn't work for us to give IOUs to Orchard Supply or
Home Depot so we can get fertilizer.

     The same is true for the government, althought they haven't seemed to 
to figure it out.  If they don't have the money, then they can't
afford to plant flowers along the freeways.  The government has to 
prioritize things and stick to the priorities.  If, after taking care of
the most important things, they still have money left over, then they either
give it back to the tax payers (ya right) or plant flowers along the 
freeway.  I can think of a lot more important things than pretty 
freeways.

Mike
-------------
Mike Lohmeyer				mikel@berlioz.nsc.com
San Jose CA
(408) 721-8075
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Looking for 'pass or don't pay' smog check.
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:22:29 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1562@ios.Convergent.COM> greggd@ios.Convergent.COM (Gregg Donley) writes:
>
>Does anyone have any recomendations for 'pass or don't pay' smog checks in the
>south bay?  Thanks,
>

I recommend against them, except that you dont have to pay if you fail.
(8-)

My experience is that if they find anything that is the least bit wrong,
even simple stuff like a PCV valve or the 12 inch hot air return hose 
from the exhaust manifold, they will try to hit you to the legal max.  
That's when you should drive
over to Montgomery Wards Auto Service at Sunnyvale Town Center. 

They have always gotten my Jeep Cherokee to pass with minimal cost, and have
twice passed my van with no modification, when the van "failed"
at two separate 'pass or dont pay' gas stations (who each quoted me in
excess of $100).

I think this has to do with a better understanding (or honesty)
of the looser smog limits for larger vehicles.

Wards seems to run an honest shop.  I asked for them to charge
my A/C; they struggled and struggled with it; they found that they couldnt get 
it to stay charged, so they
referred me to a radiator specialist, and tore up the invoice.


--Al Date
From: jefftb@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Jeff Brown)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:47:45 GMT
Subject: Re: RADAR ALERT on 101!
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: ca.driving

Seems to me that the CHP has a nice little cherry patch going. I have heard
of the CHP using radar now on the Golden GAte bridge. But this is "US" 101
and technically not an interstate. Which by the way doesn't allow it to have
65MPH status in the more unpopulated areas. Also I have seen the moving
radar in there cars on the bridge and on the connector (tunnel) to 19th Ave.
 
 Jeff (watching my rearview) Brown
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Guilty until Proven Innocent
Keywords: correction
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:31:50 GMT

In <BtAuEu.Cq1@storcon.uucp> john@storcon.UUCP (John Hunley) writes:

>                                            I saw many defendants
>testify that the officer's testimony was not correct, some even
>producing evidence, but the judge always believed the officer and
>assumed the defendant was lying.

>Now, obviously it wouldn't work too well if all a defendant had to do
>to be acquitted was say "I didn't do it," but in the absence of any
>hard evidence (the officers NEVER had any evidence, just their word),
>isn't the judge obligated to return a Not Guilty verdict?  What happened
>to proof beyond a reasonable doubt? 

I've always had ths fantasy of taking a ticket to court, asking the
judge exactly the question John poses, and after being told (in
judicial-ese, no doubt) something that adds up to "be quiet you pathetic
little peon", pulling out a badge and saying "Baliff, I am an agent of 
the NSA, shoot that officer for treason.  Do it now.  I claim he's guilty,
and that's all the proff we need in this court."

Amusing daydream, but since I'm *not* an agent, etc......


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
From: glaird@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Gordon Laird)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:46:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Buying a used car > sales tax and other state taxes
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA
Newsgroups: ca.driving

   I worked with a fellow engineer in the mid 80's who had been driving a
compact car, with British Columbia plates, that had expired in 1976.  As far
as I know, he is still driving that car.  He has yet to be stopped or pay
any registration fees at all.
   Your mileage may vary.
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Does the CHP still exist?
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:40:08 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Originator: daemon@sword.eng.pyramid.com

In article <60160018@hpscit.sc.hp.com> glaird@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Gordon Laird) writes:
>
>   As a long time resident of the People's (bannana) Republic of CA, I would
>caution everyone from getting too secure about the volumes of cars moving 
>at efficient speeds on I-5.  I know several individuals who were caught
>in what the southern section of I-5 is notorious for.  The CHP often makes
>mega sweeps of large clumps of cars, and will ticket dozens, enmass, for
>speeding.  All this in one single stop.
 
    The area around the Pacheco Pass cutoff is also infamous for
    mass ticket parties in clear cruising weather.  I and a few
    friends have been gotcha'd and tagged to fund Fresno County's
    aircraft...
>   So, just because you are cruising with a clump, does not mean you are
>safe.  I will also note, that in every case that I heard about, the speeders
>were caught be aircraft.

  Ayup.  It would seem the best cruising would be in poor flying
  weather.  Anyone know where I could get a few surplus AA cannons,
  or a surface-air missile?  >:-)
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Guilty until Proven Innocent?
Keywords: court
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:46:53 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

In article <Bt9FBJ.CGu@storcon.uucp> john@storcon.UUCP (John Hunley) writes:
>
>I had the "pleasure" of attending traffic court the other day, and it seemed
>apparent that the principle of "Innocent until Proven Guilty" has long ago been
>abandoned, at least in traffic court (this was in Fullerton, CA, BTW).  Each
>police officer would testify, "I observed the defendant doing so-and-so," and then the burden of proof shifted to the defendant to "prove" his innocence.  I saw many defendants testify that the officer's testimony was not correct, some even producing evidence, but the judge always believed the officer and assumed the defendant was lying.
>

I have taken "judgement call" tickets to court and won, in L.A. 

An LAPD motorcycle cop said I ran a stop sign. I produced enough photos of the
intersection in question (I had to photograph it from every 50 feet for a whole
block, because the  cop wouldn't tell me where he was when he saw me, so I
brought the whole set to court, carefully marked, and produced the correct one
when he testified.) He said he was 60 feet from the intersection,
doing 35 mph on his bike, when he supposedly saw me run the stop sign at
20 mph. Between my photos and my own testimony that the cop would have had
to lay his bike down to even STOP it from 35 mph in 60 feet, the judge ruled
reasonable doubt and dismissed it. The cop was so pissed he stormed out of
the courtroom, bashing the swinging gates between the court and the spectator
area.

You should get your tickets outside of Orange County. Somewhere where 
they've read the Bill of Rights, I might suggest!
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Guilty until Proven Innocent?
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:31:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
:         Between my photos and my own testimony that the cop would have had
: to lay his bike down to even STOP it from 35 mph in 60 feet, the judge ruled
: reasonable doubt and dismissed it. 

I liked your tale.  Except for one detail: you can stop a motorcycle a lot
faster keeping the rubber-side down than by laying it down.

--
 __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: donrm@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Don Montgomery)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Re: Buying a used car > sales tax and other state taxes
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:56:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA

In ca.driving, keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard) writes:

				   [stuff removed]
>     forget it.  I still have a home in NC, and I will just continue to be a 
>     NC resident, officially.

Hmmmmm..... correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, if a po-leece 
officer observes you driving day in and day out with out-of-state plates
on your vehicle, they can force you to register your vehicle in this state.

You could always tell the nice officer that you still live in NC, but com-
mute home on weekends. 8^).

Don Montgomery, Santa Rosa, CA
Interned in the Republik of Kalifornia
donrm@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com
From: danny@suned1.nswses.navy.MIL (Danny Z Clark)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Tires too small for rims
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:20:12 GMT
Reply-To: danny@suned1.nswses.navy.MIL (Danny Z Clark)
Distribution: ca
Organization: PHD-NSWC (NSWSES), Port Hueneme, CA, USA


   What is the legality of driving with tires several times too small
for the rims?  I know it's stupid and dangerous, but is it legal?
Also, what kind of liability does the tire shop that mounted the
tires have if the sidewalk blows and causes an accident?
   It seems to be very popular down here in southern CA with 
certain ethnic groups.
-- 
                    Danny Clark, PHD NSWC, Port Hueneme CA
                         danny@suned1.nswses.navy.mil
       The Navy and I share some views, but the ones above are all mine.
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen)
Subject: Re: Road Debris Liablity?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 04:14:46 GMT

In article <l98h6jINN9t1@skat.usc.edu> rudomet@skat.usc.edu (Steve Rudometkin) writes:
>The following incident happened today as I was driving home:
>The car in front of me ran over a muffler that was laying in the street.
>The muffler flew about 10' in the air and hit my front windshield,
>shattering one corner.
>Now for the $64,00 question:
>	Is life a bitch, and I am out a few hundred $
>or
>	Is is the other car liable?
>I'm sure this has happens once in a while, so I'm sure somebody out there
>has an answer.

life's a bitch, and you're out several hundred, as far as i can tell.
several problems here.  1) you need to show that the driver was negligent
in running over the muffler.  the muffler was in the road.  the driver
may not have had enough time or room to avoid it.  and you have the burden
of proving that he/she could reasonably have avoided the muffler.
2) you need to show that the damage to your car was foreseeable.  
now this is going to be hard.  most people probably expect that if 
they run over a muffler in the road they might damage their own cars,
but not that the muffler would go flying 10' in the air and take out 
somebody else.  again, the burden of proof is on you.

a better target would be the #$@&! who dropped the muffler in the first
place.  another would be the state (or local government), if they had
reasonable opportunity to remove the hazard and failed to do so.  for
example, if somebody testifies that the muffler lay there for two days
and a fleet of police cars drove by every day, you'd have a pretty good
claim.

doesn't your insurance cover this?

i'm sorry, but i don't think you would have much of a case here.
life's a bitch, ain't it?
but then again, i had a hundred shares of wang, which filed for
chapter 11 a couple days ago.  :(
yes, life's a bitch.
-teddy
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: chrisk@hercules.esd.sgi.com (Chris Kotsiopoulos)
Subject:  Where to Find "Fight Your Ticket" Book
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:55:40 GMT

I know the FAQ mentions this book, but I need to know where to get it soon.
I have gone to several bookstores in the Mountain View area, like
Tower Books, Crown Books, B Dalton, etc.
and have yet to find this book in stock. Since I have a court date in
a six weeks, I would like to hear if any of 
you have seen this book in stock recently in any bookstore in Silicon
Valley. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     Chris Kotsiopoulos, MTS
     Casa de Hardware                    
     Modular Systems Division                   
     Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA  
     
     Suicide Dr. Kevorkian's bumper sticker: Lose mate now, ask me how!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: shelden@berlioz.nsc.com (Brian Shelden)
Subject: Re: Radar detectors
Keywords: Radar detectors
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:25:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.181348.535@BofA.com> dan@BofA.com (Dan Brockman) writes:
>In article <132164@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> tapley@sdxs04.llnl.gov (Bill Tapley) writes:
>>>>I haven't seen many (any?) radar detectors in CA.  Are they illegal,
>>>>or just not popular for some reason?
>>>> 
>>>They are illegal to sell. They are not illegal to own, as far as I
>>>know.
>
>I thought they were legal to buy/sell but illegal to use 
>or that is to get caught using.
>
I've been living temporarily in California (this summer and last fall).
My radar detector has been a good investment-  I've saved ten to fifteen
tickets driving out here and back from/to the East Coast.  

When I first arrived in the state last fall, I was caught doing 80 on
I-80 near Donner Pass, with a radar detector on the dash.  I even 
drew attention to it by asking him how he clocked me, since the unit
didn't go off.  (He had paced me with his 5.0...)

So, I don't think that they are either illegal to use or own, or the 
friendly CHP would have written me two tickets.

Also, after driving around all around the Bay Area like a good tourist,
with my radar detector only going off at banks and such, I've come
to the conclusion that the CHP doesn't use radar (except in a few
locales, like Hwy 17 to Santa Cruz)- an opinion I've also read in 
this newsgroup.

So, IMO, there aren't many radar detectors in California because 
there aren't many places in California that it would be useful.

-Brian Shelden
shelden@beriloz.nsc.com
bshelden@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Post office and DMV
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 23:26:15 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <183118@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1992Aug19.183829.1929@oracle.us.oracle.com>

> When I told them I never received the notice, AND I showed them a copy
> of the dated change of address form, the nice person behind the
> counter informed me that it takes about three months for a change of
> address to register with the renewal reminders department.  Wish they
> were that efficient at applying the penalties!

A few years ago, notices became courtesy notices only.  That is, they
send you a renewal notice as a "friendly" reminder.  However, it is
*YOUR* responsibility to renew on time, notice or no notice.

There have been rumors that they have specifically not bothered with
the notices for certain people (i.e., people for whom the penalties
would be large).  The numbers I heard are that about 5% will not be
sent notices.

On the one hand, it's kind of annoying to have to remember something one
year ahead so as to not to forget to renew.  On the other hand, everytime
you go to your car, you can notice the date on the sticker, so it shouldn't
be that hard to not forget to register.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: ed@Tekelec.gecko.uucp (Ed Campbell)
Subject: safety?
Originator: ed@rover
Organization: Tekelec Inc
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:46:43 GMT

	MOTORCYCLE HELMET UPDATE

	Some time ago, I posted some helmet related statistics in
answer to an earlier query. I got a lot of flack for the figures
13% to 16% increase in accidents per rider and 0.50% to 0.75%
increase in serious and fatal injuries per accident. 
	In case you didn't call the 800 number I posted later to
get a list of sources, there was a sad verification published in
the San Fernando Daily News last week. Motorcycle deaths are up
in California by 8% this year. Considering that about half (48%
to 53%) the riders wear helmets without the law, this is very
consistant with the stats I quoted.
	I hope that the legal rights groups are investigating
these accidents and, if a death or injury can be attributed to
the helmet law, file a suit against assemblyman Floyde, gov.
Wilson, and whoever voted for this idiocy. It is time to bring
"product liability" to the legislature.
	In answer to other questions that have come up; Yes, I
do ride motorcycles and have done so since I bought a 3 month
old Velocette in June, 1954. In that time, I have put well over
a million miles on a variety of British, European and American
bikes.
From: moliver@pyramid.com (Mike Oliver)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Post office and DMV
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:49:42 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

In article <1992Aug13.201815.25340@informix.com> neilw@informix.com (Neil Williams) writes:
>
>                                I noticed that my registration
>was a bit late in arriving [...]  Turns out I was a few days late, and got
>hit with that 40% late fee - $93!!!

Presumably you just wrote them an IOU :-?

>The moral - keep the DMV informed of your new address....

And be aware that the DMV tracks registration addresses separately from
driving license addresses -- ie getting a new license with your new
address doesn't mean they'll send your registration renewal to the new
place.  Changing the registration address is a separate procedure.

Cheers, Mike.

moliver@pyramid.com
{allegra,decwrl,hplabs,munnari,sun,utai,uunet}!pyramid!moliver
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: john@storcon.UUCP (John Hunley)
Subject: Guilty until Proven Innocent
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:32:54 GMT
Organization: Storage Concepts, Inc.
Keywords: correction


My newsreader/poster ate the last part of my post yesterday, so here
(hopefully) is the whole thing:

I had the "pleasure" of attending traffic court the other day, and it
seemed apparent that the principle of "Innocent until Proven Guilty"
has long ago been abandoned, at least in traffic court (this was in
Fullerton, CA, BTW).  Each police officer would testify, "I observed
the defendant doing so-and-so," and then the burden of proof shifted
to the defendant to "prove" his innocence.  I saw many defendants
testify that the officer's testimony was not correct, some even
producing evidence, but the judge always believed the officer and
assumed the defendant was lying.

Now, obviously it wouldn't work too well if all a defendant had to do
to be acquitted was say "I didn't do it," but in the absence of any
hard evidence (the officers NEVER had any evidence, just their word),
isn't the judge obligated to return a Not Guilty verdict?  What happened
to proof beyond a reasonable doubt?  One person's word against another's
doesn't sound to me like proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  What recourse
does an honest citizen have under this system against a dishonest or
incompetent police officer?  Isn't our whole system of justice in this
country supposed to protect us against this very possibility, even at
the cost of sometimes letting a guilty person go free?

Yes, I know police officers are considered "expert witnesses," and so
their testimony supposedly carries more weight than that of others.
But this just makes it that much easier for an innocent person to be
punished in those (hopefully rare) cases where an officer is honestly
mistaken or maliciously lying.  I have a tremendous amount of respect
for most police officers, but our courts must still offer some degree
of protection from the occasional bad apple.  Is this too much to ask? 

-- 
                            John Hunley
   Storage Concepts, Inc.                  UUCP:  uunet!storcon!john
   1622 Deere Ave.                        Voice:  (714) 852-8511
   Irvine, CA  92714                        FAX:  (714) 557-5064
Newsgroups: ca.driving