HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrd@po.CWRU.Edu (John R. Daker)
Subject: Re: Illegal Acceleration?
Reply-To: jrd@po.CWRU.Edu (John R. Daker)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 14:03:34 GMT


In a previous article, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) says:

>In article <1992Aug17.164537.25359@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> jrd@po.CWRU.Edu (John R. Daker) writes:
>>
>>I have wondered about acceleration and the law.  Could I possibly be
>>breaking some inane law by accelerating up to, but not exceeding, the
>>posted speed limit very rapidly?  For example, using the full 0 to 45
>>potential of my car?  
>
>I don't know about other states, but unless you spin your wheels, you
>can accelerate as fast as you want in MD.  Unfortunately, it gets cops
>attention-- even in a wimpy car-- since most people seem to think you
>ought to ease back up to the limit, you break from the pack.

This is what I should have said.  No tire squeal, just good, strong
acceleration.  Pulling away from the pack of rusted out Chevys and
wimpy driven 535i's.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------>DarkMan-------->
Case Western Reserve University,  Cleveland, Ohio            DoD #650
Anyone know where a mechanical engineer can get a job?
From: shyguy@ocf.berkeley.edu (David S. Shy)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Flashing to Pass: An Observation
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:16:44 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

>Another thing I have noticed for many years now, especially on I-5,
>is that the left lane of traffic is the cruising lane, while the passing
>lane has become the right lane.  It's more prevalent on weekends and
>holidays when there aren't a lot of professional drivers on the road.
>Very weird.

I travel on the I-5 quite a bit this past year, and I noticed that the 
people who usually do this in the left lane think that they ARE going
fast.  There are signs all over the I-5 saying that the max. speed
limit is 65 MPH.  In addition, there are also signs which say
slow traffic move to the right... or something like that.  Since most
of these people cruise at around 70 or 75, they naturally think that
they are the "faster" traffic, thus deserving the left lane.  However,
they seem to forget that there are people who go even faster.  I usually
go around 80 or 85, (but I don't think I will this weekend, since a friend
who just recently drove on the freeway tipped me about an unusually amount
of police activity...)  But even at this speed, I've been "blown away"
a couple times.  
Another observation:  the right lane appears to be more bumpy than
the left lane.  anyone know why?

david shy
shyguy@ocf.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: bpita@ctp.com (Bob Pitas)
Subject: Re: Safe Driving
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:59:29 GMT
Organization: Cambridge Technology Partners

In article <1992Aug7.053540.23455@cco.caltech.edu> pvmason@cco.caltech.edu (Peter V. Mason) writes:
>>
>>OK, here's some physics.  Power = force x velocity.
>>Static friction is indeed often larger than sliding or rolling friction,
>>so it costs a large effort (but no power, because velocity is zero.)
>>to get something started. But once moving, practically everything
>>generating resistance, i.e. force the engine must overcome, is constant or increor increases with velocity. Engine friction, tire resistance, air
>>resistance is even proportional to velocity, so air drag goes like
>>velocity^2.  
>>	The apparent effect of inertia is to overcome small increases
>>in drag/resistance etc., like pushing a hand mower fast into a 
>>deep patch of grass.  But you're just using up energy you put in earlier.
>>
>>	I suspect the Lotus mentioned in the original article just had 
>>a engine that was very inefficient at low speeds.  But if you
>>own a Lotus, who cares about gas mileage, anyway?
>>Pete Mason
>>.
>>
>Sorry, I misspoke.  Drag goes like velocity squared, so air drag
>power goes like velocity cubed. The gas you burn is proportional
>to power, so its pretty hard to see how a car could burn less gas
>at 80 than at 40, unless that engine was horribly inefficent at
>40.  But that's what a tranny is for.
>
>Peter Mason
>

It has to do with the volumetric effeciency of the engine at the rpm
necessary to achieve the speed in question.  
For instance, most engines get their best milage right around their torque
peak.  Because of this, it's definately possible for a car to get better
milage at 80 then at 55.  I used to own an '83GT that got 3mpg better
at 85 than at 65.  I tested it by identical 200 mile trips from Providence
to Lovel, Maine.  The trips were late night, with no traffic, so there was
no stop-&-go to mangle the results.
In both cases the car was in identical states of tune, with oil-changes and
new plugs both times, and they were within a month of each other in the
summer.  (so air-temp wasn't a factor)
I'd say 3mpg is a pretty significant...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ___          
       / _ \                 '85 Mustang GT                        Bob Pitas
      /    /USH              14.13 @ 99.8                      bpita@ctp.com
     / /| \                  Up at NED, Epping, NH           (Cambridge, MA)

"If you go fast enough, driving in traffic is like driving in a parking lot"
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, obviously, since they end with my .sig!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: d3a132@pnl.gov (Carl P Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Copnsequences of getting a ticket
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:11:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracle.1992Aug14.181143.3495
Reply-To: d3a132@pnl.gov
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories

In article 713800443@centerline.com, jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>waco@cbnewse.cb.att.com (john.l.broughton) writes:
>>>To illustrate just how bad it is in California now, someone recently
>>>received a traffic ticket for running a stop sign while riding a
>>>bicycle.  The fine is $298.  That's not a typo; it's almost $300!
>
>>  With the exception of the high fine, it appears CA has its traffic
>>  enforcement policy together.  Why is it bicycle riders think themselve
>>  immune from traffic laws?  When I see a bike rider at an intersection
>>  with a red light, 99% of the time the biker rider goes through the red
>>  light.
>
>My question is: if the bicycle rider is not carrying ID, and is not
>required to have a driver's license, what's to stop him from giving
>false information?  (Besides the fact that it's illegal; so was
>running the stop sign.)

Speaking as a cyclist (yes, there is a cyclist reading rec.autos.driving-
gasps of horror :-)), I agree that the cyclist should get a ticket for
running the stop sign.  And $300 is _incredible_ for running a stop
sign.  For that kind of money you should get to slap the cop too! :-).

I think that the cyclist _is_ required to carry a drivers license.
I don't know what the rule is if you don't have one or are underage.
Maybe you only have to carry it if you have one.  Cyclists are not
and should not be immune to traffic laws.  This does not mean that
a cyclist operating properly in traffic will never annoyingly block
your way.  It is sometimes necessary for the cyclists safety to get
piggy and block the whole lane.  Well, enough trying to educate.

(I follow this thread as I enjoy driving too.  Unfortunately, most
of the drivers around here are bozos....  22 mph in the left lane
of a 35 zone Aagh...  Easier to deal with them on the bike).

Carl P Baker
cp_baker@pnl.gov
509-375-2724

Disclaimer: I am not the official spokesperson for anyone.  For which
organizations that use spokespersons are profoundly grateful.
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Consequences of getting a ticket
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:01:59 GMT
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

>I'm sure it varies from state to state, but at least in N.Y. I don't
>think you can take the course "instead of" paying the ticket.  

California (alone among the several states I've lived in) used to let
you off the hook on various minor tickets if you went to traffic school. 
I think the legal language is something like "withholding the conviction 
from view" in your records.  Then our economy went eyeballs-inward, and
last year our suddenly money-conscious State Assembly snuck in a bill 
ending this happy state of affairs.  Today, it works like Mr. Lowry says 
it does in NY:

>You pay the ticket, then you take the course to remove "points" from your
>record and to entitle you to some insurance discounts.  

(The latter, of course, is up to your insurance company.)

Today as before, traffic school only applies to various lesser tickets,
and you only get to take advantage of it at a certain interval which,
I think, is established by the jurisdiction that ticketed you -- frequent
offenders have to eat most of their points.

Speaking of which: you guys in the Normal 47, take note of the increase
in FINES here in paradise.  You've heard of "use a gun, go to jail"?
We're heading for "use a gas pedal, go to bankruptcy court" -- another
artifact of our state and local budget crises.  Enforcement doesn't
strike me as any more aggressive than before, but if you're one of the
lucky few who get caught, life can easily become a parade of C-notes
out of your wallet and into various official coffers.  Take it easy
or stay on the lookout -- preferably both!

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: waco@cbnewse.cb.att.com (john.l.broughton)
Subject: Re: Copnsequences of getting a ticket
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:53:58 GMT


>In article <1992Aug13.195204.203@btree.uucp> hale@btree.uucp (Bob Hale) writes
>
***stuff deleted***
>
>To illustrate just how bad it is in California now, someone recently
>received a traffic ticket for running a stop sign while riding a
>bicycle.  The fine is $298.  That's not a typo; it's almost $300!

  With the exception of the high fine, it appears CA has its traffic
  enforcement policy together.  Why is it bicycle riders think themselve
  immune from traffic laws?  When I see a bike rider at an intersection
  with a red light, 99% of the time the biker rider goes through the red
  light.

>Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
>...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu                       ...!ucsd!btree!hale@uunet.uu.net


John L. Broughton
AT&T
Naperville, IL
john.l.broughton@att.com
att!john.l.broughton

#############################################################
# We have inherited the great principles upon which liberty #
# is based, but we have not inherited liberty.  That must   #
# be secured and maintained by every new generation.        #
#                                     -- John Sirica        #
#############################################################
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: fitchitt@wam.umd.edu ()
Subject: Re: Traffic limitations
Keywords: Bulls**t
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:26:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug7.222107.9346@ITcorp.com> geoff@ITcorp.com (Geoff Kuenning) writes:
>In article <2909@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU> met@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Meteorology General) writes:
>
>> I used to live just 30metres off Brunswick St (a very fashionable 
>> and cosmipolitan street with many cafes,restaurants and entertainment
>> venues) here in Melbourne, and we had Resident Only parking rights.
>> Even with this the trendoid scum would still park all along our street,
>
>I beg to differ.  Business districts do not pop up overnight.  I'd bet
>that one of the things that attracted you to that particular house was
>that it was within walking distance of all those cafes, restaurants,
>and entertainment venues.  You pays your money and you takes your
>choice.
>
>I live in a very popular resort town, and I used to live in a house
>with two cars and only one parking spot.  Sometimes I had to walk many
>blocks from where I could find parking.  That was a choice I went into
>with open eyes.  Why should the average beachgoer be made to suffer
>just because I wanted to live in a high-traffic area?
>-- 
>	Geoff Kuenning   geoff@ITcorp.com   uunet!desint!geoff

Well, at least you can get out... My Dad lived in NY for a while, and his
boss used to get parked in all the time by double parkers. One time when this
happened when he was going to give my Dad a ride home, he saw how he "solved"
this problem. BTW this was back in the late '60s where cars were huge...

He opened his trunk, took out two industrial dollies and a 3 ton hydrolic jack,
jacked up the rear wheels, put the dollies under each one, then swung the car
around out of his way..... jacked it back up, put the dollies and jack back
in the car... drove away....
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: khan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman)
Subject: Re: Flashing to Pass: An Observation
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 03:09:36 GMT

tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett) writes:

>In article <Bt9Boy.Hu2@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, khan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott 
>Coleman) writes:
>> Well, around here it's a) more like rush MINUTE, and b) my commute doesn't
>> involve any freeways, and you don't see too many big semis cruising down 
>> residential sidestreets. ;-)

>GO AHEAD -- RUB IT IN.

Heh heh, don't think it's a panacea. Sure, a low population means lower
traffic problems, but it also means fewer main streets, and those that do 
exist are narrower and in poorer condition. Although it's not as bad a driving
the Dirty Dan Ryan or Michigan Avenue (in Chicago) at rush hour, it's
a lot worse than the same amount of traffic would be if our roads had the same 
capacity as the Beltway.

--
Scott Coleman                                                    tmkk@uiuc.edu

Free Advice: It is inadvisable to read Bush's lips at an official banquet.
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Traffic limitations
Keywords: Bulls**t
Date: 16 Aug 92 20:33:01 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park


>He opened his trunk, took out two industrial dollies and a 3 ton hydrolic jack,
>jacked up the rear wheels, put the dollies under each one, then swung the car
>around out of his way..... jacked it back up, put the dollies and jack back
>in the car... drove away....

Hmm, that's much nicer than I would have been..... I'd be inclined to
roll the double parker into the nearest solid object...

-- 
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)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: garrem@aix.rpi.edu (Matthew Olsen Garretson)
Subject: Re: Illegal Acceleration?
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:08:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.164537.25359@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> jrd@po.CWRU.Edu (John R. Daker) writes:
>
>I have wondered about acceleration and the law.  Could I possibly be
>breaking some inane law by accelerating up to, but not exceeding, the
>posted speed limit very rapidly?  For example, using the full 0 to 45
>potential of my car?  

A friend of mine was pulled over and questioned for 20 minutes for peeling out
(in a very small way) from a traffic light. After checking the driver's licences
of *everyone in the car*, the cop made some snide comment about "drag racing"
and let my friend go.  My friend never even got close to the speed limit, and
certainly wasn't drag racing. In pulling my friend over, the cop ignored
several cars travelling faster than the speed limit.

I don't know if this is the type of thing you were asking about, but I figured
I'd mention it.
-- 
Matt Garretson                       :-)                          garrem@rpi.edu
From: curtis@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Jeffrey S. Curtis)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Copnsequences of getting a ticket
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:13:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: mcs.1992Aug14.191318.8602
Distribution: usa
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory

In article <jimf.713800443@centerline.com>, jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
|> My question is: if the bicycle rider is not carrying ID, and is not
|> required to have a driver's license, what's to stop him from giving
|> false information?  (Besides the fact that it's illegal; so was
|> running the stop sign.)

Call me a fascist, but I thought that *everyone* in this great land
o' ours was *required* by law to carry ID at all times, no? Or have I
been living in 1939 Germany too long?

|> "No officer, by ID is at home.  My name is Jack Clark and I live at
|> 1250 West Addison."  (Of course this particular line wouldn't work on
|> a cop who's a sports fan, but he'd crack a smile! :-)

Hey, worked in the movies, so it *must* be true!  B^)

Jeff
--
       Jeffrey S. Curtis         | Internet: curtis@anl.gov
Computing and Telecommunications | BITnet:   curtis at anlvm
  Argonne National Laboratory    | X.400:    /PN=Jeffrey.Curtis/O=olivia
        +1 708/252-5031          |           /PRMD=anl/ADMD= /C=US/
From: khan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Copnsequences of getting a ticket
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:53:39 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes:

>>I think that the cyclist _is_ required to carry a drivers license.

>As far as I know, there is no such requirement in any state.

How could there be? 

Little Jimmy, age 5, runs a stop sign on his bicycle. Officer Freindly pulls
him over, and says "let's see your driver's license, son." Uh huh, and
monkeys are gonna fly... ;-) 


--
Scott Coleman                                                    tmkk@uiuc.edu

Free Advice: It is inadvisable to read Bush's lips at an official banquet.
From: twc@svcs1.UUCP (Ted Chan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Flashing to Pass: An Observation
Date: 23 Aug 92 05:23:36 GMT
Organization: Silicon Valley Computer Society, Sunnyvale, CA

From article <1992Aug18.183935.3002@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, by gthome@dss1.austin.ibm.com:
> some truckers have terrible driving manners) Becuase of this use of the
> right lane, I feel it "wears out" faster.  Anyone concur ? Disagree ?

Yep, that's the answer.  Normally loaded trucks wear the road faster
than cars.  Overloaded trucks tend to wear the road considerably
faster (i.e. road damage increases more than linearly with increasing
load for loads over "normal").  Info from cal-trans...

--twc@legal.uucp
From: rhaar@albert.cs.gmr.com (Bob Haar)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Flashing to Pass: An Observation
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:47:30 GMT
Reply-To: rhaar@albert.cs.gmr.com
Organization: G.M. Research Labs

In article 2102@spatula.rent.com, ahm@spatula.rent.com (Andreas Meyer) writes:
|>khan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) writes:
|>> One other way to use your lights, should you be so inclined: when a semi 
|>> passes you, you can flash your lights to let the trucker know that his
|>> trailer is now clear of the front of your car and it's safe for him to 
|>> merge back into the right lane.
|>
|>Um, you'd better be awful careful *when* you do this... 
|>If it's night-time, and you flash your brights at a trucker, he's 
|>liable to come flatten your face. (You see, he's got these really 
|>big mirrors, and you've just wrecked his night vision...)
|>
|>To let him know he's clear, *dip* your lights, 
|>(ie. turn them off then back on).
|>
|>THEN,
|>> He'll thank you by blinking his "thank you
|>> lights" (for want of a better term; they're little Christmas-tree lights
|>> which line the edges of the trailer and are on an independent circuit from
|>> the head- and running lights). 
|>
|>Yes, they're "running lights" or "markers". 
|>I think the ones on the trailer are on a separate circuit.
|>
|>> I haven't done this in years, however, since
|>> I'm usually travelling a wee bit faster than the trucks are. ;-)
|>
|>Must be nice not to travel during rush hour...
|>
|>Cheers,
|>Andy
|>--
|> Andreas Meyer, N2FYE               Warning: due to the shortage of robots,
|> ahm@spatula.rent.com               our workers are human and will therefore
|> ..!rutgers!bobsbox!spatula!ahm     react unpredictably under stress.




---
	Robert Haar               InterNet : rhaar@gmr.com 
	Computer Science Dept., G.M. Research Laboratories
DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is
personal opinion, not an official statement of General Motors Corp.


Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: waco@cbnewse.cb.att.com (john.l.broughton)
Subject: Re: Traffic Limitations
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:47:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.205322.23156@linus.mitre.org> ptrei@bistromath
.mitre.org (Peter Trei) writes
>
>  *****stuff deleted*****
>     When I lived in Belgium (mid 70's), there were some areas with
>free limited period parking - one hour, two hours, etc. When you
>registered your car you were given a small cardboard and plastic
>clockface with moving hands, about 4 inches across. When you parked in
>one of these areas, you had to set the clockface to the current time,
>and leave it visible in your windscreen.
>
>     Thus, a meter maid could easily tell if you had stayed over the
>time limit. There was a hefty fine for setting the clock ahead of the
>real time.
>
>     It worked pretty well.
>
>						Peter Trei
>						ptrei@mitre.org

When I was stationed in Germany many years ago the same system was used.  It
is cheap and effective.  Hence, we probably won't see it here.  For years I
have wondered why this system didn't propagate to the U.S.  It seems much
better than having police on motorcycles or golf carts driving around marking
tires with chalk.


John L. Broughton
AT&T
Naperville, IL
john.l.broughton@att.com
att!john.l.broughton

#############################################################
# We have inherited the great principles upon which liberty #
# is based, but we have not inherited liberty.  That must   #
# be secured and maintained by every new generation.        #
#                                     -- John Sirica        #
#############################################################
From: ggg@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Gary Goodlund)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:11:58 GMT
Subject: Re: RADAR JAMMER
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving

Richard's last comment pretty well covers the situation:"...you pays your
money & you takes your chances!"

I followed a truck one night from Ft.Collins, Colorado to Salt Lake City who
carried a jammer of some unknown origin.  It broadcast a constant 24MPH or 
54MPH signal and set off every radar detector for a couple of miles in all 
directions.  The only problem he seemed to have with it was when his          
girlfriend forgot to turn it off after exitting the freeway and the cop's
radar gun said she was still doing 54MPH.  She was pissed and her boyfriend 
didn't dare laugh!  

The ad I saw for one of these stated that it was for amatuer radio operators
and was illegal for jamming use but they clearly stated how well it worked
for that.  Kind of like "...it's a great jammer but we'd never suggest that
anyone might break the law with it!"

'later,
   Gary
Xref: sparky rec.autos.driving:4915 misc.legal:16066