HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:07:20 GMT

In article <26309@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
|> In rec.autos.driving, nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
|> >In article <23576@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, kemasa@ghost.hac.com (Kemasa) writes:
|> >|> Why does it seem strange that Perot complained that the government was
|> >|> wasting money and then he goes on to say that we should INCREASE taxes?
|> 
|> >You noticed that too?  I'm just waiting too see what he says about that.
|> 
|> Because the debt needs to be paid also. Is this so hard to recognize?
|> 
|> 
|> 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.

What the heck, I'll respond.  This idea of increasing taxes to pay off the
debt has been going on for years and years.  We give them an extra dollar.
They spend an extra dollar and twenty cents.  How long do you keep giving
them a dollar if that's all they do?  They've had thier chance to spend
responsibly.   Let them prove to use that they can spend within the limits
before we think about giving them another tax increase.  People are fed
up and don't enjoy the thought of having more taxes taken without any
indication that they will be doing any good.  I say we throw the tea into
the bay.
From: aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Does This Law Make Sense
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:28:32 GMT
Organization: Helen Keller Bondurant's Performance Driving School for the Blind

In article <louislam.718657923@vincent2.iastate.edu> louislam@iastate.edu (Louis C Lam) writes:
>My friend, who lives in California, told me that Californians are allowed
>to put their guns in the glove box, as long as the gun is not loaded.  

WRONG.  PC 12026.1.

>A gun is not loaded until the magazine is all the way in the gun, and the
>bullets can be shot.  This means that if you insert the magazine *almost*
>all the way, your gun is still not loaded.

Under CA law, WRONG.  See PC 171e.

>Louis

I hope your friend doesn't do the above, for everybody's sake.

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

  Smith and Wesson: the Ultimate Point-and-Click User Interface.
From: rhaar@albert.cs.gmr.com (Bob Haar)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:10:49 GMT
Reply-To: rhaar@albert.cs.gmr.com
Organization: G.M. Research and Environmental Staff

In article 26473@porthos.cc.bellcore.com,  whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
|>In article <1992Oct6.214412.2415@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
|>
|>>That's the only thing that I find good. Many studies suggest that 10% of cars
|>>are responsible for 50% of pollution. But, just like insurance,
|>>you'll end up with people who drive without the proper emissions equipment.

I have seen studies that say the oldest 10% of the cars emit
90% of the regulated pollutants. That has been used as an
agruement for various proposals to either buy up or regulate
out of existance older cars.

|>>When I was in Detroit, people below a certain income and cars older
|>>than X years were excempt from emissions... 
|>
|>Then Detroit is definetly a socialist heaven.  The NJ emmissions standards
|>are exempt for no one.  The standards are graduated for the age of the car
|>(ie. a 1968 vehicle which never had the emissions equipment or
|>design to enable it to meet 1980 levels is not required to meet those
|>1980 levels.)  However, every car that is licensed for daily use 
|>must go through inspection which includes emissions testing.


I can add some here. Spiros is currently in Indiana, but used to 
live and work here.

In Michigan, only cars registered in non-compliance areas have to
go through the annual emissions test, but this may change. Right now,
that covers only a couple of counties - small area but most of the
population.

People who are on welfare can have their cars exempted.

Cars are held to the emissions standards for thier manufacture date,
except that cars older than 8 years don't have to be tested. There
is talk of bumping this cutoff up one each year. 

There are also exemptions for diesel or electric conversions and
probably some others.

But the bottom line is that most cars must be inspected annually.

However, there is also a limit to how much you have to spend t
fix up a car that fails the test.

Recently, the state government has been trying out a device that
measures emisisons as a car drives by, using an infra-red beam.
I don't beleive that the current laws allow them to force
compliance, but they have been stopping cars and asking them to
"voluntarily" have a tailpipe sniffer test on the spot. Of 
course, if you don't volunteer, they may find something else
to ticket you for.


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


Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:39:22 GMT


In article <1992Oct7.155756.8653@dg-rtp.dg.com> goudreau@batman.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes:
>
>Regardless of how you feel about the proposed higher tax, or about
>social engineering, or about the deficit, etc., bear in mind the
>following:
>
>Ten years or so ago, Americans *were* paying over $1.50/gallon (in
>1992 dollars) for their gas.  Any arguments that Perot's $0.50/gallon
>increase would Revitalize Our Cities, Break the Backs of the Poor,
>Destroy the Automotive Industry, End Our American Way of Life, etc.,
>are thus simply not very plausible.

BINGO!

An elegant observation, my friend.

Gas prices were, indeed, that high. And they will be again. Whether the
hike is the result of OPEC greed or a tax on gasoline, the effect on the
working poor will be exactly the same. They WILL deal with it, and
survive.
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:01:28 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1bbud0INNfe2@spool.mu.edu> jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson) writes:
>>Although a $.50 gas tax is quite high, it is not too unreasonable.  Look at
>>Europe, they pay about $4.00 - $5.00 per gallon.
>
>I haven't really formed an opinion one way or another on the issue, but it is
>important to note that the .50 is cumulative after five years.  (ie. a dime the
>first year, twenty cents the next, etc.)  This makes it even cheaper.
>-- 
>Jason Hanson         |   915 W. Wisconsin Ave #1010   |     (414) 288-2179
>Marquette University |   Milwaukee, WI 53233-2373     |     Ham Radio: N9LEA
>--  jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu       ==+==         2ai6hansonj@vms.csd.mu.edu  --  
it is important to note that this tax is regressive and sucks.  there is no
reason why people who use gas should have to pay 50% more for fuel to fund
wasteful government spending in other areas.  cut spending...period.  i am sick
of being taxed!!!!
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:06:29 GMT

In article <Bvt1xn.CBq@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
|> 
|> In article <1992Oct7.155756.8653@dg-rtp.dg.com> goudreau@batman.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes:
|> >
|> >Regardless of how you feel about the proposed higher tax, or about
|> >social engineering, or about the deficit, etc., bear in mind the
|> >following:
|> >
|> >Ten years or so ago, Americans *were* paying over $1.50/gallon (in
|> >1992 dollars) for their gas.  Any arguments that Perot's $0.50/gallon
|> >increase would Revitalize Our Cities, Break the Backs of the Poor,
|> >Destroy the Automotive Industry, End Our American Way of Life, etc.,
|> >are thus simply not very plausible.
|> 
|> BINGO!
|> 
|> An elegant observation, my friend.
|> 
|> Gas prices were, indeed, that high. And they will be again. Whether the
|> hike is the result of OPEC greed or a tax on gasoline, the effect on the
|> working poor will be exactly the same. They WILL deal with it, and
|> survive.
|> 

Ok, we've been arguing about how well the poor would survive a $0.50 increase
in the gas tax.  My origional complaint did involve this argument, but
was oriented toward something else.  Is it right?  Taxing gas (a regressive
tax, many will argue) to pay off the deficit?  What has gas got to do with
the deficit?  Not much (it has a lot to do with roadways, transportation,
and enviornmental concerns).  Just because it's artifically inflated in
other countries is no reason to inflate it here.

If you're gonna take more money from us for something like the deficit, be
straightforward about it and pull it from income tax.
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: solution to deficits
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:49:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <bob1.718915339@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>Driving to work today [and from observations of the last 9
>years], it occured to me that a solution to State and Federal
>deficits, well a partial solution, would be to stop wasting
>all that money painting white and yellow lines on the roads.
>
>Few, if any, drivers here in the DC area pay any attention
>to them. What is the observation in other areas?
>
>Bob.

While they're at it, they could just do away with traffic
lights... Everyone around here (DC) just blows them anyhow.

Seriously, though... I wonder how much would be saved or lost
by lifting HOV restrictions. I would think there would be less
pollution, because people would get there quicker, but I'm
just guessing about that...

Plus, all the money they spend enforcing HOV could be spent on
something worthwhile (or are they making money off of it?).

-- Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions - not my employer's
Xref: sparky rec.autos.driving:6001 sci.physics:16204
From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LIDAR workings (was Re: Laser Jammer Sighting?)
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:54:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: vice.10507
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <1992Oct7.001945.17192@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder) writes:

>Ever since I heard about the laser speed-measuring unit, I have wondered how
>it worked.  As described on our local evening news, the police shine a
>single laser beam onto the car, and it reflects back to the unit [?]
>How is that?  Surely most/all surfaces of the car are not angled such
>as to give reflection straight back to the unit, and I would imagine
>that the laser is a fairly narrow beam.  So, how does it work?

Probably the same way any spotlight works.  Remember the car is not
a perfect mirror, some light is scattered in all directions.  This
misunderstanding is probably the result of the sloppy way we use
words in normal conversation (and the news media).  In scientific
terms the laser beam is scattered and part of it returns to the
unit.
From: essbaum@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Alexander Essbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: 9 Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:15:36 GMT
Organization: IBM Rochester
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <1992Oct13.144209.28030@schbbs.mot.com>, W10572@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Timothy Palka) writes:
|> ------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
|> In article <Bvt1xG.CAw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:

|> And when things got realy bad you wrote home for more money

and your parents say "why are you asking us?  you know we'd give you some
if we could..."

so you work ~40 hours/week all through school (undergrad).

not saying i was as bad off as was mentioned, but it's another perspective.
do school work and be super poor vs. be marginally poor but work more than
full time AND major in computer engineering :(.

axel
From: vandeweg@bbn.com (Mike Vande Weghe)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Radar Detectors in Conn.
Date: 9 Oct 1992 18:53:43 GMT
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

aefron@cornerstone.com (Andrew Efron) writes:

>In article <586@arrl.org>, bdicosim%arrlhq.UUCP@uhasun.hartford.edu (Bridget 
>DiCosimo) writes:

>> Read in the paper yesterday that Radar Detectors are now LEGAL in
>> Connecticut.  
>> 
>> Go figure?!?  Now that the cops are using Laser Detection of
>> course radar would be legal.  Although I think I will get myself
>> a radar detector because not ALL police stations are using the
>> laser yet.  
>> 
>> - Bridget
>> 
>> Bridget F. DiCosimo
>> Technical Department Secretary
>> -------------------------------
>> The American Radio Relay League (ARRL)
>> 225 Main Street
>> Newington, CT  06111     U.S.A.

>Is this true?  And is Connecticut now being overrun with Laser?  This would 
>be a _serious_ bummer for those of us who make frequent runs down I-84...

>Andy

Well, the part about detectors being legal seems to be true.  On my
trip down I-84 last weekend I noticed that the characteristic signs at
each border (CT/MA and CT/NY) had been changed to exclude any mention
of radar detectors.  I also heard from a friend that the law had been
repealed. 

As far as the radar goes, I was hit by regular ol' radar just past
Danbury going northbound.  My detector lit up and I slowed down
to 65mph just in time to pass two unmarked Ford LTD's sitting over on
the right shoulder on a bend.  It was late, too - probably about 11pm
on Monday night.  If they _had_ been using LIDAR, I probably wouldn't
have had much of a chance.

  -mike
From: jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 12 Oct 1992 13:25:52 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

>Although a $.50 gas tax is quite high, it is not too unreasonable.  Look at
>Europe, they pay about $4.00 - $5.00 per gallon.

I haven't really formed an opinion one way or another on the issue, but it is
important to note that the .50 is cumulative after five years.  (ie. a dime the
first year, twenty cents the next, etc.)  This makes it even cheaper.
-- 
Jason Hanson         |   915 W. Wisconsin Ave #1010   |     (414) 288-2179
Marquette University |   Milwaukee, WI 53233-2373     |     Ham Radio: N9LEA
--  jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu       ==+==         2ai6hansonj@vms.csd.mu.edu  --  
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang)
Subject: Re: Right turn on red
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 07:21:48 GMT

In article <> jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson) writes:
>In article <673@dwp.la.ca.us> tim@manta.dwp.la.ca.us writes:
>>A quick question.  Is it legal to make a right turn on red from the lane
>>next to the right lane when it is designated for a right turn?????
>>I can't believe it is legal yet EVERYBODY in LA does it.  Am I wrong?
>
>It is illegal in Wisconsin to make a right turn on red from any lane other than
>the one closest to the curb.

I've been wondering that about Washington State, too.  The reason it's
illegal in California (and, presumably, Wisconsin) is that to turn
right from a lane other than the curb lane requires moving THROUGH a
lane of left-to-right oncoming green-light traffic.  That's considered
an unwise maneuver.  I'd tend to agree.

Unfortunately, the University of Washington turnoff from I5N (NE 45th St)
has exactly such a situation.  It's exacerbated by the fact that the
offramp actually merges into 7th Ave NE before the right turn.  Clearly
posted is a "DO NOT CHANGE LANES" sign, but almost all the offramp
users switch off to the right lane.  Idiots.  (can you tell I used to
live on 7th?)

Of course, I wonder about Washington State's laws because you're
ALLOWED to turn LEFT after a stop, from a TWO-WAY street onto a one-way
street!  The problem?  Many drivers don't turn into the closest lane.
So if you have right-on-red turning into the curb lane, and the
left-on-red in the other direction turning into the... curb lane...
WHAMMO...

(also, what if the one-way street only HAS one lane?)

-- 
Donald Tsang                    "Ho!  Haha!  Guard!  Turn!  Parry!  Dodge!
tsang@june.cs.washington.edu     Spin!  Ha!  Thrust!"
..!uw-beaver!june!tsang                       -- Robin Hood Daffy
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: gcagle@dracula.mentorg.com (Greg Cagle)
Subject: Re: ERROR filled ticket? Any case?
Originator: gcagle@dracula
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 15:32:13 GMT
Organization: Mentor Graphics 
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 


In article <1992Oct6.194737.1@sscvx1.ssc.gov>, schludermann@sscvx1.ssc.gov writes:
|> 
|>   How acurately does the trooper have to fill out the speeding ticket? I my
|> case my name is spelled wrong, wrong type of car (I drive a pickup and filled
|> in 2drhdtp), weather was wrong (foggy not cloudy) and the mile marker on the
|> ticket is ten miles before where I stood.
|>                                  Kris

One thing you might want to consider is whether any of the information
directly related to the offense is wrong. I believe you may have
a good case if the speed limit is different at the mile marker the
trooper wrote down, because then the basic facts of the offense are
wrong.

- Greg
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Cagle                                      Mentor Graphics Corporation
greg_cagle@mentorg.com                         Platform Technology Division
(503)685-1570                                  Member of the Cultural Elite
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: klin@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Y. Kevin Lin)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Stubborn Cyclists
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:34:44 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Oct6.030058.11632@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:

>  Here's my problem: I drive to school every day. The road is full of cars
>wall-to-wall. I usually keep right because the left lane jams up when 
>somebody makes a left turn. There is a bike trail not 10 meters (30 feet)
>to the right of the road. These cyclists with their wide-handlebar mountain
>bikes are scary because one of them has to just make a sudden move and he's
>under my 245/50/VR16's.
>
>  Am I the only one who bitches about bikers not using bike trails?

How about what I have to put up with in NYC and Philadelphia:

Traffic going nuts in downtown during mid-day.  Then you got psychos
zipping around in roller-blades.  That's right, crazy idiots cruising
in all directions (right or wrong) on the road, not sidewalk, on roller-
blades!  Half of them don't even know how to skate!

Even though bikers are slow, at least them can 1) keep a straight line,
2) go in the same direction with traffic, and 3) not fall down right
in front of you (hopefully).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usual disclaimers apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos
From: tflynn@encore.com (Tonya Flynn)
Subject: Re: (Defeating) The Club
Organization: Encore Computer Corp., Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:07:07 GMT

In article <1ag2g6INN3i2@spool.mu.edu> jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson) writes:
>>   It'll probably defeat the casual joy rider, and cause the serious
>>car thief to look elsewhere if you have a common model, but if a
>>serious thief wants YOUR car, forget it.
>
>Well, it would take a pretty stupid thief to steal an Isuzu IMark... :)

Or a 1984 Pontiac Grand Prix but it seems that there is a market for
anything and everything.  They might have been stupid but they got
the new radio, the new battery and the T-Tops.  I think they'll be
surprised when they find the T-Tops don't fit any other vehicle as
they were custom made.
From: aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Does This Law Make Sense
Date: 13 Oct 92 03:20:10 GMT
Organization: Helen Keller Bondurant's Performance Driving School for the Blind

In article <1992Oct8.194317.3609@photon.com> jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman) writes:
>
>According to California law (and probably the laws of many other states),
>to transport a firearm it must be in a locked compartment, i.e., the
>trunk of a car.
>
>I've been trying to find out how one can legally transport a firearm in
>a station wagon which has no locked trunk.  

The preferred method is to have a locking gun case (for handguns, kinda
like a locking toolbox... or just use a locking toolbox, for that matter).
Just put it in the back, out of reach.

>                                            An NRA instructor told me
>that if the gun is on the seat in plain view, it is not concealed, and
>it's legal to transport it that way if the gun is unloaded.

This appears to be a loophole in the law.  If stopped, I'd *strongly* 
recommend that you keep both hands on the wheel, specifically indicate the
presence of the weapon to the officer, and comply with any special instructions
(please, no Constitutional arguments).  An officer could be spooked by
any other behavior.

>Does this make sense:  if I have the gun wrapped and I can't easily get
>to it, it's illegal, but if I have the gun where I can get to it, it's
>legal.

To me, yes.  Realize that we are speaking strictly of *unloaded* guns;
loaded guns (ahem) trigger other laws.

>Joe Naiman


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

  Smith and Wesson: the Ultimate Point-and-Click User Interface.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: louislam@iastate.edu (Louis C Lam)
Subject: Re: Does This Law Make Sense
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:12:03 GMT

In <1992Oct8.194317.3609@photon.com> jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman) writes:


>According to California law (and probably the laws of many other states),
>to transport a firearm it must be in a locked compartment, i.e., the
>trunk of a car.

>I've been trying to find out how one can legally transport a firearm in
>a station wagon which has no locked trunk.  An NRA instructor told me
>that if the gun is on the seat in plain view, it is not concealed, and
>it's legal to transport it that way if the gun is unloaded.

>Does this make sense:  if I have the gun wrapped and I can't easily get
>to it, it's illegal, but if I have the gun where I can get to it, it's
>legal.

>Joe Naiman


My friend, who lives in California, told me that Californians are allowed
to put their guns in the glove box, as long as the gun is not loaded.  

A gun is not loaded until the magazine is all the way in the gun, and the
bullets can be shot.  This means that if you insert the magazine *almost*
all the way, your gun is still not loaded.

Imagine how long would it take to pull an "unloaded" gun from the glove box,
snap the magazine in, and fire!  I estimated that this should take less 
than 5 seconds.

Louis



Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving