HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: US 50 Eastward?
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:21:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Famed Parquet Floor

In article <ku1cfsINNoml@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> bradam@fourbits.Eng.Sun.COM (Brad Martinson) writes:
>Okay, We're driving to "the East" from northern CA, and need to decide
>what route to take.  Anyone care to share thoughts on US50 east of Calif-
>ornia?  Justa as boring as I80, better, worse ...?
>

I haven't used it for years, but US50 at least used to be more fun than
I-80.  It's two lanes, but traffic is light enough that you can go just
as fast.

And you get to see lots of little lost Nevada towns whose main product is
recycled telephone pole insulators. 

Take it.  It won't cost you much time, and might give a refreshing flash
from the past.  Just watch the speed limits when you go through towns.

(I think it's off US50, but Hawthorne, NV is a place to see.  Miles and miles
of buried ammunition bunkers.  It's even visible from 30,000 feet.)

Phil

-- 
|play: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG; {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil                |
|work: phil@gsi; sgi!gsi!phil            | Phil Gustafson                   |
| "Better a free bottle in front of me than a prefrontal lobotomy"          |
|                                      Fred (not Steve) Allen               |     
From: walt@hpwrce.HP.COM (Walt Boeninger)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:25:15 GMT
Subject: Re: expiring plates
Organization: the Hewlett Packard Response Center
Newsgroups: ca.driving

In ca.driving, ssmith@eoin.net.netcom.com (Shannon Smith) writes:

>    I have heard that in California, expired tags are a "fixit" item.
>
>What about expired *out-of-state* tags?  In CO, you are still legal
>for 30 days after your tags expire.  Would the police in CA know
>this?  If not, what could happen?

Actually, expired tags are a MOVING VIOLATION, and the cops are
very much on the lookout (revenue, afterall)   I would guess out
of state expired "might" fall under the same rule, but you
certainly would have a better argument, than a CA. expired-for-
no-good-reason. I'll check the VC tonite...

Walt Boeninger
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: black@beach.csulb.edu (Matthew Black)
Subject: Re: traffic court...
Organization: Computer Engineering, CSU Long Beach
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:21:24 GMT

In article <RJC.92Apr12141328@devo.unify.com> rjc@devo.unify.com (Ronald Cole) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.175009.19763@csun.edu> cbcscaar@mx.secs.csun.edu (Adam A. Ravid) writes:
>          "THE BILL OF RIGHTS --- Void where prohibited by law"
[spurious input deleted]

Could you please summarize this post to fewer than 250 words?
********************************************************************************
Matthew Black                             *    The opionions expressed are mine.
Computer Engineering & Computer Science   *    No warranty whatsoever whether
California State University               *    express or implied is hereby
Long Beach, CA  90840                     *    conveyed.
From: calvins@suzies.Eng.Sun.COM (Christopher Klein)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Embarcadero radar laws?
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:12:32 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: suzies

A colleague and myself recently had a conversation regarding the radar business
on Embarcadero.  Can anybody supply more specifics??? Especially current
state of affairs.  

Thanks,  `Chris

Him:    Other areas like Palo Alto only use it at certain times of the month,
Him:    on well known places like Alma or Embarcadero, for revenue enhancement.

Me: Sorry, not true. By law the police are not allowed to use radar on Embarcadero.

Him: Your information is either VERY recent, or very dated.  The story is
Him: this: Embarcadero used to be a heavy radar use zone.  However, someone
Him: who was ticketed made a big stink about it, since the road had not had
Him: a traffic survey done on it, which would set the speed at the 75th (85th?)
Him: percentile of people who drive there.  For a while the cops didn't use
Him: Radar on Embarcadero.  Then, someone in City Hall got peeved (at the
Him: loss of revenue?).  Somehow the city got Embarcadero zoned as a
Him: residential zone, which is automatically set to 25mph.  That is why
Him: currently a) there is still a 25mph speed limit on Embarcadero, and b)
Him: cops still use radar on the road.  They usually lurk on a side-street
Him: off of the eastbound side of the road, up by Emerson.  Once in a great
Him: while you'll find one lurking closer to 101 however, where they catch
Him: people speeding up to get on 101.  BTW, the one time I was in traffic
Him: school, over 1/3 of the people in the class I was in had been popped on
Him: Embarcadero, for between 35-40 mph.

Me: My info was from reading threads on ca.driving within the last 6 months.
Me: As I recall, no one ever mentioned being residentially zoned as an issue,
Me: I can't imagine why it was ever *not* zoned residential.  The jist of
Me: my understanding was that it was re-surveyed, the survey would have required
Me: 35 mph,  City Hall refused to go to 35 so it was left at 25 w/o radar.

Him: That's pretty much my understanding, with the clarification that
Him: City Hall justified obviating the obeyance of the survey, which was
Him: supposedly done, by claiming that the road, which has houses on
Him: both sides, is a residential zone.  Perhaps they are correct: if
Him: you look at Embarcadero you'll see the houses are off the main road.
Him: However, I think it's bogus that the city regularly runs speed traps
Him: in the area.  I guess the only option is to make it one lane either
Him: way, at 35 mph, which would require major hassle, but it's still irksome.

--
Christopher Klein   (415) 336-5959      |     Cacophony & Dyspepsia    |
calvins@suzies.Eng.Sun.Com              |             - * -            |
My comments are entirely my own, sheesh!|      Software Engineers      |
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Car vs Cycle vs Bike vs Ped--The Main Point
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:36:41 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Apr7.195025.19995@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Give me a break!!!!!  Perhaps in Mt View, they have a different idea of
>what law is, but I don't remember the CHP handing out tickets for
>violations of civic duties.  I also don't remember the DMV saying its OK
>to redefine the concept of law to fit your own narrow-minded
>preferences, either.
     
     Sometime John, when you have managed to become non-comatose, 
     look up the names Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, George
     Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

     Or just walk by their tombs/graves and listen to them spinning
     over as they read sheeplike postings where people have refunded
     their liberties by refusing to stand up for them.
From: jimiii@mips.com (Jim Warford)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: equity in justice (was "go to jail -- NOT!")
Date: 10 Apr 1992 20:39:51 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, California
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: electron.mips.com

In article <34078@unix.SRI.COM> zzz@erg.sri.com (Michael J. Konopik) writes:
>
>So the basic message that the court sends to the people is that it is better
>to kill somebody with your car than to risk killing somebody with your car.
>
 I know a guy who had a couple of beers after work one night.  He was 
driving home and saw a police car turn onto the road behind him and 
following him.  He stopped at a stoplight and the cop was not paying
attention and rearended him!  The cop then ran him in for DUI.!!!!!!!!

 Most of the people who make the news for killing people while DUI are
up in the .20+ range in their alcohol level, have previous DUI convictions
for .20+ alcohol levels, are driving without a license, and speeding.  They
then run a stopsign or redlight and broadside another car killing the 
occupants.

 But who are they busting for DUI?  The normal law-abiding person who
has a beer or two after work and has the money to pay the big fines and
the big lawyers fees.  It is not about making our highways safer, but 
rather another form of revenue collection to provide money to give the
campaign contributors lucrative government contracts and to keep the 
attorneys in business.

 If you are pulled over after drinking one beer and the cop smells the
beer on your breath you will go downtown to take the test.  If you pass
you will be let out in the middle of downtown where all the drug dealers
and users hang out.  You will have to take a taxi to your car and possibly
pay a large towing/storage fee to get it back.  If a few of the people
who get taken downtown and blow a .02 on the alcohol meter would sue the
city for taxi fare and towing/inpound fees maybe the cops would get a
little more selective and start arresting the people who are the problem.

--jimiii@mips.com



-- 
 Faster horses
 Younger women 
 Older whiskey
 More money!
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Left on Red Arrow
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:47:09 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <rafe.702672279@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> rafe@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Rafael Furst) writes:
>Does anyone know whether it is legal to make a left turn when there is
>a left turn arrow that is red but a normal green light (and no
>oncomming cars, of course) ?  I know that there are intersections that
>have signs saying "Left or Uturn on arrow only", but what if there is
>no sign to this effect?
>
    If there is a RED left turn arrow, it is not legal to make a
    left turn at that time.  

    Why would they make a separate red arrow? To color balance the
    green light?


Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: jpau@oracle.com
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: operating in bicycle lane
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:21:56 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corp

I got a ticket for operating in bicycle lane.  The situation was this,
I was driving on a two way street (one lane on each direction with bicycle lane
on the side), the car in front of me signaled for a left turn when it came
to a four way stop intersection and moved close to the center line to
prepare for the turn.  Since I was going straight instead of turning,  I
swung to the right a little bit and moved next to this car which was going to
turn.  Doing so, I also crossed the dotted white line (not the solid white
line) of the bicycle lane (of course it was absolutely clear, no bicycle
was there at the time and I was only going about 5 mph).  I fully stopped
and then went.  Just my luck, there he was, a motorcycle cop, chased after
me and gave me a moving violation CVC 21209 - operate vechicle in bicycle
lane.

My questions are, where can I look up exactly what this CVC 21209 says?
Has anyone out there ever had a similar ticket?  It didn't occurred to
me that I was doing anything wrong (eventhough technically I can be charged
for it).  I know it's absolutely ok to cross the broken white line of the
bicycle lane if I am making a right turn.  But for this case,  I simply go
straight instead (fyi, it was a very wide intersection, may be only half of 
my car the most was in the bicycle lane). I am thinking about fighting this ticket, any suggestions, ideas, exeperience with traffic court are 
appreciated!

-J
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: stssram@st.unocal.com (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Left on Red Arrow
Organization: Unocal Science and Technology Division
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:06:17 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 92 19:49:16 GMT, jaschal@sco.COM (Jascha Lee) said:

Jascha> 1991 CVC 21453(c): "A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall
Jascha> not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow
Jascha> and,

Jascha> unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by
Jascha> another signal,

Jascha> shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none..."

Jascha> [I added the blank lines to delineate the applicable clause]

Jascha> 1991 CVC 21451(a): "A driver facing a circular green signal shall
Jascha> proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless
Jascha> a sign prohibits a U-turn.  Any driver, including one turning, shall
Jascha> yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully
Jascha> within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk."

Jascha> -----
Jascha> In other words: if you have a red arrow and a green light, and no
Jascha> sign specifying left turn on green arrow only, you are legally permitted
Jascha> to obey the green light.

If by "obey the green light" you mean turn left against a left red arrow,
I think you're nuts if you really think you can get away with this.

Yes, you are legally permitted to obey the green light. You must also
obey the red arrow.  CVC 21453(c) quoted above says that you shall stop
at a clearly marked limit line *unless* entering the intersection to make
a movement permitted by another signal.  How are you going to get around
the first clause, though?  It specifically says you can't enter the intersection
to make the movement.  The "unless" is clearly attached to the second 
clause, not the first.  

You don't have to stop at a clearly marked limit line if there's a red
arrow and you're obeying another signal, but you can't enter the intersection
to turn against the arrow.  Good luck.

On the off chance that this really is a loophole, I'm still pretty sure
you'd have to go to court to prove it.  I think you're still going to get
a ticket.

--
Bob Myers                              Unocal Science & Technology Division
Internet: Bob.Myers@st.unocal.com      Seismic Research and Applications
Phone: [714] 693-6951                  P. O. Box 68076
                                       Anaheim, California 92817-8076
From: katy@clipper.ingr.com (Katy Yanda)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Commuter Lane violations
Keywords: You're outta luck
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:36:32 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

Unfortunately for the person caught in the commuter lane, there
probably won't be much success in fighting a commuter lane ticket.
The fine is sufficiently high $275? to discourage subsequent
violations.

It wasn't stated what time of day it was (AM or PM), but the
commuter lane is only to be used by commuters - that's 2 or
more people - during a specific range of hours. The only exception
seems to be those who need to make a right turn, and then only for 
certain distance before the next intersection. Passing other cars
doesn't fall into that category!

I often drive Montague, 101 and 237 on my commute to work, and it
is not easy to remain calm when someone flaunts the rules! At least
once a day I see solo drivers in the commuter lane when they're
not supposed to be. Sorry, this is a touchy subject!!
 


-- 
*	Katy Yanda	katy@clipper.clipper.ingr.com
		Intergraph Corp., Palo Alto, CA
Favorite qoute: "Don't be such a baby, Chuckie!" 
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: daveman@sequent.com (Dave Mansfield)
Subject: Motorcycles in High Occupancy lanes
Summary: Motorcycles OK in carpool lanes
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 02:36:24 GMT
Keywords: motorcycle carpool

I wasn't sure where to post this (still looking for 'ca.motorcycle' or the
like) but I guess it applies.

About 8 months ago, I was riding my motorcycle in a carpool lane on I10 in
the L.A. area.  The posted vecicle occupancy rate is 3 for this particular
lane.  Also posted is 'Buses OK'.  Nothing about motorcycles.

Anyway, Mr. CHP waves me down and says, "HEY! This is a carpool lane.  You
are not a carpool."  I say, "But what about the 55 [another freeway with
carpool lane]?  It allows motorcycles!"  He says, "Not here.  Get out and if
I see you in here again, I'll write you."

Of course, I'm thinking thank you mister congenial.  Anyway, I've been
commuting down to San Diego lately, and when I can I use my motorcycle.
There is a really nice carpool lane (actually, separate road) that runs in
the middle of the I15 for about 8 miles.  I just noticed that the carpool
sign has had the "Motorcycle OK" portion painted over!!! And then I noticed
it was now missing from one of the ramps I use!!!

So of course I started worrying that I wasn't going to be able to use the
carpool lanes anymore.

Well, I stopped by a CHP office and had the matter clarified.  Section
21655.5 of the Vehicle Code states (in italics): "Motorcycles can make use
of high occupancy lanes unless explicitly prohibited by traffic control
devices."

Needless to say, this little quote now resides in my wallet.  Hey bikers!
Have fun and remember, 160 BHP on a 400lb frame means you go real fast real
soon...And the only bumpers you have are you!  Stay safe!

======
Dave Mansfield
daveman@sequent.com
..!uucp!sequent!daveman

 "All I want from tomorrow is for it to be better than today!"
      B. R. Hornsby
From: walt@hpwrce.HP.COM (Walt Boeninger)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:26:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Left on Red Arrow
Organization: the Hewlett Packard Response Center
Newsgroups: ca.driving

In ca.driving, rafe@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Rafael Furst) writes:

> Does anyone know whether it is legal to make a left turn when there is
> a left turn arrow that is red but a normal green light (and no
> oncomming cars, of course) ?  I know that there are intersections that
> have signs saying "Left or Uturn on arrow only", but what if there is
> no sign to this effect?
> rafe@cs.stanford.edu			Stanford, CA 94309

The absence of a sign does not imply that you may run a red light.
The RED arrow is the same as a RED round light. STOP, do not proceed.

Pesonally, I object to the use of a RED arrow, since I am red/green color
blind, and grew up *assumimg* a visible arrow meant it was OK to proceed.
Now I have to make sure it is is a GREEN arrow, not a RED one...sigh..

Walt Boeninger
Newsgroups: ca.driving,ca.wanted
From: shlomo@bastille.Berkeley.EDU (Shlomo Zilberstein)
Subject: ISRAELI TEST PILOT LOOKING FOR A PARTNER FOR A TRIP
Originator: shlomo@bastille.berkeley.edu
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:54:21 GMT


  ISRAELI TEST PILOT LOOKING FOR A PARTNER FOR A CROSS COUNTRY
  TRIP IN HIS JEEP CHEROKEE

  o  Two-week trip starting June 8th.
  o  Leaving LA area and ending in Washington DC.
  o  Mostly interested in national parks:
     Grand Canyon, Zion, Yellowstone, Brice, Rushmore...
     itinerary is flexible.
  o  Looking for adventurous, good natured person, aged 22-35.
  o  Would like to meet person before travel
     (will be in the bay area on the weekend of 4/17)
  o  Please call (805) 258-8225 in the evening (until midnight)
 
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: rafe@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Rafael Furst)
Subject: Left on Red Arrow
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date:  7 Apr 92 18:44:39 GMT

Does anyone know whether it is legal to make a left turn when there is
a left turn arrow that is red but a normal green light (and no
oncomming cars, of course) ?  I know that there are intersections that
have signs saying "Left or Uturn on arrow only", but what if there is
no sign to this effect?

--Rafe

-- 
---------------------

Rafael Furst				P.O. Box 5425
rafe@cs.stanford.edu			Stanford, CA 94309
From: nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse)
Subject: Re: music censorship in WA state now in effect
Summary: Music
Keywords: fascist censorship (shudder!)
Organization: <<< ESKIMO NORTH (206)-FOR-EVER >>>
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 04:44:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.225410.13286@u.washington.edu>, il@bambam.u.washington.edu (Il Hwan Oh) writes:
> nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
> 
> >      I'm fed up with the government deciding for me what is good for me or my
> > children.  Where does this nameless woman get the idea she has the right to
> > control what MY kids listen to?
> 
> At the risk of being branded a fascist, I'm gonna have to play devil's
> advocate here.  What this lady wanted was to try to control what her kids
> listen to.  If you feel your children can listen to a given CD or whatever,
> you can buy it for them.  This lady merely felt that things that were out
> of her control were influencing her children, and she did what she thought
> was the best thing for her children.  We're not talking about a universal
> ban here.

     I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GO BUY IT FOR THEM!  If she doesn't want her children
to listen to this music then it should be HER responsibility to prevent them
from doing so.  WHY IN THE HELL CAN'T PEOPLE TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THEIR OWN LIVES ANYMORE?

     If her relationship with her children is so bad that she feels the need
to involve the government when it comes to the music her children listen to,
then what is she going to do when the kids have bigger issues in their lives
to deal with, like drugs and sex for instance?

     I don't want the government raising my kids for me.  Because she can't
deal with her own children and manage her own life is no reason for the
government to mess with mine.
From: il@bambam.u.washington.edu (Il Hwan Oh)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: music censorship in WA state now in effect
Keywords: fascist censorship (shudder!)
Date: 14 Apr 92 04:31:58 GMT
Reply-To: iho@cac.washington.edu
Distribution: seattle
Organization: University of Washington, Tacoma

kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417) writes:
> il@bambam.u.washington.edu (Il Hwan Oh) writes:

> >Yes.  Like I said, many parenting theories abound, and none have been
> >proven to be superior over the others.
> Then all this foofaraw is over a ***morally or ethically neutral topic***???
> Why? What's going on here? Is this a full-employment plan for "controller-types"
> or what?  This seems perilously close to "action for action's sake".

I don't think so.  Just because I'm neutral on the issue, it doesn't
mean the issue is morally or ethically neutral.  My neutrality is based
on seeing merits on both sides of the topic.  I was defending the
legislation because I was seeing an unbalanced representation of
the issues.

-- 
Il Hwan Oh                    | "A university is a place where people pay
Computer Facilities Manager   | high prices for goods which they then
Univ. of Washington, Tacoma   | proceed to leave on the counter when
iho@cac.washington.edu        | they go out of the store." -- Loren Eisley
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: lamontg@milton.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: music censorship in WA state now in effect
Keywords: fascist censorship (shudder!)
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Distribution: seattle
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 00:46:25 GMT

il@bambam.u.washington.edu (Il Hwan Oh) writes:
>At the risk of being branded a fascist, I'm gonna have to play devil's
>advocate here.  What this lady wanted was to try to control what her kids
>listen to.  If you feel your children can listen to a given CD or whatever,
>you can buy it for them.  This lady merely felt that things that were out
>of her control were influencing her children

Awwwww, too bad.  She should wake up and realize that there are so many
things which are out of her control, that it would simply be better to teach
her children how to deal with them when they encounter them. 

>, and she did what she thought
>was the best thing for her children.

Thats nice.  I would've appreciated it if she would have done it without
our tax money though, and without inacting counter-productive legislation.

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu  (anon: ap.4497@layout.berkeley.edu)
University of Washington, Seattle.    Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post... 
alt.drugs FTP site: milton.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs
               For quotes and other useless info see my .plan