HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Front license plates
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:35:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Yes, it's required in CA.

--
 __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,rec.autos.driving
From: collin@angelo.amd.com (Collin K. Ong)
Subject: Front license plates
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:51:19 GMT

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?

Xref: sparky ca.driving:1783 rec.autos.driving:4640
From: leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:11:21 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)

In article <1992Jul27.093325.1@us.oracle.com> eoates@us.oracle.com writes:
: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?
:>>However, some of my friends claim to have been cited for not having the
:>>front plate.  What's the real deal?
:<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?  
:Ed Oates (my opinions, not Oracle's)

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. 
 
Lee

"Nothing blasts forever" -- Keats on ammo.

|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
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: chucko@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry)
Subject: Re: Traffic Survey
Organization: Recom Technologies, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:50:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.193115.397@ctr.columbia.edu> svaldez@ocf.berkeley.edu (Steve Valdez) writes:
>As a sidenote, (maybe this should be in Misc.legal), I was wondering
>if anyone has tried conducting their OWN traffic survey..  Of course
>you would need to get a radar/lidar gun and follow the CalTrans
>regulations for doing this(100 or more cars measured) --- would such a
>survey be COMPETENT evidence in court???  I wonder... 

If you do this, try to avoid using radar.  Those of us with detectors
will be fooled into doing the posted limit, rendering your survey
inaccurate.  I believe speed can be checked by a variant of the
pneumatic devices used to measure traffic counts by many local
agencies.  This would be preferable in any case, since it is
unattended and can work round the clock.

 -- Chuck Fry  Chucko@charon.arc.nasa.gov
    Ardent fan of appropriate speed limits
Newsgroups: ca.driving





	oookkkaaayyyy, you sure can and sometimes we do some stupid
stuff too.

	I propose the following:
		He was an older gentleman right? maybe he was afraid of 
getting out in that fast traffic and was content to be a non-moving object.
I have several cases to illistrate my point.

	Older couple  driving in traffic riding the brakes even when there
is no obstructions or stopping, ie rendering brake lights ineffective,
(is he really braking or just keeping the pedal warm?)

	Older lady turning into my lane after not looking or
signaling and then honking at me??  duh?

	chris wiles
Q
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos
From: svaldez@ocf.berkeley.edu (Steve Valdez)
Subject: Re: Unmarked police cars and the law
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:23:19 GMT
X-Posted-From: lightning.berkeley.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <collin.712345617@angelo> collin@angelo.amd.com (Collin K. Ong) writes:
>In all this discussion of unmarked police cars used for revenue collection,
>I remember somebody stating part of the CVC that said that police cars
>needed to be clearly distinguishable and marked.  Nobody yet has answered the
>question, however, of how they can circumvent this part of the code.
>
>What's up?
   I think what that particular part of the CVC sez is to effect that 
   enforcement stops must be made by uniformed personnel in vehicles
   which have paint/marks as determined by the commisioner (of CHP?)
   There is an exception to undercover officers who are working on
   auto-theft cases...  I guess that if whoever determined the colors
   made plain white acceptable, they could get away with it.
From: pnelson@cobra.Tymnet.COM (Phil Nelson)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Radar detectors
Summary: I wonder...
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:54:13 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <5847@ucru2.ucr.edu> judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) 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?
>
>> They are illegal to sell. They are not illegal to own, as far as I
>> know.
>
>What????!!!!!  You are grossly mistaken.  I have a radar detector that

 I wonder if we are all talking about the same CA?

 Those CAnadians need to change their name so people don't confuse them
with CAlifornians :-)

 Wait - I have a better idea! CAlifornia could secede from the US and
become another province of CAnada! Then it would be CA CA! :-}


-- 
Phil Nelson . [ames|pyramid]!oliveb!tymix!pnelson . Voice:408-922-7508

  To make an apt answer is a joy to a man,
       and a word in season, how good it is!            Proverbs 15:23
Xref: sparky ca.driving:1798 rec.autos.driving:4662
From: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:46:52 GMT
Reply-To: peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Peirce Software
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <1992Jul25.202438.23819@informix.com> (ca.driving,rec.autos.driving), aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic) writes:
> In article <collin.712018279@angelo> collin@angelo.amd.com (Collin K. Ong) writes:
> >Is the front license plate legally necessary in California?
> 
> Yup. CVC $5200, $5201.
> 
> >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?
> 
> Some people get away with it for years.  I have a friend who was cited on the
> fourth day without the front plate.  As traffic fines in CA escalate by the
> day, it's a question of how much you're willing to pay for the privilege.

I took my front plate off my car over four years ago.  I've been stopped
twice for speeding and they never seemed to notice that the front plate
was missing - or maybe they just didn't care.

I took it off strickly because it looks better.  Though I still have
it in the trunk in case I need to put it on sometime.

And even thought the car isn't a Ferrari or other exotic, it's not
a clunker either.  It's a four year old Honda Accord Coupe LXi.

((I just hope CHP isn't monitoring this group - hi officer!))

--  Michael Peirce      --   peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org
--  Peirce Software     --   Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place
--                      --   San Jose, California USA 95117
--  Makers of...        --   voice: (408) 244-6554 fax: (408) 244-6882
--            SMOOTHIE  --   AppleLink: peirce & America Online: AFC Peirce
Xref: sparky ca.driving:1778 rec.autos:18471 rec.autos.driving:4612
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Safe Driving
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 22:30:01 EDT
Organization: Surely you jest

geraghty@emba-news.uvm.edu.UUCP (Kevin M Geraghty) writes:

> From article <1992Jul21.024512.4149@scifi.uucp>, by njs@scifi.uucp (Nicholas 
> > In article <iVRcNB7w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
> >>jdonsbac@cvbnet.prime.com (Jeff Donsbach x4365 5-2) writes:
> >>
> >>> In article <22202@hacgate.UUCP>, kemasa@ipld01.hac.com (Kemasa) writes:
> >>> 
> >>> > What is the difference between 65 and 70 when the speed limit is 55?
> >>> 
> >>> In Massachusetts, $50.00. ;-)
> >>In New York, $150 and 20 days in prison. No shit.
> 
> Right.  New York has a prison overcrowding problem. So they're going
> to release all the muggers and rapists 
> early to make room for the really hardened criminals:  drivers who go
> over 70 on 55mph freeways.  

One more time: This is, according to NYS law, a penalty that can be 
imposed for speeding 15+mph over the limit, or 3 days for 2 speeding 
tickets in 18 months, regardless of speed.
 
That doesn't mean that you're likely to get it, unless the judge has a 
buzzsaw up his butt than morning. I posted it to show just how ridiculous 
the traffic laws are.

--
55: It's not a good idea - it's just the law.
The country needs them more than ever: Bill 'n' Opus in '92!
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos,rec.autos.driving,rec.travel
From: chenh@neptune.ecs.csus.edu (H. Philip Chen)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to AAA?
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 00:47:15 GMT

: I've been less than thrilled with AAA for some time, especially
: in light of their reputation as an auto insurance company. I
: switched my auto insurance to Kemper several years ago, but I 
: am still a member of the AAA auto club, primarily to have
: emergency road service.
:
: Are there other large, well-established auto clubs offering
: this kind of service throughout the U.S.?
:
: Information very much appreciated.
:
: Alan
: asanders@adobe.com

I understand that Chevron and Montgomery Ward each offer 
their own type of emergency road services, similar to AAA.  
(But I don't think those two do the "normal" car insurance 
though; just the road service/travel-club/etc.)

Sorry, but I do not have any personal experience with 
either of the above.


Best wishes,

-phil

Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: york@lucid.com (Bill York)
Subject: Re: Death Race 5000
Reply-To: York@Lucid.COM
Organization: Lucid, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 00:03:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.231012.772@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> nancy@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Nancy Feagans) writes:

   From: nancy@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Nancy Feagans)
   Date: 27 Jul 92 23:10:12 GMT

   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...

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

A couple of weeks ago I was riding in a car going north on highway 101
on the S.F. penninsula when we saw something pretty amazing (as Dave
Barry would say, "I am not making this up").  There was a CHP officer
writing a ticket on the right shoulder of the road.  Of course, as
each driver on the road first notices the cop, they slow down.  The
driver in the pickup truck to our right (we were in lane 1, the truck
in lane 2), who couldn't have been doing much more than 65 anyway,
decided that he wanted to slow down in a big hurry and slammed on the
brakes.  This caused his unloaded truck to lock its rear wheels, and
put him into a spin.  The words "TOYOTA" loomed large in my passenger
window as the truck's tail came around towards us, but amazingly
enough, he hit no one and no one hit him.  Instead, his truck spun 180
degrees while crossing two lanes of traffic and ended up parked nicely
on the right shoulder, facing the wrong way, about 100 feet in front
of the cop.  My only regret is that we were not able to witness the
ensuing conversation between the officer and the idiot.
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: HF.JYB@forsythe.stanford.edu (James Bettinger)
Subject: carpool lane history
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:33:35 GMT

For an article I'm writing on carpool lanes in California, I need
recollections of what happened when diamond lanes were first imposed
on the Santa Monica Freeway. This was back in '76, I think, and it
changed the fast lane to a diamond lane, thus removing one lane from
the freeway for everyone else. I recall drivers being pissed off
enough to dump tacks in the diamond lane, etc, and I'm pretty sure
that the lane only lasted a couple of months -- and that the state
never again took an existing lane to make a diamond lane (that is,
that it only created carpool lanes when it added a lane to a road).
Anyway, if anyone remembers any/all of this and can help me out, I'd
appreciate it.

Jim Bettinger
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 06:20:18 GMT

Speak for yerself....

I was drivin' to dinner with my girlfriend just 2 days ago in
Balboa...and I had no front plate (actually..I have no plates YET)..
the cop stopped me at the intersection (they have a little command post
set up to get rid of 'cruisers')...and said "you need your front plate by law.
I told him..new car..look (at registration in window)... and he said..
SORRY..and let me go..I later found out..they sit there with a computer..and if 
your car comes by 4 times (i think) in an hour..you are leagally crusing...
but then agian..just say "HI..WE'RE DUMB AND LOST"
--
==============================  *  Marshal Perlman               * DO
=-> mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu <-=  *  Huntington Beach, California  * NOT
==============================  *  (Surf City, U.S.A)            * EAT
"It's the greenhouse effect, officer. That's why I am not wearing pants."
From: chrisk@hercules.esd.sgi.com (Chris Kotsiopoulos)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Radar detectors and CVC question
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:43:39 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

I also use a radar detector religiously. I like to know when my 
taxpayer money is being used to bombard me 
with dangerous microwave rediation.

I also have a question for you CVC book owners out there.
I just shelled out 3 bucks at the Mtn. View DMV office
to get the latest copy. The cover says 1991, not 1992.
Did I get the latest issue, or did I get victimized once more
by those who are supposed to serve us?

CK
From: jefftb@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Jeff Brown)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:44:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Riding in the back of a pickup
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: ca.driving

 Also, If you are a dog riding in the back of a pickup you must be tied in.
 Jeff Brown
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: svaldez@ocf.berkeley.edu (Steve Valdez)
Subject: Re: Traffic Survey
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:38:25 GMT
X-Posted-From: plague-ether.berkeley.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Jul27.183316.2973@sj.nec.com> owen@asilomar.tdd.sj.nec.com (Owen DeLong x3822) writes:
>>  (stuff I wrote deleted) 
>My interpretation of CVC 22350-22352 was as follows:
>1.)	The prima facie speed limits apply unless:
>2.)	A traffic and engineering study is done and finds that a lower
>	or higher speed limit would be safer/more efficient.
>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.

   Your interpretation actually is probably correct as I don't remember
the exact wording myself.  Actually now that I think about it what I said
probably applies to cases in which one gets a prima facie citation 
backed by radar...  An appeals case (People vs. Smith back in 1981) 
determined that it was the prosecutions responsibility to produce
a survey justifying the prima facie limits...  I'm headed for traffic
court and hope to use this as part of my defense.

Xref: sparky ca.driving:1777 rec.autos:18470 rec.autos.driving:4610
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Safe Driving
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 22:25:45 EDT
Organization: Surely you jest

aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic) writes:

> In article <1992Jul15.212129.887@btree.uucp> hale@btree.uucp (Bob Hale) write
> >In article <jimf.710618823@centerline.com> jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) w
> >[ much deleted ]
> >>Remember that 55mph doesn't make the roads safe, it saves gas.
> >                                                     ^^^^^^^^^
> >This is a common misconception.  Many modern cars (and a few older
> >high-performance ones) get better mileage at 65-80 than they do
> >at 55.
> >Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
> 
> Exactly which cars are these?  Air resistance is the chief culprit in
> mileage decrease at high speed.  I seriously doubt that any car has been
> proven to get better mileage at 65-80 than 55.  Do you have any research 
> that backs this claim?

I can vouch that a '92 Chevy Caprice, with the 305 & overdrive auto gets 
better mileage at 80 than 60. There is a point where the benefit drops 
off, though; on a sustained 100mph run the mileage dropped from close to 
30 to about 24. On the other hand, who cares? :)

--
55: It's not a good idea - it's just the law.
The country needs them more than ever: Bill 'n' Opus in '92!
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: sponsored littered removal
Date: 20 Jul 92 20:57:17 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <1992Jul17.165118.2658@unocal.com>
 by stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini):

: When you see a sign "Litter removal next two miles by organization XXX",
: what exactly does XXX do?  Do they pick up the litter themselves, which is
: dangerous in some of these places, or do these sponsor crews organized by
: Caltrans, or something else?

It means that the sponsor is paying for litter removal on that
particular stretch in exchange for the advertising provided by the
sign.  The litter is still picked up by CalTrans employees.

What I'd like to know is this: if they can't find a sponsor, does 
that mean the litter won't get picked up?

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, batteries not included, void where prohibited.
A straw vote only shows which way the hot air blows.
    -- O'Henry
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos,rec.autos.driving
From: cherkaue@ee.rochester.edu (Brian Cherkauer)
Subject: Re: Safe Driving
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:43:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.024512.4149@scifi.uucp> njs@scifi.uucp (Nicholas J. Simicich) writes:
>In NY, the actual fine for 78 in a 55 zone is about $100, total, if
>you go to court.  Further, you are likely to be able to get the charge
>reduced as well.

It is my understanding that in NY state, the fines for speeding vary by
jurisdiction, with minimums set by the state.

As a single data point, my 58 in a 40 ticket was worth $350 + court costs
(another $12).  Of course, I got it reduced to a $45 parking ticket plus
a $30 4-hour traffic school sentence.

(-Brian
  cherkaue@ee.rochester.edu
Xref: sparky ca.driving:1782 rec.autos.driving:4638
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:48:43 GMT
            <1992Jul25.045107.25146@aero.org>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <1992Jul25.045107.25146@aero.org>
 by helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman):

: [regarding keeping the front plate in the trunk, in case stopped]

: Once I was stopped by a Manhattan Beach motorcycle cop [and he made me
:  put my front plate on.]

: When he said he was happy and I could go, I
: drove across the street, stopped the car, got out and removed the plate,
: put it back in the trunk, smiled and waved at him, and drove
: away. He was not amused, but there wasn't shit he could do about it.

Ah HEM!  Yes, there IS shit he can do about it!  Note your very next
paragraph ...

: Admittedly, they can always find SOMETHING to stop you for,

You'd better damn well believe it!  And, smiling and waving at a cop 
'cause you just "got away with something" ought to be construed as even 
MORE invitation to be pulled over than a mere missing plate!  Sheesh, at
least wait 'til the cop's out of sight!

WHATEVER you do, DON'T MAKE THE COP MAD!  There's no need repeating
Rodney King's mistakes!

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, batteries not included, void where prohibited.
A straw vote only shows which way the hot air blows.
    -- O'Henry
From: aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: California law on window tinting?
Date: 21 Jul 92 04:52:39 GMT
Organization: The Hellen Keller-Bondurant High Performance Driving School for the Blind

In article <18853@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:
>: I heard that one of the many California laws makes it illegal to tint
>: any windows in front of the driver, or directly to the sides of the driver.
>: So you can only (legally) tint the rear window and the rear side windows.
>
>This is true, including the stipulation that you must have a side-view
>mirror on the passenger side.
>
>Somehow, the legislator has this idea that tinting your windows is the
>same as covering them with aluminum foil.

The cheapie aftermarket tint jobs are pretty damn close...

Not to worry.  You can use tinted safety glass to your heart's content.

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

  Smith and Wesson: the Ultimate Point-and-Click User Interface.
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Riding in the back of a pickup
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:02:30 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <1992Jul20.195911.18025@sj.ate.slb.com>, poffen@rushmore (Russ Poffenberger) writes:
> joanne@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Joanne Petersen) writes:
> : I thought it was illegal for people to ride in the back of a pickup truck
> : because they don't have seat belts.  If that's the right reason, then the
> : driver *and* the passenger get tickets for non-use of seat belts.
> : 
> 
> My understanding is that it is not technically illegal. Note that the seatbelt
> law makes it illegal to not wear a seatbelt when one is provided as standard
> equipment in the vehicle. ...

	That's also my understanding.  However, I believe one of the laws
	that was passed within the last 2 or 3 months, to become effective
	next January 1, prohibits riding in the back of a pickup unless
	it's equipped with seats and belts.  I have no idea what it may
	require in the way of standards for seat/belt construction and
	installation.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com