HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mramsell@gandalf.ca (Mark Ramsell)
Subject: Re: How To Drive the RIGHT way!
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:09:34 GMT

In <1992Nov12.183059.6128@spdc.ti.com> serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:

>In article <1992Nov12.093014.11106@hemlock.cray.com> deanb@pecan10.cray.com (Dean Barker) writes:
>>
>>In article <Zyg4TB4w164w@cellar.org>, blu@cellar.org (Dan Reed) writes:
>>> 
>>>                    High Speed driving Tips, by Dan Reed
>>>                                  (Humor)
>>
>>			My Comments (Serious)
>>> 6. Ignore all construction signs -
>>>  
>>>   If the sign says "Lane Ends-Merge Right 1 Mile", just stay in the left
>>> lane.  There are always some saps that will let you in at the last
>>> minute.  After all, THEY are the ones the make the traffic jam, by
>>> thinking ahead, and getting into that right lane.
>>
>>If traffic is moving along at a sensible pace, then ya, sure moving out of
>>the closing lane early is the correct thing to do. But if traffic is already
>>slowed to a crawl (< 20 MPH or so) then merging early does not make sense.
>>
>>Example: I am cruising along in the right lane, traffic starts slowing down
>>ahead of me, I change to the left lane and start passing the cars that are 
>>slowing down in the right lane. Then I get to the first indication of road
>>construction...left lane closes 1 mile ahead. Now, what should I do? (1) Stop
>>1 mile short of the lane closure and wait for somebody to let me in? or (2) drive
>>the 1 mile and then wait for somebody to let me in? Remember, if everybody
>>chose (2) then a 1 mile 2 lane backup would turn into a 2 mile 1 lane backup,
>>and the people 2 miles back would not know what the problem is.

>WRONG!  What complete BS.  This is nothing more than your ridiculous
>justification for driving like an asshole.  Idiots like you are the reason the
>traffic has slowed to a crawl in the first place.  You blast all the way up to
>the barricades, slow down or stop, then move into the open lane. Unless you
>have some vastly superior propulsion system in your vehicle, you just can't
>accelerate back to traffic speed in the allotted distance.  That makes the sap
>you are cutting off either slow down or stop and so on, ad nauseam.  But, you
>obviously deserve special priveleges not afforded the rest of us so it doesn't
>make a damn bit of difference what the rest of us think anyway.

Mike,
	You forgot what the title says "(Humor)".  This article is obviously
for the amusement of it's readers.  Try to relax and enjoy the sarcasm and
don't let it get to you.


Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: andyw@meaddata.com (Andy Welter)
Subject: Re: Driving with parking lights only
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:05:36 GMT
Reply-To: andyw@meaddata.com

Actually I do find that parking lights increase visibility alot.  Especially
in overcast weather. 

I also believe that some Scandanavian countries require the use of "driving lights"
on cars that automatically turn on with the car's ignition.  This is due to the
greatly extended dusk and dawn periods from being so far north.

Any far northerners wanna give the straight scoop on this subject?

--
|Andrew Welter	     |  All views are mine and not |      (513) 865-6822   
|Mead Data Central   |    that of my employer      |      pd&o-ps-ts-dsp       
|P.O. Box 933        |                             |     andyw@meaddata.com
|Dayton, Ohio  45401 |          	           | ...!uunet!meaddata!andyw
From: K.Buck@ma30.bull.com (Ken Buck)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Braking distances.
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:53:45 GMT
Reply-To: K.Buck@ma30.bull.com
Organization: Bull HN Information Systems Inc.
Originator: buck@granite.ma30.bull.com

In article <Bxv7nD.11q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.091605.4937@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:
>>actually, audis in general have very good brakes.
>
>That may be, but the best brakes in the world won't do any good when the
>car is undergoing an "unintended acceleration" at the same time you're
>trying to stop. ;-)

of course, that's true because in most/all of the "unintended acceleration"
cases, nobody was pressing on the brake pedal at all... :-)

but if you feel adventurous, try the following test
(though not with my car, thanks):
   step on both the brake pedal and the gas pedal as hard as you can.
the brakes should win every time.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (REAL LIFE?!?!  HA!!)
Subject: Re: Braking distances.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:38:20 GMT

judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:

>In article <1dnuorINNpin@bnsgd245.bnr.co.uk> drew@tcom.stc.co.uk (Scooby Doo)  
>writes:
>> 
>> Does anyone know ballpark figures for 30,50,70 mph? I know it
>> depends on car weight, tyre size etc....

>The general equation in feet is (mph^2)/10
>Thus, the breaking distance for 30 mph is 900 feet, for 50 it is 250 feet,
>and for 70 it is 490 feet.
>It is the proportional square law.

I think you made a mistake in there somewhere.  The proportional square law,
I believe, applies to the energy of the car, but you lost something in the
translation; cars can stop in much, much less space than you calculate there.
You either shifted a number or decimal point in there, or you're not taking
into account some important variable, but any car I've ever driven will get
better stopping distances than that.  That sounds more like rain-driving-on-
bald-tires distances to me...

Anybody out there?  I don't have a Road&Track in front of me :( so could some-
one post a few sample numbers?
-- 
Michael T. Chaffee        |******BOYCOTT COLORADO******|  ______    
mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu | Professional Slapthologist |  \    /     HATE
Member, Universal Life Church, Sect of Loons           |   \  /  can never be
Annoyance Theatre Platinum Member |     Evil Genius    |    \/  a FAMILY VALUE
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: shubu@green.cs.wisc.edu (Shubhendu Mukherjee)
Subject: Madison,Wisconsin->Cleveland,Ohio.
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:06:06 GMT


Madison,Wisconsin->Cleveland,Ohio.

Any information about how the route is - that is - is it safe to drive
5 miles above speed limit and is there anything special to watch out for?
 
I heard that in Ohio the cops are very strict about speed limit regulations.

Any input would be most appreciated.


Thanks.
-Shubu



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shubhendu Sekhar Mukherjee       University of Wisconsin @ Madison, C.Sc.
Net:shubu@cs.{wisc,utexas}.edu   [W]:(608) 262-1012   [H]:(608) 255-6322
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hovnania@iftccu.boeing.com (Paul Hovnanian)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: How To Drive the RIGHT way!
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:17:45 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

For all of the micro-cephallic (i.e. pinhead) morons who play games around my 
old truck, I made a silly little yellow sign (couldn't find one like this for
sale) that reads:


		       YIELD   
		    RIGHT-OF-WAY 
		  TO VEHICLES WITH 
		     NO BRAKES

It really seems to work, but I'm not looking forward to the first State Trooper
without a sense of humor!
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving w/ dome light on?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 18:52:08 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.202

bodie@plains (Justin M. Bodie) writes:
>DEVILBISS@OCTAVE.LARC.NASA.GOV (Spooner) writes:
>: Question:  Is it illegal to drive with your dome light on?  

>Nah.  Why would you want to drive with your dome light on, anyways?  I
>guess I switch it on while changing tapes, but never did it occur to me
>that it would be illegal.

>Well, don't be paranoid about it.  It can't be illegal, and I would sure
>like someone to pull me over for having my dome light on!

Hmm, that's not what my NH driver's manual said.

It's a bad idea in any case because it tends to make windows
reflective (just like it does to house windows at night), decreasing
outside visibility dramatically.  A car with a dark interior and
highly slanted windows is less susceptible to reflective problems than
your boxy 60's sedan with a tan dash, but it's still a problem.

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: smsriv@melkor.lerc.nasa.gov (Rakesh Srivastava)
Subject: Re: Laser tactics question (was Re: BEL XKR-VII Still Any Good?)
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:41:53 GMT

In article <23NOV199211405116@csa3.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
>> I also got a lidar detactor ( a recent report in Car & Driver suggests 
>> they may not be worth it but I figure I'd like to at least know they got 
>> me and weren't making up numbers)
>
>Has anybody on the net observed actual cops running laser, or better yet
>(in a relative sort of way :) been popped with it personally?  I've got
>an operating hypothesis, which may well be dashed with a ticket someday,
>that a laser cop would be pretty conspicuous to an attentive driver. It
>seems that he has to shoot you from a very shallow angle and that lining
>up the shot takes a few seconds.
>
>One glaring exception would be moving laser from an unmarked car behind 
>you (in which case the cop and his presumably calibrated speedometer 
>might well be able to pace you anyway).
>
>These are the reasons (above and beyond their apparent ineffectiveness)
>why I'm not inclined to buy a laser detector.  If the cops in my usual
>haunts were known to use lasers, that might change my mind.
>

One of the favourite ways of the cops with laser thatI have seen
here in Cleveland is to be up on the  overhead passes, such as road
bridges etc. and clock you as you go underneath it and come out
on the other side. They zap your behind. By the time you are able to
see the top of the bridge in your rearview mirror a motorcycle cop is
already hot on your tails. There are  a couple of such overpasses in
our neighborhood so I am extra careful in those areas. But for
unsuspecting drivers it is as good as money  in the city's bag.

Rakesh
smsriv@melkor.lerc.nasa.gov
>
>Happy motoring,
>--Joe
>"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"


Xref: sparky rec.autos.driving:6660 rec.autos:26893 rec.autos.tech:15480
From: drew@tcom.stc.co.uk (Scooby Doo)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Spark plug types....
Date: 16 Nov 1992 10:13:17 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London N11 1HB.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs200.bnr.co.uk

	I saw in our local moto-shops a kind of spark plug called
'Double-Copper'. It was claimed it could increase performance, lower
engine temperatures and make the car more fuel efficient with less
pollution....

	Anyone know if this is true...

	The plugs are made by CHAMPION...


Drew.

--
	UK : (081) 945 3726		| The car in front is a Toyota...
Drew	ESN : 6 730 3726	    	| But not for long!! 
Wagar	US : +44 81 945 3726	    	| 
	Internet : drew@bnr.co.uk	| GTi drivers do it faster!
From: linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving with parking lights only
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:27:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov23.192721.25299
Organization: NetCom- Cheaper than Compu$erve (isnt everything, though?)

In article <1227@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com> meb4593@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Michael Bain) writes:
>judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
>>Why do people insist on driving only with parking lights on when it is dusk?
>>Why don't they just turn on their headlights?  Beside the fact that it is
>
>Why does this bother you so much?  Do you really assume that a car is
>parked if only its "parking" lights are on?
>
>Here in the Pacific Northwest, it is quite common to drive with only
>the "parking" lights on.  Probably due to the cloudy conditions that
>make it appear to be dusk all day long.  In these conditions,
>headlights are obnoxious and blinding.  "Parking" lights provide much
>greater visibility to other drivers than no lights.  I run my "parking"
>lights as a *courtesy* to other drivers.

Actually, having the headlights on all the time tends to reduce accidents
(an even better 'courtesy' to other drivers). This has been shown by the
daytime headlight experiment on Hwy 126 in Southern CA.

-- 
Bruce James Robert Linley | "Well, I tried shoving a weiner in the warp drive,
Comp Sci & Engr, UCLA     |  but it didn't do a bit o' good."
<linley@netcom.com>       | - Star Dreck, c/o Dr. Demento
<linley@seas.ucla.edu>    |
From: neilw@informix.com (Neil Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: New gas sucks (flame)
Date: 23 Nov 92 01:32:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Nov21.052956.4276@netcom.com> linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>Am I alone in hating the new politically correct, oxygenated gasoline? It
>costs more. It lowers your MPG. And what does is do? Reduce emissions by 20%?
>What good does this do if you have to burn an additional 20% worth of gas to
>get the same number of miles out a tank? Somewhere I can see monkey suited
><insert oil company name here> executives laughing all the way to the bank.

My mileage has dropped about 10%.  Instead of a cruising range of 400
miles, I now have to fill up around 360.

If the emissions are reduced by 20% or more, then I'm more than happy
to pay an extra $.05/gallon year-round.

--Neil

-- 
Neil Williams: neilw@informix.com

Seen on my last trip on United: "If you are seated in an exit row 
and can not (sic) read this card... please notify a crew member."
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Braking distances.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:42:47 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Nov18.065333.3617@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:

>system.  in virtually all of the sudden acceleration claims, however,
>the brakes were found to be fully functional afterwards.
>and besides, audi wasn't the only car with lots of unintended acceleration
>complaints.  some other makes were mercedes, nissan, and acura.
>-teddy


What they finally managed to correlate it to was--- if you pressed the
brake and accelerator to the same LEVEL, and the car moved, there were
lots of unintended acceleration claims.  If pressing the pedals to the
same level resulted in no movement, there were few unintended
acceleration claims.

-- 
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: achar@ecn.purdue.edu 
Subject: Re: DRIVER'S RIGHTS
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:23:23 GMT

In article <4177.75.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us>, rick.cantu@cutting.hou.tx.us (Rick Cantu)  writes:
(Stuff about how to win in court...)

Should be borne in mind that whatever you have written applies ONLY if you 
havent done wrong in the first place. The law is there to bring a semblence
of order in this chaotic world. If you do something wrong, you should be 
punished. If on the other hand, if you are accused of something which you 
havent done, by all means fight to the finish. 

Achar.

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: jaa@hutcs.cs.hut.fi (Jari Alasuvanto)
Subject: Re: Braking distances.
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:56:04 GMT

In article <LOWRY.92Nov13112906@rotor.watson.ibm.com> lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.070620.19475@nntp.hut.fi> jaa@hutcs.cs.hut.fi (Jari Alasuvanto) writes:
> > Sorry, in a message I posted earlier I stated that the coefficient for 
> > friction is around 0.3 for dry road and good tires.
>
>It seems to me that friction between tires and road is the wrong thing
>to be looking at here, in trying to determine the deceleration during
>effective braking.  For that to be a factor, we're assuming the wheels
>are locked and the car is sliding along the surface.  Effective
>braking would instead have the tires rolling along the surface and the
>brake pads sliding along the disk or drum, right?  So isn't the
>friction we're concerned with the friction encountered by the brake
>pad?  (Of course, to determine the deceleration caused by that
>friction, we need to know how hard we can brake without causing the
>tires to lose their traction, and that *is* related to the friction
>between the tires and the road surface.  But assuming we're just
>teetering below that threshold, braking distance is determined by the
>deceleration caused by friction experienced by the brakes themselves,
>not the tires.)
>--

You are absolutely right.

But, the point is that the closer the braking force is to locking the tires,
the more effective the braking gets and therefore the friction between
road and tires gives you the best possible figures.  Actual figures are
dependent on the skills of the drivers etc.

Anyhow, I think that the friction between road and tires is more
important than the other friction as:
	1) It varies much more than the friction between the drums adn
	   brake pads.
	2) In most effective (actually safest - stearability) braking
	   these two factors should be as close as possible - i.e. ABS
	   locks the tires for a small fraction of time and when the
	   brakes are loosened a little and then reapplied again.
	   
Therefore, that coefficient gives you the best available
 approximate to which you must add sufficient marginals.

--
Jari Alasuvanto		 ! Mail: jaa@hutcs.hut.fi ! Otakaari 1 A
Lab. of Info Proc. Sci   ! Tel: +358-0-451 3245   ! 02150 Espoo
Helsinki Univ. of Techn  ! Fax: +358-0-451 3293   ! Finland
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: jimb@access.digex.com (Jim Brooking)
Subject: Re: How To Drive the RIGHT way!
Organization: National Commitee to Keep Slower Traffic Right
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:19:40 GMT

In article <1ee27uINNcpf@male.EBay.Sun.COM> zombie@redeye.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>Remember!  When parking, 'compact' means 'please park your '70s 
>Lincoln here!'.  This will prevent thieves from opening your 
>neighbor's car doors and stealing anything.  Your neighbors will
>thank you!

8^)  Good advice.

I've seen two idiots hit cars trying to put their '70s Lincoln into
too-small of a space...  (One car, in fact, WAS a '70s Lincoln. 8^)

...And hit another car in the attempt.

They both drove off (of course).  And I (of course) left the damaged
car's owner a nice note with license plate numbers and vehicle &
driver descriptions.  heh heh.

-- 
jimb@access.digex.com  | (Cage) 1991 323se     ZCP-710   |     Comus Road
Merry Land (MD) U.S.A. | (Bike) 1986 GSXR750    (sold)   |     ClarksBURG
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            [NXSig terminate:self]
From: pauls@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Paul Stafford)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:39:36 GMT
Subject: autocross info?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving

 I'm interested in finding out more about autocross and/or rallying. does
 anyone have any good books/magazines to point me to?
From: meb4593@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Michael Bain)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving with parking lights only
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:20:15 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
>Why do people insist on driving only with parking lights on when it is dusk?
>Why don't they just turn on their headlights?  Beside the fact that it is

Why does this bother you so much?  Do you really assume that a car is
parked if only its "parking" lights are on?

Here in the Pacific Northwest, it is quite common to drive with only
the "parking" lights on.  Probably due to the cloudy conditions that
make it appear to be dusk all day long.  In these conditions,
headlights are obnoxious and blinding.  "Parking" lights provide much
greater visibility to other drivers than no lights.  I run my "parking"
lights as a *courtesy* to other drivers.


-- 
Michael Bain                                            (206) 234-6942
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group           meb4593@icdfs.ca.boeing.com
Seattle, WA 98124
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: colombo@neal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Driving with parking lights only
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:28:22 GMT

In article <24042@galaxy.ucr.edu>, judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:
> Why do people insist on driving only with parking lights on when it is dusk?
> Why don't they just turn on their headlights?  Beside the fact that it is
> illegal in many states, it doesn't make it that much easier to see the car.
> Do people think that they are saving their headlights by only turning on
> their parking lights when it is dusk?  Furthermore, they are called parking
> lights and as such should be used for that purpose, not for driving.  Just
> turn those damn headlights on!!!
> 

(Did I mention this already, I mean this year? ;-)

Parking lights haven't been put on cars since before WWII.  My car has
*running lights* on it and when I lived in Connecticut, I was required
by law to use them during dusk/dawn hours, no not for parking, for driving.

-- 
 ___________________________________________________________________________
 *****  *   *  From the e-net desk of: Rick Colombo CD/DCD/DSG    *    *
 *      **  *  Fermi Nat'l Acc'l Lab   708-840-8225 Fermilab     * *   *
 ***    * * *  P.O. Box 500   MS 369   Feynman Computer Center  *****  *
 *      *  **  Batavia, Ill. USA 60510 Colombo@fnal.fnal.gov    *   *  *****
 *     Of course I speak for Fermilab, Congress and the President... NOT !!!
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving with parking lights only
Date: 20 Nov 1992 14:58 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Those people don't bother me nearly as much as the ones who drive
in the false light of dawn and dusk, or in otherwise marginal
visibility, with no lights whatsoever.  As my wife puts it, they're
saving their lights for the trade-in value.  I've just grown inured
to a blatting horn and screeching tires being the first hint that
there's somebody else out there in the murk.

Joe "Or maybe they're trying to save gas by not burdening the alternator" Chew