HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: What are some common myths about driving?
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 23:46:00 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <BzqGox.Ix4@news.iastate.edu> oyalcin@iastate.edu (Onur Yalcin) writes:

>Actually, the doors are recommended to be *unlocked* during travel, so that in 
>case of an emergency (driver and passangers unconscious after a crash), people 
>would be able to open them from outside as quick as possible.
>
>Some cars actually have a mechanism that pops the door locks open during a 
>crash.

Now all they need is a mechanism to keep the roof sheet metal from
jamming the doors during a rollover....

-- 
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: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: What are some common myths about driving?
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:28:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>One most common that I know is the belief that the doors should be locked 
>during travel. This is as much wrong a belief as it is widespread. 
>Actually, the doors are recommended to be *unlocked* during travel, so that in 
>case of an emergency (driver and passangers unconscious after a crash), people 
>would be able to open them from outside as quick as possible.

It used to be taught in some circles that doors should be locked to make
them less likely to pop open, which would increase the risk of ejection.  
That was back when safety standards were virtually nonexistent and the
shoulder harness in particular had not appeared on the street scene.

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
From: rpalmer@Think.COM (Ralph Palmer)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: $1500 used car suggestions
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:52:24 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: basie.think.com


I'm looking for advice on makes/models to buy or avoid for $1500.
This will be a second family car for shopping and errands.
The $1500 limit is because I don't want to carry collision/theft
insurance on this car.  I'm open to all suggestion.  Here is a
list of features that I need, want or dont give a damn about:

Need:
	4 doors because kids and car seats
	reasonably reliable
	cheap part availability
Want:
	wagon or hatchback style
	automatic tranny because my wife can't drive a stick
Don't Care:
	looks, dents
	gas milage
	0-60 performance, handling
	fancy stuff, power, ac, 4WD, ect.

I was giving serious consideration to an 86-87 Ford Escort Wagon
until I read that Consumer Reports rated it a "stay away from" car.
I don't put much faith in CR, but a "stay away" rating gives me the willies.
Other models concidered are the Dodge Aries Wagon (K-car wagon) and 
1985 Ford LTD wagon (6 cylinder, mid size).  All in all I'm more inclined
to get an 86 Escort with '80K miles rather than a 72 Volvo with 200K. 
Feel free to flame or send me suggestions.

					Thanks,
					Ralph Palmer
					rpalmer@think.com	
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian J Queiser)
Subject: Re: Impact is DEAD [was: Electric Vehicles]
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:09:01 GMT

gpn0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (GARY PHILIP NEWHART) writes:
>bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian J Queiser) writes:

>>Not that I'm upset about the whole thing; long live the internal
>>combustion engine!
>>
>>Flame away, eco-freaks!  Electric cars aren't gonna solve the problems,
>>just make some tree-huggers feel good about themselves.

>And what do you suggest, oh wise one? Do you own stock in the petroleum
>industry? Let me guess, this green house gas and pollution of the atmosphere,
>and not to mention increase lung disease is a phenomenon not attributed to
>the internal combution engine? Are you kidding?
>
>Not a tree hugger, just trying to content with reality


I suggest cleaner burning 4-strokes and 2-strokes.
I suggest public transportation, particularly rapid trains (possibly electric).
I suggest voluntarily removing the old beaters from the road (cash for
     clunkers!).
I suggest cleaning up our power and industrial plants a bit more.
I suggest better roads that allow free flowing traffic in cities.

Most of these items aren't very original and many are already underway,
but they're all better than EVs right now, IMHO.

I don't own stock in the petroleum industry.  Today's engines are nowhere near
the polluters that the old engines were that did the greatest harm.  You
can't be forgetting that EVs won't negate the past?  What's done is done.
EVs rely on power plants and transmission lines and transfer stations and
batteries and so on and so on until they are hardly advantageous over our
cleaner burning internal combustion engines.  Plus, from what I've read,
even mass-produced versions using today's technology can't live up to the
average person's demands/expectations for comfort, utility, performance,
and/or safety at a reasonable cost.  Is that a step forward?  At what price?

There are people that believe in EVs no matter what the price.  They are
the true "eco-freaks," blinded by some passionate fixation to save the
planet at any cost.  I'm sorry for being so inflammatory, but my comments
weren't necessarily aimed at this audience.

I separate and recycle whatever I can.  I'm not opposed to buying a car
with non-CFC A/C.  I try to save gas.  I turn down my heat at night and
when I'm not home.  My wife and I car pool.  There's more, but who cares?

These things make sense to me.  They don't have some negative side-effect.
I don't have to go extremely out of my way or sacrifice some luxury.
They don't cost me anything; in fact, usually I save money.

Right now, EVs don't fit this bill, IMHO; when they do, I'll reconsider.

Regards,

Brian

bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am the engineer, I can choose K.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Engineering Mechanics
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
From: erich.lim@cutting.hou.tx.us (Erich Lim) 
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: RE: BOUGHT A 93 CIVIC LX
Date: 27 Dec 92 13:30:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525
Reply-To: erich.lim@cutting.hou.tx.us (Erich Lim) 

-> In rec.autos, qazi@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Aamir Hafeez Qazi) writes:
-> [civic stuff deleted]
->
->   --And, on top of it all, you could have bought a superior car from
-> a dealer
->     that is DYING to sell you a Legacy for $12,000, instead of
-> dealing with
->     a bunch of snotty Honda salespeople that you have to wrestle with
-> to get
->     the Civic for $12,000.

AND leonglaw@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Lawrence Leong) writes:

-> don't know about the soob (haven't driven one yet), but fully agree
-> about the honda dealers.  over here, no test drive until you've paid
-> up and signed the papers (then you can test drive it all you want
-> :-)).  you wanna test the car b4 buying?  sure, we'll start it up and
-> you can listen to the smooth idle. needless to say, i walked.

  Yeah, that sounds like the usual Honda dealers.  I've had mixed
experiences, it all depends on who's the manager, owner, etc..  Some
Honda dealers will jump on you as soon as you walk through the door and
nag you to buy their car while other's are much more relaxed about it.
This works for any car company.  But, I would have to sincerely say that
Honda dealers on the average, act quite snooby, thinking that they are
selling BMW's, Jaguar's, or something like that.  And now this leads me
to have to say something about the Bimmer dealers being stuck up.  Some
are and some aren't.  But heck, they have a reason to, they are selling
a premier car, not a Honda!!  As for the Acura dealers, I've had much
better experience with them compared to the Honda dealers.  I think
Honda needs to take a some lessons from Acura (even though Honda is the
owner of Acura!).


Erich.
Internet add: erich.lim@cutting.hou.tx.us
                        --OR--
              erich.lim@yob.sccsi.com
                       
----
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The Cutting Edge BBS (cutting.hou.tx.us)    A PCBoard 14.5a system  |
| Houston, Texas, USA    +1 713 466 1525          running uuPCB       |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky rec.autos:30615 rec.autos.tech:17195
From: carl@Cayman.COM (Carl Heinzl)
Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Car Insurance
Date: 28 Dec 92 21:43:22 GMT
	<BzpwKL.104@news.udel.edu> <1992Dec23.204437.2224@gvl.unisys.com>
Followup-To: rec.autos
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: yavo@sdosrv1.gvl.unisys.com's message of 23 Dec 92 20:44:37 GMT


>>Last time I checked, uninsured coverage is required by law in all states.  
                      ^^^^^^^^^                                ^^^
>Wrong!!!!

>You can reject this coverage in Pennsylvania, at least.

I don't think that you need *any* insurance in New Hampshire...

-Carl-
--
From: hm002b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (PRIMUS SUCKS!)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Car Phones
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:54:29 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Dec23.213105.14418@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> sharen@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Sharen A. Rund) writes:
>In article <78776@hydra.gatech.EDU> ph279sw@prism.gatech.EDU (FR Siqing WEI) writes:
>>In article 91468,  Goudreau wrote:
>>
>>|In any case, do you *never* look away from the road when driving, even
>>|for an instant?  If never, then how do you deal with, say, turning on
>>|the defroster in an unfamiliar car (borrowed, rented, etc.)?
>>|
>>
>>Now wait a second, the way to argue a point is not to try:
>>
>>I got away once, hence I can get away ALWAYS!
>>
>>Using your logic, can we say this:
>>
>>Some people manage to put their make-up while driving, 
>>hence it is a safe practice to put make-up while driving?!
>>(or you prefer, read newspaper, or whatever your favorate
>>activities).
>>
>>The point is: permitting more distractions to the driver is
>>(and will never) be a safe practice!
>>
>>Wei
>
>I agree, I am against most drivers putting on make-up, reading
>the newspaper, shaving, styling their hair (and continuously 
>combing and/or brushing it - both male & female), carrying on
>conversations with passengers that take your eyes off the road,
>sightseers/rubber-neckers/etc, people who have to entertain
>their babies/children.....while driving

The difference is that using a car phone DOES NOT require any more attention
than listening to the radio does. You do not have to look at the phone to
use it. When you shave you need to look in the mirror, at least I need to.
When I read a newspaper I have to look at it, and when I brush my hair I
need to look at at. All of these activites tie up your hands and your eyes
using a carphone only ties up your ears which do very little while you are
driving.  
>
>the majority of us don't live in rural, unpopulated areas, we
>live in metropolitan areas that have a lot of people trying to
>get from one place to another - with this, plus the cars we have
>today, there's no room for people who don't take driving seriously,
>driving is not a game or a right, it is a privilege, and no one 
>owns the road (although a lot of people tend to think they do)
>we all owe it to each other to be the best driver we can be, and
>if talking on a car phone, or anything else, that can/may distract
>you, then don't do it

Using your logic:

Using the radio can and does distract every once in a while. I guess I
should only use my radio (or CD player) while I am on the side of the road?
Same with my heater and so on.....																											  

Actually we all own the roads, where do you think all that tax money goes? I
don't owe anyone, "that I should be the best driver I can be". I just owe the
public at large that I be a SAFE driver and I can be a safe driver while
using a car phone.

PS
From: clone@west.darkside.com (Clone)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: the club and airbags
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:48:08 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

has anyone heard of or seen what an airbag will do if the car owner has a 
club anti-theft device on the wheel? Just wonderin...Jason.
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: jdawson@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan A Dawson)
Subject: Question about a radar detector I own.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:12:29 GMT

I received a radar detector for Christmas, and it doesn't seem to be acting
correctly and I was wondering if anyone has any experience with this type or
if anyone knows anything about them.

The detector is a Fuzzbuster RD-311 Wide 3-Band radar detector.  The problem
that I have with it is that it takes literally 20-30 MINUTES for the thing to
get into detection mode and all of the time before that it just continually 
beeps and makes a racket.  After the "warmup" it seems to be o.k., it's just 
that this amount of time is too long for my driving duration (i.e. I'm almost
at work by the time it's ready to go).  The manual says that it goes through
some diagnostics when you first power it up, but fails to say how long this
takes.  Could all of this junk be diagnostics that it's doing at the beginning?

Any help, comments or opinions would be much appreciated, since I need to know
if I should exchange it for a new one or just give up on this type and get a
different kind.

Thanks,

-- 
Jonathan Dawson
jdawson@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Standard Disclaimers don't apply...........!!
If you think I offended you...TOUGH!!!!  You infered what I didn't imply!
From: hm002b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (PRIMUS SUCKS!)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Bought a 93 Civic LX 4-door....(long post)
Date: 27 Dec 92 03:00:41 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <53060113@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com> leonglaw@hpsgm2.sgp.hp.com (Lawrence LEONG) writes:
>In rec.autos, qazi@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Aamir Hafeez Qazi) writes:
>
>[civic stuff deleted]
>
>    --And, on top of it all, you could have bought a superior car from a dealer
>      that is DYING to sell you a Legacy for $12,000, instead of dealing with
>      a bunch of snotty Honda salespeople that you have to wrestle with to get
>      the Civic for $12,000.
>
>don't know about the soob (haven't driven one yet), but fully agree about the
>honda dealers.  over here, no test drive until you've paid up and signed the
>papers (then you can test drive it all you want :-)).  you wanna test the car 
>b4 buying?  sure, we'll start it up and you can listen to the smooth idle.  
>needless to say, i walked.
>
>lawrence

Hmmm I dunno about your experience but when we walked into a local Honda
showroom we were greeted nicely and then promptly taken on a test drive.
After we showed the salesman that we were serious he got the manager and we
started dealing we said we needed a little more time. They said take the car
home and show it to the rest of the family and we did. Of course everyone
loved the car so we ended up buying it that day, but I think they went out
of their way to get our sale. My experience with CERTAIN honda dealerships
has been excellent, others have been down right shitty I guess you just
gotta search for the right dealer to buy from.
PS
 
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: walsh@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Edward E Walsh)
Subject: Re: RADAR DETECTOR
Reply-To: walsh@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Edward E Walsh)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:51:27 GMT


I just purchased a Passport 3110 from Damark, a mail order outfit.
The price is $150 (about $30 less than Escort sell it for)
with free Fedex shipping.  

I called Escort before I purchased it.  The sale guy said it has the same
circuitry as Passport 3200 and 3100.  Its X and K band also has the same
circuitry as Cincinnati Microwave's "Escort", which I also owned.  For those
who don't know, the company "Escort" is now a division of Cincinnati 
Microwave, Inc.

Anyway, I tried both my Escort and Passport 3110 (on X and K band mode only).
The Escort consistently outperformed Passport 3110 by about 1-2 seconds 
travelling at about 40 MPH.  I didn't see a significant change in timing when
the Passport was operating at 3-band mode (of course, I was comparing the
respond time differences for X and K bands only).  I looked through the 
specs for both models and found the followings in the sensitivity section:

	Escort		Passport 3110
X Band  -121dBm/cm^2	-113
K Band  -114            -107
Ka        n/a           -92

For the radar gurus on the net, are the sensitivity figures a good measure
of performance for radar detectors?  What other factors are there?

BTW, does anyone on the net own a laser radar detector?  Please share your
view.  Does anyone have rating for laser radar detectors?  

I am in no way affliated with Damark, but if you are interested, 
Damark's number is 1-800-827-6767, 24 hours a day, 
the item number for Passport 3110 is B-7990-315803.  

Gower Tang


Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Mike S.)
Subject: Re: CB Walkie-Talkie
Organization: BITS, St. Louis, MO
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:08:54 GMT

walsh@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Edward E Walsh) writes:

>I want to buy a 40 Channel CB Walkie-Talkie that could also be used in
>a car.  Can anyone give me recommendations on any brand/model and features?
>Are there any mail-order outfits?  Radio Shack has this model TRC-222 on sale
>for $70.  However, it only has 2.5 watt RF output.  Is this sufficient? 
>Has anyone heard of a brand called "Mid Land"?  Is it a reputable brand?
>Any info is greatly appreciated.

I have one of the Radio Shack models (it might even be this one).
The only major problem I have with it is when powered through
a cigarette lighter with the engine on, you get A LOT of static.
So much so that it is unusable in this situation.

Mike
-- 
mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
From: Harv@cup.portal.com (Harv R Laser)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: CB Walkie-Talkie
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 18:56:41 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa


>> To wrap this tale up, when we got back to his car to wait for
>> the AAA truck, there were 3 or 4 other cars behind his, all with
>> flat tires, all from having hit the same ladder. 
>> 
>> Harv
>
>Why didn't you move the ladder?
>
>--
>--
>  John Steczkowski                        stecz@pencom.com

the ladder was in the fast lane of a section of the freeway which
was surrounded on both sides by those 4 foot high temporary concrete
berms used at freeway construction sites. Neither of us was wiling
to risk our lives to traverse the berms and retrieve the ladder,
at night, in medium freeway traffic, on a road which was wet from
melting snow. Would you?

The Nevada Hwy Patrol later had to run a traffic break to 
get the ladder off the road. The company who owned the ladder
was tracked down and they were cited for not having it fastened
securely to their truck, so I learned from my friend in Reno later.

Parenthetically, just yesterday a woman in So Calif was killed 
as she ran across four lanes of freeway to get back to her broken-down
car, after she had run across the same four lanes from her car 
(which was in the median) to a call box at the other side of the road.
The CHP advises drivers whose cars break down on the far side of the
lanes away from call boxes to stay with their cars and not attempt
to run across the lanes, even in what one might perceive as the
lightest of traffic. Prudent advice, I'd say.

Harv
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: pacyga@rtsg.mot.com (Jim Pacyga)
Subject: Re: Car Phones
Keywords: Hand free operation
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:55:33 GMT

In article <22965@drutx.ATT.COM> klf@druwa.ATT.COM (FranklinKL) writes:

<from some other poor soul...>
>>So I trust that you also never engage in driver-passenger conversation
>>while in a moving vehicle?  And if you do, please explain the
>>fundamental difference between that and hands-free phone use.
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Franklin replies...>
>Bob, wake up and smell the coffee!  There is a good deal of difference.
>In the first place, I don't EVER recall having to dial a code and press
>"SEND" to gain access to a passenger in my car.  The act of dialling
>is the kind of thing that can distract the driver from his most important
>function, controlling the car.  Even if the person is the recipient of a call,
>some push-button kind of activation is necessary to receive the call.
>Did you ever try to perform any tasks on the push button controls of
>a cellular phone without looking at the phone?  In most cases, the
>buttons are small enough and the numbers difficult enough to read, that
>a significant diversion of the drivers attention from the task at
>hand would be necessary to properly complete the phone oriented
>function.
>
Just because a cellular phone may not be standard equipment on most
cars, what makes its buttons or readout by definition any harder to
read than your car stereo?  Secondly, if you are that worried about
pressing buttons, certain car phones offer voice activation(Motorola
is one of those).  All you have to do is preprogram the numbers
that you most frequently use and your hands will hardly ever touch
the keys.  

Jim Pacyga
pacyga@rtsg.mot.com

Same disclaimer from last time...

Organization: Naval Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 11:08:42 -0500 
From: "Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: 1990 Audi 100 SUCKS !!!!!!!!!!!!e+10

>I don't believe you can damn a manufacturer for producing a dodgy car (do
>you remember the Pinto?)

I'm not "damning" Audi.  I just won't BUY one!  
 
I've been trying to explain this, but let me give it one last go:
 
A lousy 1970 Audi resulted in me switching to BMW.  My decision not to
buy another Audi now is not so much because my 1970 Audi was BAD, it's
more because the BMW's I've bought since been GOOD.  So why should I
take a chance again on a car that let me down, when I've got one that
I'm happy with now?  If you've read my previous posts you'll remember
that when I bought the 100LS I had a friend who bought a BMW "Bavaria"
on the same day.  At the time I thought he was _crazy_ to spend the
extra $1500 for the BMW when my 100LS "was just as good for less money"
(according to the salesman, the car magazines (they always seem to love
anything new), and the Audi literature, at least).  I spent the next
year listening to him rave about his car while mine was limping (or
being towed) in for service on a regular basis.
 
So I'm not eager to fall into that same trap again:  "Buy the Audi! 
It's SOOOO MUCH BETTER now, and boy is it CHEAP!  Trust me...."
 
Fool me twice?  No way.
 
Joe.
 

Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: bruce@gordian.com (Bruce Hafford)
Subject: Re: LH test-drive results (by a buyer)
Organization: Gordian
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:29:13 GMT

>>5) [Stingy dealer]: May be I was expecting too much, but I was only
>>allowed to test-drive in an area that was less than 3 blocks! The reason
>>given was to maintain a low mileage on the test cars.

>I would walk from these guys.

I think it comes down to their perception of how serious you are.
If they feel you have no intention of buying the car, why should they waste
their time and mileage to take you for a 30 mile ride?  Rent one if you like.
I didn't hear people grousing when Dodge dealers didn't let everybody take
Vipers for test drives - if you ain't going to buy it, why bother?  

If you DID have any intention of buying one, and they did this,
then a new dealer is in order.

Newsgroups: rec.autos