HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chucko@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Radar detectors
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:46:04 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Recom Technologies, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, 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?

Hi Rob.  They're perfectly legal.  I think it's a combination of
factors that keeps their popularity down.

First, there seems to be a mistaken impression that the CHP is not
permitted to use radar.  This is false; although for years the
Legislature shot down funding for radar equipment, local jurisdictions
have always been free to provide gear to the CHP for local trouble
spots, and I believe the CHP now has funding to buy a limited number
of radar units of their own.  And remember that local police and
sheriff's deputies have never been reluctant to use radar.

Second is the fact that radar is essentially useless in heavy freeway
traffic, because there's no way to pinpoint one violator.  And at rush
hour, much of this traffic doesn't ever see the speed limit anyway.

Third, I just don't think Californians have as much of an adversarial
relationship with police as residents of other states do.  The CHP by
and large plays fair, and as a result most drivers here seem to feel
they deserved a ticket if they got caught.

I carry a radar detector and make frequent use of it, especially in
known radar speed traps (e.g. most of Palo Alto especially Alma St.
and Charleston, highway 17 through the mountains).  I highly recommend
a good radar detector to anyone who drives, whether your foot is made
of lead or feathers, since most urban speed limits in California are
set well below the 85th percentile speed and are thus de facto speed
traps.

 -- Chuck Fry  Chucko@charon.arc.nasa.gov
    Recognized authority on speeding -- ask for citations
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: owen@asilomar.tdd.sj.nec.com (Owen DeLong x3822)
Subject: Re: Traffic Survey
Organization: NEC-AM TDD, San Jose, California
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:33:16 GMT

In article <14em51INNb4s@agate.berkeley.edu> svaldez@ocf.berkeley.edu (Steve Valdez) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.220812.21230@informix.com> todd@crayola (Todd Katz) 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.  If the 
>survey was not done or is old then the officer is operating a 
>speed trap and is thereby declared incompetent as witness for
>the prosecution...  All this is in the CVC....  of course this
>doesnt apply to the 55/65 limits.   

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.

	In that case, the governing body (city, county, etc.) may set
	a speed limit of 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, or 70 MPH.

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.

Owen


Xref: sparky ca.driving:1792 rec.autos.driving:4654
From: geurin@flounder.nosc.mil (Chance C. Geurin)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Front license plates
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:46:21 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E (NRaD)

In article <1992Jul25.202438.23819@informix.com> aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic) writes:
>From: aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic)
>Subject: Re: Front license plates
>Date: 25 Jul 92 20:24:38 GMT

>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.

It becomes even more of a problem when you have a collector car that has the 
original CA plates and the front one is missing.  :(

********************************************************************
*  Chance C. Geurin,  geurin@flounder.nosc.mil                     *
*                                                                  *
*  Naval Command, Control & Ocean Surveillance Center for          *
*  Research, Development, Test & Evaluation [NCCOSC or NRaD]       *
*  San Diego, Ca.                                                  *
********************************************************************
From: todd@crayola (Todd Katz)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: sf tickets -- suspicion confirmed
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:11:25 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

An article in the SF Chronicle on the number
of pedestrian fatalities, noted that SF policy have
give 100% more tickets in 1992 compared to the same
time period in 1991. The number of pedestrian fatalities
is also rising, but not at the same rate.

I've received two tickets in the last two months and
see more and more cop cars ticketing others. 

Meanwhile,
there was an accident on my street. The police has
NO ONE available to come to the scene, even though it
was an injury accident and 911 was called. In the end,
the non-injured driver drove the injured driver to the
hospital.

My take on this, is that if Prop. 103 is going to turn
our police into tax collectors, it's not worth the savings.
From: judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Radar detectors
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:56:59 GMT
Distribution: ca

> 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 bought from a Circuit City in California.  They are neither illegal
to sell or own.  There are only two states where they are illegal to
own.  Virginia (I'm pretty sure is one of them).  The other one I forget,
but it is on the East Coast too.
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: ed@Tekelec.gecko.uucp (Ed Campbell)
Subject: pre-oiler
Originator: ed@sunbeam
Organization: Tekelec Inc
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:34:08 GMT

	About a year ago I saw a feature on cable TV on an electric
pre-oiling system. The unit is switched on before starting your
engine and the oil system is brought up to normal pressure so there
is no "dry start" damage. I wrote down the address of the manufacturer
but, since my Plymouth 4 wheel drive had already survived nearly 200k
miles, I didn't contact them. Now, I have a new Cummins powered Dodge
truck and would like to see about adding one of these, but I don't
have the address anymore. Does anyone know if they still make these
systems and how to contact them?


Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos
From: collin@angelo.amd.com (Collin K. Ong)
Subject: Unmarked police cars and the law
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:46:57 GMT

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?
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: chucko@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry)
Subject: Re: Radar detectors
Organization: Recom Technologies, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:45:01 GMT

In article <5847@ucru2.ucr.edu> judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>There are only two states where they are illegal to
>own.  Virginia (I'm pretty sure is one of them).  The other one I forget,
>but it is on the East Coast too.

Connecticut and the District of Columbia also ban radar detectors.
However, Conn. has recently passed a law making them legal again,
effective in October.

New York State bans them in heavy trucks, and the Feds are making an
attempt to take this ban nationwide.  All the more reason to write
your Congresscritter and persuade him that radar detectors wouldn't be
necessary in interstate commerce if we didn't have a national speed
limit.

 -- Chuck Fry  Chucko@charon.arc.nasa.gov
    Proud recipient of 6 55 MPH violations
From: alehecka@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Augustin Lehecka)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: HELP! unfair ticket
Date: 22 Jul 92 06:18:46 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California, San Diego

Fight it!  Go to the traffic court at the date indicated on your
ticket and plead not guilty.  The court clerk will give you new
appearance time.  Take your friends with you as witnesses.  There
will be a real judge and the pig that gave you the ticket.  Also,
there will be a lawyer representing the people of California, he is
the one who wants to get the judgement against you.  He will first
ask the cop about his experience and years of service.  Then the cop
will tell his part of the story.  He is only a witness though, so
after he is through, it is your right to question him.  You have 
to figure out a way to cast a doubt on his testimony.  Use your 
witnesses to support your claim.  If you have no experience with
these matters at all, go to a bookstore and get a book called
"Fight Your Ticket" ,  get a continuance from the court - that will
give you some time to read the book , devise a strategy and fight!

					Good Luck!
						AUGUSTINE

Xref: sparky ca.driving:1816 rec.autos:18814 rec.autos.driving:4694 rec.travel:10923
From: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos,rec.autos.driving,rec.travel
Subject: Alternatives to AAA?
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:38:08 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Originator: asanders@sparta

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
From: eldred@rrunner.jpl.nasa.gov (Dan Eldred)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Primary Offense Seat Belt Law on Wilson's Desk
Date: 23 Jul 92 06:40:49 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

In article <1992Jul21.045006.8964@informix.com> aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic) writes:
>
>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...

On the other hand, Indy car drivers more typically than not survive
200 mph crashes with nothing more than bruises.  It indicates what is
possible.
From: aehall@sumax.seattleu.edu (anth)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: END FEST TICKET FOR SALE
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:11:09 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

I have one ticket for sale for 107.7's ENDFEST over in Bremerton.
Highest offer gets it.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: breid@cs.washington.edu (Bradley Reid)
Subject: SLIP connections
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: pnw
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 16:28:28 GMT

I'm fairly disgusted with the lack of internet connections in this area
(but I don't mean just shell access). I want something robust. Since I
have not really found much, I'm thinking of starting my own. How do you
think people would be interested in a local SLIP server. I'm still looking 
into equipment and other things, so no price has been set yet. It will
be <$100 a month with a low start-up fee.

If this is something that you or anybody you know, please drop me a
line.

Hopefully this didn't offend anyone (posting it here, I mean). BTW
my name is Dean (this is a friend's account), but it's ok to send
mail here.

Thanks for your time,

Dean

Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: chuckh@apex.com (Chuck Huffington)
Subject: Re: Travelling armed
Keywords: Guns laws crime murder waiting periods
Organization: Apex Computer Company
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:57:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.222401.12647@u.washington.edu> davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.160346.29763@apex.com>, chuckh@apex.com (Chuck Huffington) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul27.043429.15821@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
>> >OK, WODDers, what's wrong with these arguments?  Why must our freedoms,
>> >lives and livelihoods continue to be sacrificed for your insane desire
>> >to keep people from being high or from partaking of pleasure in other ways?
>> >
>> >You get rid of the elements of crime and high-stakes risk associated with
>> >drugs and a *lot* of problems go away. [ edited ]
>>
>> Do you really believe that the people making the huge profits selling illegal
>> drugs will just go away?  If the government is selling legal drugs
>> I would expect the gangs to sell something "better".  You don't want that
>> govt shit, this stuffs a lot better.
>
>Well it certainly seems to work for alcohol and tobacco.  I don't see a
>huge wave of crime & violence associated with gangs selling something
>"better" than what can legally be purchased.
>
>Given the choice between buying something of known purity and quality
>from the local liquor store and buying something of dubious quality and
>purity from a known CROOK (who probably has no misgivings about selling
>a contaminated or adulterated product), in a seedy part of town, at an
>inconvenient time of day, in a transaction that may very well be a
>"sting" operation -- there's no contest.  The liquor store wins hands
>down.

Alcohol is a simple case.  It's just Ethanol and flavor.
Doesn't the moonshine industry still exist?

The other drugs offer a lot more variety.  What will be legal?
Does the FDA have to approve each one?  How long will that take and
how much will it cost?  Who will pay for it? Or do you just remove all
regulation of drugs and let anyone make/sell whatever they wish?

If you have standards for purity there will be an underground market.
Why would any above ground drug company want to make drugs of unknown safety
and utility?  Think of the field day the lawyers would have.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Loud Bass in Cars Cause Impotency
Keywords: stereo, sterile, stupid
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:53:40 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Boeing

I read somewhere relatively recently that the loud sub-woofers and bass
noise that seems so prevalent in cars these days can actually cause
impotency in men.  

Bravo I say; it serves the adolescent punks right.


-- 
Terry
drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com
"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."
From: das@voodoo.boeing.com (Deb Schwartz)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: FYI: Auto Insurance Coverage Misconception
Keywords: insurance
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:05:27 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Boeing Graphics project, Bellevue WA

In article <1992Jul22.143803.1054@tc.fluke.COM> jeep@tc.fluke.COM (Dale A. Chaudiere) writes:
>
>P.S. They claim this is an industry standard.
>
>Any comments?  How about your insurance company?
>-- 

I checked with my insurance company, Amica, and sure enough, it's only covered
under collision - they view it as an actual collision between a wheeled
object and the car.  I guess if someone actually dropped a shopping cart
onto a car, it would be a 'falling object' and therefore covered under
comprehensive.

There is another tactic that one might try: this won't help the original 
poster, but, if you know who let the cart roll into your car, it might be
covered under liability insurance of that person.
(My homeowner's insurance paid to have my SO's laptop computer fixed when
I accidently crushed it under my recliner:  they said that if it's something
that a court of law would find me clearly liable for, they would pay it, and,
as it was clearly my fault, they did indeed pay.  I don't know if auto
liability insurance has this feature, but it would be something to ask
the claims adjuster about.)

Debbie Schwartz // das@voodoo.boeing.com  // or uunet!bcstec!voodoo!das 
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: torerik@cs.washington.edu (Tor Erik Jeremiassen)
Subject: Re: DWI
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: seattle
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 16:42:28 GMT

In article <2856@voodoo.UUCP> jdt@voodoo.boeing.com writes:

[stuff deleted]

>
>Geez, I agree with Robert!  When I lived in Texas, one thing I
>appreciated was their distinction between having a beer (or whatever)
>while driving, and driving drunk.  When it's 105 when you leave work,
>it's nice to be able to have a cold brew on the drive home.  They've
>since made it illegal, as it is in WA; pity, it was one of the only
>things I liked about TX (somehow I just never grew to appreciate flat,
>brown, and hot).
>-- 
>Jim Tomlinson    BoGART Project    Boeing Computer Services    Bellevue, WA
>jdt@voodoo.boeing.com       ...uunet!bcstec!voodoo!jdt        (206)865-6578 
>         "Airplanes are cool." - the man on the street in Seattle


Ah, but Texas is one of the few states that does not have an open container
law. It is illegal for the driver to drink, but the passengers can drink
all they want. 


Tor Jeremiassen
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Government grants privileges? (was: Re: DWI)
Date: 27 Jul 92 04:23:35 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <1992Jul25.162431.1706@kopachuk.uucp> dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman) writes:
/2) If cars had not appeared until after world war II, their private
/   ownership would be illegal.

I'll add to that if cars had not appeared until 1970, they would have
rapidly been driven out of business due to liability laws. Every single
car accident would have resulted in a suit against the car manufacturer.
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: srg@quick.com (Spencer Garrett)
Subject: Re: gun access/control questions
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Quicksilver Engineering, Seattle USA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:28:11 GMT

In article <kkt.712197232@milton>, kkt@milton.u.washington.edu (Patrick Scheible) writes:
> To me, registration is a side issue.  Most of the people killed by
> guns are friends or family of the killer: the killer loses his (or,
> rarely, her) temper, and a gun happened to be available.  Or someone
> was playing with the gun and didn't know it was loaded.  Simple
> registration wouldn't help that at all.

This is one of those great urban myths.  The actual statistic is that
a slim majority of killers are *acquainted* with their victims.  Changing
that to "friends and family killed in a sudden rage" is pure propaganda.
Murders committed in a sudden, blind rage are really quite rare.  Gun
accidents are also quite rare (more people die each year by choking on
their food, for instance) and the rate has been decreasing *monotonically*
for some 60 years or so.  Overall rates of violence are also well below
their historical peaks right now.  The *number* of murders has hit a
new high recently only because the size of the population has also set
a new record.  Individual people, on the whole, are safer than they were
10 years ago.  Most parts of the US are as safe as anyplace on Earth,
and those parts are mostly the ones with the greatest density of firearms
ownership.  (Hint: they differ in other important ways, too.)

> What I'd like to see is all guns stored where it took some time to get
> at them, say in a gun club.  I release this makes them useless for
> self-defense, and I am certainly not optimistic about it happening
> anytime soon.

Firearms are used more often each year to stop or prevent crimes
than to commit them.  Even if you could remove guns from the hands
of criminals with the same effectiveness as from law-abiding citizens
(and if you accept that premise, I have some land in Florida you need
to hear about) the net effect would likely be an *increase* in crime.
Since the law's effect would *not* be even, the increase would likely be
large.

One more time, boys and girls - taking away all the guns is not going
to make a 100 pound woman safe from a 200 pound man.  If we could
somehow make *all* weapons disappear forever, you still wouldn't be
able to walk alone at night wherever you wanted to go.
Newsgroups: seattle.general,uw.general
From: larryw@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Weissman)
Subject: Need 80-column card reader
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: seattle
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:33:18 GMT

We have some old 80-column computer cards - about 100,000 - that we need to
read. The cards are in very good shape, considering their age. Contents can
be transferred to almost any magnetic media, or transferred via the network.

Do you know of a service that will do this? Or an old IBM card reader west
of the Smithsonian?

Please reply by email or phone, as I generally don't read this newsgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Weissman                         Center for Bioengineering, WD-12
larryw@nsr.bioeng.washington.edu       Univ of Washington, Seattle WA 98195
Phone: (206)685-2011                   FAX: (206)685-3300