HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: Driver's License Test Question
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:38:53 GMT

Michael D. Maxfield (tweek@netcom.com) wrote:
>  Ah Ha,  This explains why our DMV (and state) is in such a bad state.  If
>  the different testers can't get their facts straight, how do we expect the
>  other state officials to get a budget.

No, it was Devesh (the previous poster) whose facts were wrong.  Though
his mistake is understandable, given the language that "[a]ny change
of registered owner . . . must be recorded . . . within ten (10) days."
The missing piece of information is, "recorded by *whom*?"  The answer
is that the buyer is the party responsible for recording a transfer
of ownership, and is subject to the 10-day rule.  A *seller*, otoh,
is responsible for filing a "Notice of Release of Liability," and that
is what must be done withing 5 days.  A Notice of Release of Liability
is not technically a Transfer of Ownership notice, because the latter
is something that must be done buy the buyer.

It may indeed sound confusing if you're not paying attention; and it's
easy to see how the first notice can be misconstrued to mean there is
no 5-day limit for sellers to report.

--
 __D_a l_l m a_n  _ R o_s s _ |dman@netcom.com  /or/  |"You sound like a man|
 l  \\ l\\   /l  /\\  l\\   l |dross@well.sf.ca.us    |with a rubber nose." |
 l   >)l \\ /ll /  \\ l \\  l |vox/fax: 1.510.645.1883| -- One-Lung Bill    |
 l  // l  \X ll/--- \\l  \\ l |350 Perkins St., #108  |     Remmer (deceased)
_l//______________________\\l_|Oakland,_CA__94610-3422|_____________________|_
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz)
Subject: Re: new law
Organization: The Palmtree BBS - 310/453-8726 - Santa Monica, CA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:59:15 GMT

I don't think so (cause its the front passengers that then officer can see
if you have your seat belt on or not (since most of those are now shoulder
staps belts. but the officer cant see if rear passenger have their
seatbelts on-untill after he has pulled you over. for not wearing the
seatbelt, then everyone who is not wearing seatbelt would probally get a
ticket.
From: devesh@bombay.oracle.com (A Rice Queen)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Driver's License Test Question
Date: 4 Jan 93 02:16:04 GMT
Reply-To: devesh@bombay.oracle.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: Oracle Corp., Redwood Shores CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1i3hkqINNc44@gap.caltech.edu> maskiell@ugcs.caltech.edu (Andrew R.  
Maskiell) writes:
> eduardo@power.amasd.anatcp.rockwell.com (Eduardo Malamut) writes:
> 
> >Sorry if this seems naive, but I'm taking a California Driver's License
> >Test, and the following question is asked:
> 
> >  You must report to DMV the sale or transfer of your vehicle within:
> >     A.  5 days
> >     B. 10 days
> >     C. 15 days
> 
> >I have in my hot little hands the California Driver Handbook, and can't
> >find any mention of sale of a vehicle in it.  Does anyone know the
> >official answer to that question?
> 
> Well, I just took the exam two weeks ago, and that question appeared on it.
> According to the woman grading my exam the correct answer is A. 5 days.

Wrong!! This was one of 3 questions that I got wrong, probably the only case
where conservative guessing didn't work. The correct answer is B. 10 days.

Devesh

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Devesh S. Khatu                        Office: 3OP3 #307
  Strategic Technology Group             E-mail: devesh@bombay.oracle.com
  Applications Division                  Phone : (415) 506-4488
  Oracle Corporation                     Fax   : (415) 506-7293
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Tinted windows law ??
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:28:31 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <n134at@ofa123.fidonet.org>, by Rick.Ellis@ofa123.fidonet.org:
> On <Dec 14 13:55> David Early writes:

#  DE> In Oregon, the reason they gave was that heavily tintied windows 
#  DE> prevented police from seeing the driver, which they said could lead 
#  DE> to a leathal situation when a driver pulls a gun and the cop can't 
#  DE> see it...I don't know if they had any first hand experience with 
#  DE> this.

> I've heard the CHP say it's because of night vision problems (especially
> spotting pedestrians).  From some of the tinting I've seen on the road I can
> believe this.

A friend of mine who is fairly experienced in driving in
adverse weather (he lived in Minden, Nevada for a few years)
recently totalled his car when he hit black ice.  He is
certain that this would not have happened had he not had the
windows tinted.

A while ago my wife bought a used car that had tinted windows.
We have an older version of the same car without tint, and I
can tell you that tint results in a drastic decrease in
vision in all but the brightest (e.g. high desert on a
cloudless high noon) of conditions.

Why somebody would actually pay for this lack of vision is
beyond me.  As a bicycle rider, visual clues from oncoming
drivers are very useful for keeping me alive, and these
clues cease to exist when tint is applied.  And for some
reason, these people are less predictable (e.g. random lane
changes without signaling, etc.) than most.  Just what are
these people hiding from?
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: orum@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Jeff Orum)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:00:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Four-Color Licence Plates of Yosemite's Tunnel View
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: ca.driving

>The plate will be available to California drivers 
>for $50 plus their standard car registration fee.

Plus $40 per year.  Most of your fee is tax deductible since it is going to
non-profit groups.
From: mrk@gvgspd.gvg.tek.com (Michael R. Kesti)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: new law
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:31:13 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gvgspd.gvg.tek.com

In article <1992Dec30.192921.8193@oracle.us.oracle.com>
                                           devesh@bombay.oracle.com writes:

>A very sensible law, IMHO. Seat belts save lives, I can tell from 
>experience.

I won't deny that seatbelts save lives, but what about personal freedom?  I
see this kind of thing as still one more example of government intervention
into matters that are purely personal and in which the government has no
business.  Erosion of personal freedoms will eventually lead to a society
where nobody takes any responsibility for themselves, and is, I believe, part
of what has led to our tendency toward excessive litigation.

It's not a very big step from "You must wear seatbelts because driving is
hazardous." to "You cannot drive because it is hazardous."  Wake up!

-- 
============================================================================
Michael Kesti  Grass Valley Group, Inc. | "And like, one and one don't make
    mrk@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM              |  two, one and one make one."
    !tektronix!gvgpsa!gvgspd!mrk        |         - The Who, Bargain
From: pnelson@bullwinkle.Tymnet.COM (Phil Nelson)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Insurance for 1990 Ford Escort
Summary: State Farm
Date: 30 Dec 92 09:09:00 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <42924@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Thomas Marvan) writes:

>Can anyone suggest some reputable companies here in Sthn Ca where I
>could get the best deals.  So far the dealer who sold me the car is

In my experience, State Farm has the best rates among "reputable companies".


>*  Thomas (Tom) Marvan         Phone: (619) 450 3670              *


Phil Nelson . pnelson@tymix.tymnet.com . San Jose, CA, USA . 408-922-7508

	The highway of the upright turns aside from evil;
	    he who guards his way preserves his life.      Proverbs 16:17
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Driver's License Test Question
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:33:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.021604.1157@oracle.us.oracle.com> devesh@bombay.oracle.com writes:
>In article <1i3hkqINNc44@gap.caltech.edu> maskiell@ugcs.caltech.edu (Andrew R.  
>Maskiell) writes:
>> 
>> Well, I just took the exam two weeks ago, and that question appeared on it.
>> According to the woman grading my exam the correct answer is A. 5 days.
>
>Wrong!! This was one of 3 questions that I got wrong, probably the only case
>where conservative guessing didn't work. The correct answer is B. 10 days.

Ah Ha,  This explains why our DMV (and state) is in such a bad state.  If
the different testers can't get their facts straight, how do we expect the
other state officials to get a budget.

Government employees....  (Not government workers)
From: pnelson@natasha.Tymnet.COM (Phil Nelson)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Traffic School, OR and CA
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:46:41 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <BzqBqA.6CL@icon.rose.hp.com> ehill@rose.hp.com (Eric Hill) writes:
>Are you kidding, how do you think they survive without a sales tax up there?
>They give everyone with California plates a ticket (at least one).  I now
>make it a point to gas up before I enter Oregon and to purchase the least
>amount on my quick trip through it.  If enough people do this the 
>Chamber of Commerce may get the hint.

More likely, if enough "people" (I assume from the context that by "people",
you mean Californians) do this to affect the budget of the State Police, the
police will write more tickets to make up the the difference.

>Eric Hill



Phil Nelson . pnelson@tymix.tymnet.com . San Jose, CA, USA . 408-922-7508

	Even a child is known by his actions,
	     by whether his conduct is pure and right.    Proverbs 20:11
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz)
Subject: Re: new law
Organization: The Palmtree BBS - 310/453-8726 - Santa Monica, CA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:01:14 GMT

I wonder how much those 'seatbelt tickets would cost.
From: walt@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Walt Boeninger)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:53:24 GMT
Subject: Re: new law
Organization: the H.P. Mtn View RC
Newsgroups: ca.driving

In ca.driving, markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz) writes:

> I wonder how much those 'seatbelt tickets would cost.


I heard $22 on the radio this morning.  

Next question:  Is it a point?  Will it raise your insurance?

Walt Boeninger 
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: marv@netcom.com (Marvin Raab)
Subject: Re: new law
Organization: user of Netcom Public Access Unix, SF Bay Area
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:22:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.070114.1351@pro-palmtree.socal.com> markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz) writes:
>I wonder how much those 'seatbelt tickets would cost.



   $22.00 the first time...something like $50 the second.


            -marvin


-- 
Marvin Raab                                  
marv@netcom.com                              Mountain View, CA 94040
apple.com!netcom.com!marv                    415-961-6501 (h)
From: walt@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Walt Boeninger)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:07:41 GMT
Subject: Re: SMOG TEST QUESTION
Organization: the H.P. Mtn View RC
Newsgroups: ca.driving

In ca.driving, calley@optilink.COM (Chris Calley) writes:

> From article <3860020@mothra.rose.hp.com>, by barry@mothra.rose.hp.com (Barry Fowler):
> > Every two years or when ownership is changed.

> Some areas do not require a vehicle to be smogged every two years.  This
> is the case where I live (western Sonoma County).  I think it has
> something to do with the fact that the government considers this to
> be a low polution area, whatever that means.

I am almost certain that the geographic smog check changed a year or
so ago, at least according to the smog check brochure sent with the
renewal.  All counties are now included.  I pay close attention to
the rules (especially that blasted 20 year old  NOT!! Now it's 1966
and newer) since I have several bothersome vehicles to register.

Walt Boeninger
From: rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: new law
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:26:02 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1992Dec30.192921.8193@oracle.us.oracle.com> devesh@bombay.oracle.com writes:
>In article <3450056@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony  
>Zugates) writes:
>> As of Jan 1 the Police will be able to stop you for being unbuckled.
>> 
>> They had to stop you for something else in order to cite you before.
>
>A very sensible law, IMHO. Seat belts save lives, I can tell from 
>experience. BTW does the law apply to rear seats as well?
>
>Devesh
>
As far as I know it does.  So if a passenger in the back seat is not
wearing a seatbelt, the *driver* is the one that gets the ticket. I
personally do not think it is a good law.  It does not take an act of
congress for me to use my seat belt.  Always have, always will.

If someone does not want to wear their seat belt, that is fine with me.
Let natural selection take its course and remove them from the gene pool.
:=).

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Russell Hockins               |  This civilization is recyclable           |
| Innovative Interfaces, Inc.   |              ( well most of it anyway )    |
| My own opinions  no one elses |  packet : ka6foy @ ki6yk.#nocal.ca.na.usa  |
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Insurance for 1990 Ford Escort
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:04:51 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

Thomas Marvan <tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu> writes:

	What about AAA?

Data point: 1991 Jetta/GLI, North Oakland.  Male 25 no tickets or
accidents, Female 28 no tickets or accidents, married, non-smoking,
ABS, passive restraint.  State Farm quoted $1470, AAA quoted $2350.
Quoted January 1991.

/jordan
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: ed@Tekelec.gecko.uucp (Ed Campbell)
Subject: Re: Transfering a vehicle to Calif.
Originator: ed@sunbeam
Organization: Tekelec Inc
Distribution: ca
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:09:17 GMT

     The original poster was quoted a rediculous price to convert
his minivan to meet Calif, air quality specs.

     I'm not sure that it applies to vehicles brought in from other
states, but there is an upper limit to the amount a person has to pay
to get his vehicle to pass the smog test. It was $50, but was recently
upped to around $200. If you ask at the DMV, make sure the person you
talk to really knows this subject, there is so much to know about so many
regs that not everyone there can give you the "real" answer.

Ed Campbell

My other car is a Harley Servicar
From: aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Red light at 3AM - moral question?
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:53:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Helen Keller Bondurant's Performance Driving School for the Blind

In article <1992Dec10.205530.5751@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> sharen@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com (Sharen A. Rund) writes:
>In article <thurlow.724011426@convex.convex.com> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
>>I'm a cyclist.  I ride a five-mile stretch to work and back on temperate
>>days, and take longer rides on weekends.  My bicycle _ususally_ has enough
>>mass to trip the vehicle sensors under most of the intersections I ride
>>through, but sometimes I need a car to help with that.  However, there are
>
>again, I consider myself a defensive driver, and if there were a cyclist
>that didn't have enough weight to trip the light, I'd slowly move forward
>and, the cyclist being a defensive cyclist, would probably be aware of 
>what I was doing and move over slightly so I could trip the light for 


Minor nit: the vehicle sensors (around here, anyway) are metal detectors
(magnetic?).  They don't detect weight or mass, they need a certain amount 
of metal to trip them.  When adjusted properly, they'll detect motorcycles
just fine.

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

 "The driver says, 'One more cup of coffee and I'll be all right...'
  'Pop a Bennie, another Bennie'..."             - The Bobs, "Bus Plunge"
From: weissman@netcom.com (Bob Weissman)
Subject: Re: Driver's License Test Question
Organization: The Ranks of the Unemployed
Distribution: ca
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:25:22 GMT

In <42978@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> tmarvan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Thomas Marvan) writes:

-In article <1i3hkqINNc44@gap.caltech.edu> maskiell@ugcs.caltech.edu (Andrew R. Maskiell) writes:
->eduardo@power.amasd.anatcp.rockwell.com (Eduardo Malamut) writes:
->
->>Sorry if this seems naive, but I'm taking a California Driver's License
->>Test, and the following question is asked:
->
->>  You must report to DMV the sale or transfer of your vehicle within:
->>     A.  5 days
->>     B. 10 days
->>     C. 15 days
->
->>I have in my hot little hands the California Driver Handbook, and can't
->>find any mention of sale of a vehicle in it.  Does anyone know the
->>official answer to that question?

It turns out the answer to this question IS in the handbook, but it's in
the preface or some such introductory material.  I no longer have my
handbook, but I remember this one because it appeared on my renewal test,
too.  I spent hours searching for the answer.  It's in there.

-- 
-- Bob Weissman
-- weissman@netcom.com
--
From: barry@mothra.rose.hp.com (Barry Fowler)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:31:39 GMT
Subject: Re: SMOG TEST QUESTION
Organization: HP Networked Computer Mfg. Operation
Newsgroups: ca.driving

Every two years or when ownership is changed.
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz)
Subject: Re: State Roads (long)
Organization: The Palmtree BBS - 310/453-8726 - Santa Monica, CA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 02:48:20 GMT

suggestion: check with either CHP or Caltrans, one of these agencies should
be able to help you, or check with the AAA (if you are a member). they
might have some information. also you can find a California Road Atlas
(published by  Thomas Bros map co) that might be of some help.
From: spetter@photon.swdc.stratus.com (Scott Spetter)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: I didn't receive a registration renewal notice
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:15:55 GMT


Actually, given California's present revenue crisis, I would
strongly suspect that this practice of not sending out the
renewal notices was very intentional - it made the state a 
lot of extra money!

As many of you probably know (and if you don't, listen up!),
a measure got snuck through Congress this year that allows
the federal government to withhold 20% of a person's 401K,
effective January 1, 1993, if they don't transfer it DIRECTLY
from one qualified plan to another, even if they do intend
to transfer 100%, and therefore not owe any taxes on the sum
in the present year.  For people who do not HAVE an extra 
20% over the amount stored in the 401K, this forces them
to withdraw the 20% to pay the withholding, which in turn 
causes them to have to pay the tax AND penalty on that
amount.  Purely a political "speeding ticket/gotcha"
which snags the ignorant, and makes a pile for the government
at the expense of working people, many of whom are making the
transfers because they went through a layoff.

I realize this is not directly related to ca.driving, but it
is the same as the registration practice, and the warning
about this trap needs to get out - please pass the word.
Yes, government has invented a new tax (or refined an old
one) - the ignorance tax.  

Scott
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:59:54 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <1993Jan3.031852.22013@netcom.com> altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) writes:

>It also cheapens freedom when you start arguing about such trivial stuff
>as being infringements on freedom.  We've gotten society to the point
>where we can barely feel safe in our own homes and you worry about whether
>or not you can be fined for not wearing seatbelts is an intrusion on your
>personal freedom.

Where do you think "loss of freedom" starts? Freedoms are given up one
at a time. Apparently, by the time YOU think it has gone too far, it
may be too late. You are defending one cliche with another: "We can't
even feel safe in our homes..." Presumably, you feel that this
observation justifies the progressive surrender of personal freedoms so
that "society" can feel secure.

You may feel that the decision to wear a seatbelt is a trivial matter.
So where do YOU draw the line? What, to you, is an important enough
liberty that you would object when it is taken away? And what makes you
think that it might be important enough for someone else to care
sufficiently to help you do anything about it?

The issue is not whether I want to wear a seatbelt or not. For the
record, I have always worn it, even before the government told me that
I had to. The issue is whether we are going to have the government
dictate every move we make no matter what, if any, impact it has on
someone else. I am not interested in living in a prison without bars.

I would think twice about dismissing as trivial a matter of personal
safety that the government has seen fit to devote resources
and require the paying of significant fines in an attempt to enforce
it. Obviously, the government does not consider it a minor matter.
-- 
 John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
From: borisc@sybase.com (Boris Chen)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Getting Car Towed
Date: 28 Dec 92 21:53:44 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Sybase, Inc.


A month ago I got a smog check for my car.  I didn't have anyone to help
me drive it back to my place, so I parked it around the corner from
the shop (I have a second car).  The car ends up getting towed by
the city, and it is now in a towing company's lot.  It's been there
for more than 2 weeks, I just got the notice a few days ago.

The bill comes out to 450 bucks!  And the car is a 77 chevy station wagon,
that I bet is worth just a little more than that. 

I'm wondering if there's any way that I can get the city to pay for
the towing.  The car wasn't given a ticket, so I don't know what
law I violated, maybe someone in the neighborhood called the police
to have it towed.  Is it too late to recoup any of the money? Is there
anything I can do?

Thanks, this would really help out a lot.


--borisc
From: Rick.Ellis@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Tinted windows law ??
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 28 Dec 92  13:55:19

On <Dec 14 13:55> David Early writes:

 DE> In Oregon, the reason they gave was that heavily tintied windows 
 DE> prevented police from seeing the driver, which they said could lead 
 DE> to a leathal situation when a driver pulls a gun and the cop can't 
 DE> see it...I don't know if they had any first hand experience with 
 DE> this.

I've heard the CHP say it's because of night vision problems (especially
spotting pedestrians).  From some of the tinting I've seen on the road I can
believe this.
Newsgroups: ca.driving