HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russell@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (russell.w.keating)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: tips for Indiana, Ohio ?
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:27:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

I am taking a trip from Chicago to about Akron, Ohio.  I will be traveling
on the Indiana Toll Road (80/90) and the Ohio Turnpike (80/90 ?).
From there I'll be on highway 71.

So Net driving enthusiasts ... what tips can you offer on police tricks
that I should look out for in Indiana and Ohio?  I heard that the Toll
roads give you tickets that have the time stamped on them.  When you get off,
they can tell how fast you were going by the time stamps and can get you for
speeding.  Is this true?  I have seen the time stamps a long long time ago
in Indiana, but I don't know if they issue tickets by them.

Any help is appreciated (use of laser, ka, VASCAR, aircraft ...).

Thanks!

-- 
Russell Keating, N9LIL ------------> Send email to: russell1@ihlpb.ATT.COM
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: Here's a good law for you...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:32:47 GMT


In article <1a7c4oINN8m3@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.154810.10059@ryn.mro4.dec.com> balsamo@wmodev.enet.dec.com (Antonio L. Balsamo (Save the wails)) writes:
>#
>#       The reason is probably that when you park against the direction of
>#   traffic, your rear lights, which second as reflectors, are not caught by
>#   the headlights of on coming traffic, therefore making your car hard to see.
>#   Turned-off headlights don't reflect the the headlights of on coming traffic
>#   at night very well.
>
>Now THAT actually makes sense! I've never given it a second thought,
>but it does make some sense. Thanks, Tony!

Picture in your mind the headlamp switch for your car. This switch has
three positions: an off position, a full-on position which turns on the
headlights, and an in-between position which turns on your parking
lights. Ever wonder why they call those things "parking lights?"

It comes from the days when it used to be required by law that your
vehicle have "parking lights" to make it visible to other vehicles while
parked at night. Apparently this is no longer required in most areas
(undoubtedly because most areas have streetlights), but in some areas it's
still required (I read about it in the Illinois Rules of the Road book). So,
if you want to park "backwards," just turn on your parking lights. No
reflectors necessary.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Subject: Re: Signalling one's desire to pass
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:53:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.094224.1@bronco.fnal.gov> colombo@bronco.fnal.gov writes:

>I think the flash-to-pass feature is/was to be used when you are
>pulling out from behind a vehicle (on a two-lane road), although
>many people use it to get someone to move out of the *hammer* lane.
>Actually, I think the latter is illegal, at least around here.

     Rick, at a guess, you drive a foreign car. In Germany "flash to
pass" is a standard feature on any car with pretentions of performance
- you hit the switch, and your headlights flash five times quickly.
This is the standard signal used on multilane highways and to signal
slower traffic up ahead to move out of your lane. It's only really
used if you're in the fast lane of an autobahn.

						Peter
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: on which side of the road do you drive
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:44:01 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1a3j4sINNo9c@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cf947@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chun-Hung Wan) writes:
>
>In Malaysia and Singapore they also drive on the left, and I think all the 
>Commonwealth countries do.

Not Canada.
-- 
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: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Tailgaters abound!
Date: 30 Sep 92 11:58:18 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <lchmaqINN43p@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:

>In article <BvAKwE.Fow@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:

>>Let's see: I've been rear ended at stoplights three times in the last 8
>>years or so, but I've never been hit by a meteorite. 

>I've not only never been rear-ended at a stoplight, I don't even *know*
>anyone who's been rear-ended at a stoplight -- and no, I don't live a 
>hermit's lifestyle or drive on deserted roads.  Note that I'm not saying 
>it doesn't happen, but that it's my direct observation and personal 
>experience that it's an extremely rare and unlikely occurrence.

In 5 years of London urban commuting I avoided being rear-ended three
times by moving out of the way, and letting the guy in front get
rear-ended. Where possible and at hazard I leave enough space so I can
get out of the way if approached from behind by a sleeping driver. In
daily urban commuting I probably see a rear-end collision at stop
lights about once a month.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: 55:  And Then There Were (Please Help)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:06:46 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Sep24.191804.3309@photon.com> jbn@photon.photon.com (Joe Naiman) writes:
>
>A friend of mine from New Jersey sent me an article about a state
>representative from Middlesex who introduced legislation Sept. 15
>to raise the speed limit to 65.
>
>The article said that New Jersey was one of EIGHT states which still
>had a 55 mph speed limit.
>
>I thought that nine states still had 55:  Alaska and Delaware (with
>no eligible roads), Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
>Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey.  Should I eliminate one of
>those states from the list?

Pennsylvania, I think.
-- 
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: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: SPEECH ON SPEEDING W/IMPUNITY
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:16:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvI579.MJ7
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


In article <1992Oct2.061855.8714@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> kappa@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Glenn Capuano) writes:
>> 
>> Note that the relative velocity vs. danger curve is shaped like an
>> inverted bell - danger is high when relative velocity is close to zero,
>> as well, since when you pass someone at 1MPH speed difference you're
>> sitting next to them for mile after mile after mile, and are an easy
>> target for 'possum swerves. The best speed differential for passing is,
>> of course, in the middle somewhere. I usually maintain about a 5 - 10
>> MPH differential, which it more than enough at 65 MPH.
>
>	I assume you're talking divided highway/freeway here! I wouldn't
>want to overtake that slowly on a two-way country highway!

;-)

You're absolutely right. Passing on any highway without controlled
access cheanges the rules entirely. Unfortunately, with many people it
appears to be "don't pass at all."

Over the summer I took a road trip which included about 150 miles of
two lane blacktop (and no, I don't drive a Goat ;-). I can't count the
number of times I came upon a "convoy" of vehicles moving at 50 MPH or
less, with some truck or van+camper trailer at the front and a bunch of
cars trailing behind, the drivers of which were too scared to attempt a
pass. In most cases, the drivers would also tailgate, making it
difficult to work one's way up through the crowd one vehicle at a time.
More than once I was forced to pass 4, 5, or 6 vehicles all at once.
Not a real problem, but more dangerous than it needed to be, and I
certainly didn't do it with only a 5-10 MPH speed differential! ;-)

I get the impression that many people who have been raised on expressway
driving just can't deal with a 2 lane road. They'll come up behind a
slower vehicle and just stay there, rather than pass it. I'm sure part
of the problem is the Geo Metros some of these folks drive; in this
situation, most "practical" cars get downright UNpractical. ;-) ;-)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: kappa@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Glenn Capuano)
Subject: Re: SPEECH ON SPEEDING W/IMPUNITY
Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 06:18:55 GMT

> But seriously, another reason not to pass slower vehicles with too great
> a speed difference is the danger factor. After all, it's not the speed
> your travelling that makes for dangerous driving conditions, but the RELATIVE
> speed between one vehicle and another. The closer your speed is to his,
> the lower your relative speed and the more reaction time you will have
> should he suddenly swerve to avoid taking out a 'possum.
> 
> Note that the relative velocity vs. danger curve is shaped like an
> inverted bell - danger is high when relative velocity is close to zero,
> as well, since when you pass someone at 1MPH speed difference you're
> sitting next to them for mile after mile after mile, and are an easy
> target for 'possum swerves. The best speed differential for passing is,
> of course, in the middle somewhere. I usually maintain about a 5 - 10
> MPH differential, which it more than enough at 65 MPH.

	I assume you're talking divided highway/freeway here! I wouldn't
want to overtake that slowly on a two-way country highway!

Regards,
	Glenn Capuano

Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: C11815@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Josette Giacobbi)
Subject: Volvo stalling
Organization: Motorola
Date: 28 Sep 1992 09:19:22 CDT

I have an 84 Volvo which stalls at the first downhill stop I make. If
I back out of a parking space downhill it's ok, but the 1st front
downhill it stalls.  Everytime.  Any ideas??   Thanks
Josette
Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.autos.driving
From: lpickup@xanadu.btv.ibm.com (Lance Pickup)
Subject: Re: NJ's Guv Jim says no to 65, was Re: speed limit
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:04:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: lpickup@vnet.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Technology Products

In article <1992Sep30.030621.9627@cabot.balltown.cma.COM>, welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep29.181822.28330@watson.ibm.com> lpickup@vnet.ibm.com writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep29.155533.7838@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
|> >|>                                             Those that favor keeping
|> >|> it 55 rely on the old theory that if the everyone is driving 65 now when
|> >|> the limit is 55, then they will all go 75 if the limit is 65.  That
|> >|> has not proven to be the case at all in those states (over 40)
|> >|> that now have 65.
|>
|> >It hasn't??  Not that I'm against 65 or anything, but in the states
|> >that I've driven in which have 65 (mostly VT, NH and the states down
|> >the east coast: VA, NC, SC) people sure aren't going 65!
|>
|> i've got news for you.  here in NY, and in PA (both 55 states where i
|> drive a lot) they're not going 65 either.  they're going between
|> 65 and 70 (10 to 15 over.)
|>
|> the statistics show that when the speed limit went up 10 mph  (from
|> 55 to 65) the average speed went up 2 to 3 mph.  not quite what the
|> doomsayers were predicting.

Okay, let me be more specific.  Admittedly I don't have access to
these "statistics" that are being quoted that say the speed went up
a few miles per hour (and I'm not saying that they aren't real either!)
but my experience has been that before the speed limit change, the
average speed "appeared" to be about 10 miles above the speed limit
(i.e. 65).  Now that the speed limit is 65, it still "appears" to
be 10 miles above the speed limit (i.e. 75).  What is my definition
of "appears?"  Well, I typically go about that fast, and I find
that about half the cars I pass, and half the cars pass me,
so I figure I'm about average.  Granted, not a highly scientific
analsys, but at least it's my own perception, and I can trust that
a lot more than I can some propaganda some special interest group
or another may be floating my way.

I think that I would have noticed that I was driving faster than
most cars if I was the only one who drove 10 mph faster when they
raised the speed limit.  But that has not been the case with me.
What I have noticed is that it pretty much seems the same as it
used to be.  Take this for what it's worth--just one guy's
perceptions.  Sometimes though that gives a better indication of
what is actually going on than some published statistics from who
knows where!

--
    ...Lance

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Pickup                VNET/IBM Internet: lpickup@btv
IBM/Vendor Systems                   Internet: lpickup@vnet.ibm.com
Technology Products
Burlington, VT                          Phone: (802) 769-7104 (tie 446)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: PC's vs. Mac's... was: FWD vs. RWD, Which is best.
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:10:26 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.autos, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>In article <25859@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>tes:
>> FWD is better in snow for complete morons who want to take off in it the same

>        Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah, fact is my Taurus'll still keep up
>with anything except a damn Corvette or a Porsche or some other beast which
>costs more to insure than I make in a year.   Jesus, why do so many people
>need to convince themselves that the *only* kind of car *anyone* should *ever*
>own is whatever they're driving at the moment...

Subaru makes a full time 4WD which I believe comes in at around $17k,
which is less than your Taurus, I think. I wouldn't drive either, nor
do I particularly care for the one I drive, for reasons other than handling.
Numerous repairs come to mind, with high cost parts. :(

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: sly9y@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Lugging an engine?
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:48:43 MDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct1.180846.6230@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, shultz_ed@macmail1.rtsg.mot.com writes:
> I was listening to an auto talk show one time and they have a "question of the
> week" which people try to answer before the next week's show when they reveal
> the correct answer.  The question that I heard was:  Why is lugging an engine
> bad for the engine?  I was not around to hear the answer to this question so I
> was wondering if anyone knows the answer.  From what I gathered from the
> conversation, lugging an engine applies to manual transmission cars and means
> to drive the car in a higher gear than "recommended" for a given speed.  Does
> anyone know exactly what lugging the engine is (i.e. in terms of rpm) and why
> is this bad for the engine?

IMHO, lugging an engine is something like having the tranny in too high of a 
gear for the engine.  That is, the engine is putting out just enough power 
to counter the drivetrain friction, the tire-road friction, and the air-car
friction.  So, the forces of the car and environment working against the 
engine slow it down, while the ignition and intake system try to keep the 
engine running where it should be.  As to the specific problems with lugging
an engine, I can't help you on that.  You are just going to have to listen
to the show, and let me know what you find out

Pete
> 
> -Ed S.
From: v069pff7@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SNAKEYES)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Mustang GT vs. Mustang LX 5.0
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:51:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct6.105508.4502@wam.umd.edu>, huesmann@wam.umd.edu (Joseph Edward Huesmann) writes...
>Hello out there. I'm considering getting a 1988 Mustang, but I don't
>know whether I should get a GT or a 5.0 LX. I've heard that the LX
>is actually slightly faster than the GT (being lighter), but how does
>the handling compare? Also, I've heard insurance rates are a lot

I own an '85 GT and I'm quite sure the LX 5.0 is quicker. I once raced one with
it on my tail the whole strip, I could not loose it...LX must be quicker, I'm
saying if both cars are stock. As for insurance, I'm pretty sure that it only
matters what engine the car has, V8 or 4 cylinder..not LX or GT...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Sprechman		v069pff7@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
University At Buffalo   sprec-j@acsu.buffalo.edu

"Some people say I must be a horrible person, that's not true. I have the heart
of a boy, in a jar on my desk"-Stephen King
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: ari@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ari Ollikainen)
Subject: Re: FWD vs. RWD, Which is best.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:53:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.212724.4779@unlinfo.unl.edu> summ50@cse.unl.edu () writes:
>smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>
>>In article <13355@texsun.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
>>>How many new RWD automobiles are still offered? There's the huge
>>>GM line (Buick Roadmonster/Caprice/new Fleetwood).  Is the Crown Vic?
>>>The trend seems clearly toward FWD, but don't know if that's mostly
>>>fashion or not.
>
>>I tried this once before, let's see how I do this time:
>
>>Rear Wheel Drive _cars_ for sale in the USA, 1992:
>
>>Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis/Lincoln Town Car
>>Ford Thunderbird/Mercury Cougar
>>Ford Mustang
>>Buick Roadmaster/Chevy Caprice/Cadillac Brougham
>>Chevy Camaro/Pontiac Firebird
>>Chevy Corvette
>>Dodge Viper
>>Infiniti Q45
>>Lexus SC300/SC400/ES400
>>Acura NSX
>>Toyota MR2
>>Toyota Supra
>>Toyota Cressida
>>Mazda 929
>>Mazda RX-7
>>Mazda Miata
>
>>Did I miss any this time?
>
>	Yep.  Once again:
>
>	Porsche 968/928/911 line
>	All BMWs
>	All Mercedes
>	Nissan 300ZX
>	Nissan 240 SX
>	Ferrari 348
>	Ferrari TR
>	Lotus Esprit
>	Lamborghini Diablo
>	Vector
>	Shelby Cobra (The "new" 1965 Cobra, ya know)
>	
>	There are probably a couple more that I can't think of right now.
>

Yep...  
	Oldsmobile98
        BIG Vans from Ford/GM/ChryCO
        Pick-up trucks
        Some Minivans: MPV, Previa, Astro/Safari, Aerostar

	and

	VOLVOs: 240, 940/960
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: PC's vs. Mac's... was: FWD vs. RWD, Which is best.
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:07:46 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.autos, david@xlnt.com (David Johnson) writes:
>bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>including 4WD. (THere is a difference between them.)

>        Just what is the difference between AWD and 4wd?

4WD generally locks the front and rear drive shafts to turn at the same
rate. This is fine across slippery surfaces, but not good on dry, sticky
pavement when the rate of spin might vary in turns, for instance. AWD
has a limited slip coupling between front and rear (at least mine does,
others may not be limited, but just a slip coupling) so that it allows
for different spin rates. There are some 4WD vehicles that are really
AWD, but are switchable, such as the Jeep Cherokee with the Selectrac
(I believe) which allows shifting between 2WD (rear), low 4WD, high
4WD, and Full time 4WD (or AWD). Low, and high 4WD lock the front and
rear driveshafts, Full Time 4WD shifts a limited slip coupling between
the front and rear shafts. (My dad owns one of these.) Hope this clears
it up.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: FWD vs. RWD, Which is best.
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:34:47 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@thewho.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

How many new RWD automobiles are still offered? There's the huge
GM line (Buick Roadmonster/Caprice/new Fleetwood).  Is the Crown Vic?
The trend seems clearly toward FWD, but don't know if that's mostly
fashion or not.

Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: summ50@cse.unl.edu ()
Subject: Re: FWD vs. RWD, Which is best.
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:15:58 GMT

newark@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (antonio.cruz) writes:

>>Anyone have any comments/arguments on whether Front Wheel Drive (FWD) or
>>Rear Wheel Drive (RWD) is better for handling?  Obviously this is a very broad
>>subject but I have a friend that says FWD is best and I do not agree.  Anyone
>>have some proof of either?
> 

>Cost might be a factor in which is better. Excessive wearing of front
>tires (engine weight), ripped CV boots (salt deposits), or expensive
>alignment repairs on the FWD. RWD, differential gears damaged or damaged
>axle from crash. Remember, new technology (FWD) seems to cost more than 
>old (RWD) to repair.

>Handling might be the other factor. FWD handles better in the snow because
>of the weight from the engine and transaxle on the front end. RWD seem to
>handle badly in the snow because of less weight in the trunk area.
>RWD usual have one turning power wheel (posi has two). FWD has two turning
>wheels.

>++++
>Tony
>++++

	Actually, FWD cars only have one "turning" (driving) wheel unless
	they have a limited slip option... most FWD cars do not have this 
	option.



                                                                   __
/-----------------------------+---------------+-------------------///-------\  
|    ___  __   ___  __   __   |               | Multitasking __  ///        |
|   |    |  | |    |__   __|  |  Unsafe at    | my life      \\\///  Amiga  |
|   |___ |__| |     __| |__|  |  any speed... | away !!!      \XX/   3000   |
|-----------------------------+---------------+-----------------------------| 
|    Eric Elliott            summ50@cse.unl.edu         GEnie: E.ELLIOTT7   |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------------/

--
 
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: liu@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Jian-Huang Liu)
Subject: Do you have a Sable?  What's your MPG?
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 20:26:35 GMT

I am not sure if my 87 Sable Wagon consumes more fuel than average.  It's
getting only 17 MPG, freeway and local combined(half and half).  I inflate the
tires to 34 psi and keep the car in good condition.  Can someone own a similar
car tell me your MPG?  Or maybe the ways to increase it?  Thanks a lot.

- james
Newsgroups: rec.autos