HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Organization: Photon Research Associates, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:58:18 GMT

I would tolerate a higher gas tax if it was used for road construction
or maintenance - the more road I use the higher tax I pay.  However, I
dislike the proposed gas tax for two reasons.  One is the fact that it
is not for road construction.  The second is that additional federal
gas tax money allows additional blackmail possibilities (remember the
drinking age, the 55 mph speed limit, the 1991 seat belt and helmet
law blackmail, etc. - one study a few years ago noted that a state could
lose 495% of its highway funds for non-compliance with Federal usurpation.

Higher gas taxes for deterrence is counterproductive, however.  The less
disposable income one has, the less chance one has of retiring early and
the longer over one's lifetime he or she has to commute.  (My neighbor
told me that if he hadn't bought his house, he couldn't have been able to
retire.)  Also, the less likely it is that a two-adult family can live on
one income, the more likely it is that both adults will need to work,
creating the additional commute plus a trip to day care.

Why is it that when Sam Hayakawa said that gas taxes wouldn't have any
effect on the poor because they don't work, he was ridiculed, but when
environmentalists propose the same effect they don't get Mr. Hayakawa's
scrutiny?

Joe Naiman
From: jason@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Jason Hanson)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Expired inspection sticker
Date: 14 Oct 1992 12:40:26 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Oct13.122047.16757@dg-rtp.dg.com> lenkeit@firebird.rtp.dg.com (Matt Lenkeit) writes:
>If I am driving someone else's pickup truck (in NC)
>and the inspection sticker is expired, am I responsible
>for the ticket? It has my name on it, but his vehicle.

I don't know about inspections... but for like an expired plate or something
you are.  The law reads "It is unlawful for any individual to OPERATE on public
highways a vehicle whose registration..."  You get the idea.  As to a
inspection sticker, I don't know the law, but the golden rule applies:  Yoou
are not responsible until a court says you are responsible.
-- 
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  --
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Signalling one's desire to pass
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:48:35 GMT
Organization: ACME products - artillery division

aefron@cornerstone.com (Andrew Efron) writes:

> > Another use for flashing lights is to indicate to oncoming traffic
> > that a (potential) speed trap is ahead.  I think this is illegal too.
> 
> Is it?  Articles I've read in several prominent auto magazines have pointed 
> out that more people should do this.

I've heard conflicting versions of whether this can be classed as
interfering with the duties of a police officer.. But in any case, I do
it as a courtesy to other motorists, who are often obviously grateful
(much more so when they see the revenue collector down the road!)


--
"A leopard never changes his stripes" 
           -- Al Gore, candidate for vice-president
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: v069pff7@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SNAKEYES)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: NYS Insurance Question
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:20:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

If I am driving someone elses car with their consent and they are in the car
during an accident..what would happen regarding payment of damage and fault..
thanks


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Sprechman		v069pff7@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
University At Buffalo   sprec-j@acsu.buffalo.edu

"Some people say I must be a horrible person, that's not true. I have the heart
of a boy, in a jar on my desk"-Stephen King
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:19:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.200230.23411@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, nancy@hayduke (Nancy Feagans) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct2.152835.6903@photon.com> jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman) writes:
|> >
|> >In case you missed this morning's Wall Street Journal, Henry Ross Pee-rot
|> >wants to have a Federal gasoline tax of 50 cents a gallon.
|> >
|> >Just thought you might like to be aware of this.
|> >
|> >
|> >Joe Naiman
|> >
|> 
|> Joe:  why didn't you also mention that the Perot gas tax proposal was
|> for 10 cents a year over the next five years?
|>  
|> Like another poster stated, all you have to do is to compare how much
|> we pay per gallon as opposed to other countries.

I have a real problem with this argument.  Just because something is 
overpriced (for whatever reason) is no excuse to artifically inflate
the price here.  The other guys are getting ripped of worse than we
are, so we should make sure we get ripped as well.  What kind of 
logic is that?  Not mine.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not against a gas tax as long as it goes toward
transportational and enviornmental (damage that may have been caused by
it) expenses.

[bear with me, I just found a soapbox]

Firstly, if you want to decrease the deficit by taxing, let's do it via
income tax rather than backward methods like gas tax.  Hell, let's tax
alochol to decrease the deficit.

Secondly, how much are we paying in taxes.  After, income tax, sales tax,
gas tax, lisenses, and a lot of other taxes, I'd be willing to bet that
it pulls more than 50% of my income.  How much do they need?  We've been
throwing money at problems for years and years.  It's not working!!!
I just don't see throwing more money at them working either.  What will
work?  I don't know.  When I find out, I hope you'll support me for 
president.

[hands soapbox off to next guy/gal/whatever]
From: aefron@cornerstone.com (Andrew Efron)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Radar Detectors in Conn.
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:02:30 GMT
Reply-To: aefron@cornerstone.com (Andrew Efron)
Distribution: na
Organization: Cornerstone Research, Cambridge, Mass.

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
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: solution to deficits
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:42:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

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.
From: damong@wpi.WPI.EDU (Damon Francis Gentile)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Does This Law Make Sense
Date: 12 Oct 1992 05:56:01 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

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.  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.

	In Mass, in order to transport a firearm inside of a vehicle,
	either loaded or unloaded, you must have a pistol permit.
	(yup, even if it isnt a handgun.)
	
	just figured id fill you in on silly Massachsetts laws.

Damon

damong@wpi.wpi.edu

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: ham@wam.umd.edu (Scott Richard Rosenfeld)
Subject: Re: Expired inspection sticker
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:48:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.122047.16757@dg-rtp.dg.com> lenkeit@firebird.rtp.dg.com (Matt Lenkeit) writes:
>If I am driving someone else's pickup truck (in NC)
>and the inspection sticker is expired, am I responsible
>for the ticket? It has my name on it, but his vehicle.
>
>Thanks!
>
>-Matt
>
A similar thing happened to me a couple of weeks ago.  I was driving my 
fiancee's car home to my house after dropping her off at her dorm at the
University of Maryland, when a car pulled in behind me.  I noticed that 
it was a police car, and it immediately turned on the lights and pulled
me over.  He asked if I knew why I had been pulled over, and I replied "No."

Apparently, the registration sticker on the back license plate (it was a 
PA plate, which was even more amazing for a MD county cop to notice) should
have been replaced with a new one a week before.  In addition, upon searching
for the registration card, convention now states that with car-jackings
and auto thefts in the area on the rise, the registration should be on your 
person, not in the car.  So I didn't have the registration card.  OOPS!

The cop overlooked the registration thing, but gave ME a $40 ticket for not
having the new sticker on the license plates.  Yes, the general rule is that
the DRIVER, not the owner, is responsible for the operation and condition
of a vehicle.  The driver gets the ticket, whether deserved or not.

Fortunately not a moving violation (probably like your case), thus no points,
but a headache nonetheless.

Scott


Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,alt.autos.antique
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Get rid of old cars, was...Ross perot gas tax.....
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 17:14:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.151856.1302@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>Coming from an industry that makes (among other things) pollution control
>equipment, I have an interest in seeing all old cars off the road obviously.

discussion of Greece's system of eliminating old cars deleted...

>I'd favor this approach, i.e. some rebate from the government in the form
>of some tax rebate IFF you turn in your clunker which in turn is pulverized.

Guess I'm a good example of what you don't want to see.  I daily
drive a 1981 Triumph and when I finish rebuilding my '68, that will again
be my daily driver.  Reason I drive those cars is because I can fix them
myself and I intend to do just that for as long as possible.

As to your "seeing all old cars off the road," does that include
the many classics too?  

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Does This Law Make Sense
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:05:43 GMT
Organization: SSESCO

>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.

We have a slight variation of that law.  The gun must be in plain view
(unloaded) from the outside of the car.  That's why gunracks are so
popular.  People would throw them behind the seats otherwise.  If you
don't have a gunrack, you have to throw the gun on your dash.
From: 01ksdavis@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rebel without a clue.)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Get rid of old cars, was...Ross perot gas tax
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:34:19 GMT


	Just want to add my thoughts to this thread.  What that
other guy said about antique auto plates is true, at least in
Indiana, and generally the only way to get off scot-free in a
situation like that is to have an old American car.  If you had
a foreign car, the local cops would not overlook the antique 
plates.

	This is why in Indiana you can see so many American cars
with dark tinted windows, and NO foreign cars with dark windows.

	This is also the reason why I didn't get those plates or
the insurance for an antique car for my old 74 VW superbeetle.

	I waxed it one day, and it was gone the next.  Sometimes
I wonder why I survived the accident.

	SEATBELTS SAVE LIVES.

	I also agree with the other person who said it is easier
to work on the older cars.  All of the new ones are being designed
so that ONLY the car dealers can work on them.

		Kyle
Xref: sparky rec.autos.driving:5963 alt.autos.antique:1940
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,alt.autos.antique
Subject: Re: Get rid of old cars, was...Ross perot gas tax.....
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:52:46 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <1992Oct7.171408.436@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>Guess I'm a good example of what you don't want to see.  I daily
>drive a 1981 Triumph and when I finish rebuilding my '68, that will again
>be my daily driver.  Reason I drive those cars is because I can fix them
>myself and I intend to do just that for as long as possible.
>
>As to your "seeing all old cars off the road," does that include
>the many classics too?  

Nope. I'd agree to a 'classic plate' which would mean that you can only
drive the car for so many miles a year. Insurance already does insure cars
that way. 

Classic cars represent a very important part in our (United States)
heritage. But there's a thin line between 'classic' and 'beater'. If
you can afford to (time and money wise) put on the road a classic car
(the 68) the more power to you... How about my college 72 Corolla? If
you feel safe in such a car for prolonged commutes, again the more
power to you.

There can be an objective way of separating the two. What is it? I don't
know.  Maybe the folks at the rec.auto.classic can shed some light. Till
then, I'll use the same definition as the supreme court guy did.... I can't
define it, but I know one when I see one...

Spiros


-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Subborn Joggers (Re: Stubborn Cyclists)
Date: 14 Oct 1992 13:01 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

My personal acquaintance with running was truncated by joint problems,
but I think runners sometimes prefer the road over the sidewalk for
two reasons.  First, it's often in better shape in terms of trip
hazards such as tree roots and upheaved slabs of pavement.  Second,
the asphalt is said to be kinder to your legs over the long term than
the concrete sidewalk.  Whether either of these benefits is worth the
risk of getting turned into pavement pastrami by a driver who never 
even saw you is another question.

I'm one of those who think urban traffic and runners are an uneasy mix,
but push comes to shove, they ARE pedestrians and the nice officer says
I have to yield to them wherever they may be found.  However, cars have
been around for about a century now, and having the right of way hasn't 
brought anyone back from the dead yet.

Bicyclists are another story.  I'm one, and the counter-evolutionary
behavior of many of my two-wheeled brethren is just appalling.  Some
of them are kamikazes and some are just insufficiently skillful to 
hold their line so you can pass them safely.  

Then again, why would you expect bicyclists or runners to be smarter 
or more skilled on the average than drivers, who kill themselves, 
mostly through some combination of stupidity, ineptitude, and sheer 
cussedness, at the rate of several tens of thousands per year?

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 08:59:40 GMT

In article <Bvpus3.I0o@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>Say, perhaps you can help your case by citing what happens to the
>"working poor" of Europe. After all, they pay $5/gallon for gas in many
>countries, the vast majority of which is tax.

europe has a much more extensive system of public transit than we do.
in most areas in this country, public transit is frequently a more expensive
and slower alternative to driving.  sure, maybe the gas tax will be used
to pay for improvements in mass transit - but the improvements have to
come first.

i believe that european countries are more centered around cities than
the united states.  furthermore, they have much stronger welfare
systems, which makes it easier for the poor to absorb the cost.
the united states is the only western industrialized democracy that
does not qualify as a true welfare state.

-teddy
p.s. isn't this getting a bit away from car stuff?
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Stubborn Cyclists
From: derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Derek Tearne)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 22:44:53 GMT
Organization: Fujitsu New Zealand

In article <1992Oct8.222257.22913@nezsdc.icl.co.nz> hugh@nezsdc.icl.co.nz (Hugh Grierson) writes:
>In article <1as6seINNbfr@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.115600.23268@colorado.edu> drew@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes:
>>>
>>>Cyclists pay the same taxes (Albeit not so much gas tax) 
>>>that you do, and ought to have the same rights on the road,
>>>provided that they follow all applicable traffic laws.  
>>>
>...
>>In Virginia, your right to the road should cost $72.00, annually,
>>but it costs nothing.
>
>So, the amount the cyclists pay relative to motorists fees
>is in direct proportion to the relative amount of road damage
>caused.  Sounds fair - both motorists and cyclists pay for their
>share of road maintenance.

Here trucks and other large diesel vehicles have a hub odometer attached
and they pay a road user charge in relation to their size and distance 
travelled.  Sounds very fair to me.  Bicycles caues no damage,  don't pay
for maintenance,  trucks do most,  pay largest proportion,  juts about 
everyone gets food/consumer goods transported by trucks (even if they don't 
use the road),  they pay for that proportion through taxes.
 
>>Therefore, the idea that a biker pays for
>>his right to the road is false, at least in Virginia.

In most countries/states there are laws which prohibit cyclists from 
riding on the pavement/sidewalk.  They are therefore required to ride 
on the road.  This, I would say, gives a clear mandate, or right, for the 
cyclist to be on the road.

>>You may
>>pay income tax, but you definitely don't pay all the fees that
>>every driver does.

In all of these 'bikes on the road' discussions someone always says 
"they don't pay so they have no, or reduced, rights".  Why is payment 
considered so important in defining the right to use the road?  
No one would ever think of saying that you had to pay for any of those 
three 'inalienable rights'!

Do you have to pay to 'take the fifth'?  

"I take the fifth on that one sir".
"Well that will cost you two fifty then".

It would be a sorry world if everyone had to pay up front for the right to
free speach,  the freedom to walk in the park, breathe the air etc.

Perhaps your world is that world.


-- 
Derek Tearne. -- derek@nezsdc.icl.co.nz --  Fujitsu/ICL New Zealand -- 
Some of the more aware dinosaurs were worried about the environmental
consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor.  
"If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they said.
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 13 Oct 1992 07:30:17 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <Bw10AM.GuC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>
>well as the main headquarters (or what's left of it) downtown. Some
>employees will even telecommute, which means they need never leave their
>homes if they don't want to.
>

I agree... With the advent of BRI, PPP, etc., telecommuting is
bound to happen.

The only reason I come to work is because other positions here
feel that I should be here. I can do my job from just about
anywhere, and since I'm on 24-hour call, I often do.

I look forward to the day when telecommuting becomes a reality,
because then we can call this newsgroup REC.autos.*, and really
mean the rec part... :-)

-- Mike

----------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions - not my employer's
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:44:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bw10Ay.Gv6
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


In article <5NoesB4w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>
>> Raise the gas tax, and channel the money not to defecit reduction but to
>> building of the infrastructure. That includes roads and public
>> transportation.
>
>I see at least two problems here. First, let's say we collect $10 in new
>taxes with this setup. You want to spend it on infrastructure, he wants
>to spend it on deficit reduction, someone else wants to spend it on
>public transportation, and another person wants to do something else
>with it.

Perot, the guy who proposed this tax, specified that the money would go
to rebuilding infrastructure - roads and other transportation systems.
From: kemasa@ghost.hac.com (Kemasa)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:33:17 GMT
Organization: Natural Order Nature Experiments (N.O.N.E.)

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?
-- 



						 Kemasa.

Insanity is the best defense.

Sierra Club Leader	NRA Life Member		Pro-freedom	Pro-choice

e-mail address: kemasa@ghost.hac.com