HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Speeding in LA
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:35:32 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Nov4.200830.27968@exu.ericsson.se> ebuhob@ebu.ericsson.se writes:
>Hi guys,
>
>I have just received my first speeding ticket ever, on a freeway in LA.
>As far as I understand I have three choices:
>
>1) Plead guilty and pay the ticket. This leads to increased car insurance.
>2) Plead guilty but go to traffic school instead of paying the ticket. This
>   will *not* affect my car insurance rate.
>3) Plead not guilty.
>
>I was stopped by an MC Police on the freeway, driving in the left lane. He
>claims I was making 65.
>
>What are my chances if I plead not guilty? What happens if I loose?

If you lose, you pay the fine (you've already paid it anyway when you
make your court date. If you win, they refund it. Not too swiftly, either.)

However, the chances of winning a freeway speeding ticket against the
Highway Patrol are almost zero. Any other offense, or speeding on
surface roads, yeh, I've won 'em, but forget trying to get over on
the CHP. They are unusually adept at not writing them unless they have
you dead to rights - and judges know this. 

Further, they ALWAYS show up in court.
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: jimiii@nimbus.com (Jim Warford)
Subject: Re: Bumped Bumpers!
Reply-To: jimiii@nimbus.com (Jim Warford)
Organization: Nimbus Technology, Santa Clara, CA USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:46:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.210234.29052@cs.ucla.edu> rajeev@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rajeev Gupta) writes:
>Consider a hypothetical, though quite plausible, situation -
>
>	You are driving calmly on a surface street at no great speed,
>	when suddenly, the car in front of you brakes suddenly.  You
>	react as quickly as you can and slam on your brakes.
If he swerved into your lane and slammed on the brakes you might be
able to assign the blame to him providing you have witnesses.  Otherwise
it is your fault.
>
>One of the following may happen -
>
>	1) You bump into the other car's rear fender.  Had you been
>	   paying more attention, you would have been able to stop in
>	   time to avoid the bump.
This is your fault for following too close and not paying attention.

>	
>	2) You bump into the other car's fender, and there was no way
>	   you could have stopped in time to avoid that.
This is your fault as you were obviously following too close.

>
>	3) You do not bump into the other car's rear fender.
This is as it should be if you are a responsible driver.

>What are your options in terms of -
>
>	1) denying to co-operate right there, or
You can do that.  Just don't leave the scene without giving your name, DL#
and insurance information or it becomes felony hit and run.

>	2) paying up a certain amount (without going thru insurance), or
There are several groups who go around looking for people who are not
paying attention.  Sometimes they work in teams and the object is to 
cause someone to rearend them and they either scam the insurance company
for inflated damages and false medical claims or scam the driver into
paying cash and they will try to file an insurance claim later.  After all,
it will only be your word against theirs about the cash payment.

>	3) defending your position with his insurance company later?
This is probably the best way to do it.  If you believe they intentionally
caused the accident and you can prove it through witnesses it becomes their
fault and you have no liability.

>How does the insurance premium of *BOTH DRIVERS* get affected?
The other parties insurance rates are unaffected.  Your insurance
rates will likely increase greatly.

In any case it is best to get a police report and exchange DL# and insurance
information.  If you believe the other person intentionally caused the accident
tell your insurance company and the police officer who investigates the 
accident.  If you get cited for following too closely plead no contest to 
the ticket.  That way you are not admitting your guilt which can give you
a little more leverage if the other party files a civil suit against you.

--jimiii
-- 
Faster Horses
Younger Women
Older Whiskey
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: WHY DON'T PEOPLE USE
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:05:19 GMT

Xeon The Mage (xeons!xeon.the.mage@midiline.la.ca.us) wrote:
: As it currently stands buses and motorcycles must always drive with
: their lights on.

Only motorcycles made after 1978.  Also, I have a switch installed on
my later-model bike, and when my battery is low and I'm in a low-traffic
area, sometimes I turn my headlight off.  No cop has ever bothered me.

Someone asked why we can't drive with just parking lights on.  I think
the powers that be thought the same hypothetical drunk who drives into
parked cars will assume that the moving parking lights s/he sees in
dusk or foggy conditions is really a parked car, and make a dangerous
maneuver.  It's legislation for the least common denominator again
(just like with speed limits).

--
 __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|_____________________|_
From: danac@morc.asd.sgi.com (Dana Crom)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Stupidity in cars (was Re: Why don't people use their lights?)
Followup-To: ca.driving
Date: 6 Nov 1992 02:22:54 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: morc.asd.sgi.com
Summary: parking lights have a purpose

In article <32640017@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com> defaria@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria) writes:

>Which leads me to the questions: What are "parking lights" for anyway?  and
>Have you ever really used "parking lights" when "one needs to leave one's car
>somewhere at night"?  (I haven't!)

I believe that parking lights are for when you need to park, after dark, in
a high-traffic area like a freeway shoulder, in a traffic lane on a city
street, etc.  In other words, for emergency service only - your car broke
down and someone might not see it in time without the lights.  And yes, I
mean parking lights, not emergency flashers.
-- 
-----------------------+------------------------+------------------------------
Dana Crom    DoD #0679 | Silicon Graphics, Inc. |  Smile - let them *WONDER* 
danac@morc.asd.sgi.com | (415) 390-1449         |  what you've been up to . . .

Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: Why don't people use their lights?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:29:20 GMT

Jim Paugh (jmp@leo.irv.icl.com) wrote:
:   Have you ever tried driving in CA with you headlights on during the day?  
:   You will receive numereous headlight flashes from other cars, indicating 
:   the inappropriateness of your safety consciousness!  The assumption is 
:   that you are just another brain-dead driver who has left your headlights
:   on from the previous night %^)

What's especially funny about this is, nobody seems to know what headlight
flashes *mean* anymore, anyway!  Suppose it's nighttime, not daytime,
and you see some poor sod coming at you without his lights on.  You flash
yours at him in a friendly reminder.  Seems like 9 out of 10 times
nowadays he will just stare at you like you're nuts, and keep on
driving without his lights on.  I've actually had people flip me off before
for flashing my lights at them, without a clue as to why I did it.

"Just who taught these people their driver's ed class?!" I always 
say to myself under my breath.  I've actually burned out a low-beam 
before trying desparately to get some ignorant fool to turn on *his*.

--
 __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: mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Mark Newton-John)
Subject: Re: Radar Detectors
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 22:32:06 GMT

In <27285@dog.ee.lbl.gov> envsxj@epb9.lbl.gov (Sigurd S. Jenssen) writes:


>I'm new to the Bay Area, so I'm wondering what the laws on Radar
>Detectors are in California, and the neighboring states for that matter.

This is the West. There are no restrictions on the use or ownership
of radar detectors.

On California freeways, the California Highway Patrol does not use
radar for tickets, ALTHOUGH some units use them to determine your
speed, but they still have to time you and use the speedometers in
their cars to get a speed reading.

Many local police use radar for ticketing.


-- 
#############################################################
# Scaramento Public Access UNIX     sactoh0.SAC.CA.US       #  
#  (916) 649-0161, 722-6516 & 722-5068    E-Mail & USENET   #
################## default .signature file ##################
Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: rajeev@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rajeev Gupta)
Subject: Bumped Bumpers!
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:02:34 GMT

Consider a hypothetical, though quite plausible, situation -

	You are driving calmly on a surface street at no great speed,
	when suddenly, the car in front of you brakes suddenly.  You
	react as quickly as you can and slam on your brakes.

One of the following may happen -

	1) You bump into the other car's rear fender.  Had you been
	   paying more attention, you would have been able to stop in
	   time to avoid the bump.
	
	2) You bump into the other car's fender, and there was no way
	   you could have stopped in time to avoid that.

	3) You do not bump into the other car's rear fender.

In either case, the other car's driver comes out, holds you responsible
for damaging his rear fender and asks for your driver license/insurance
policy number, or that you pay up a certain amount unofficialy i.e.
without going through insurance companies.

What are your options in terms of -

	1) denying to co-operate right there, or
	2) paying up a certain amount (without going thru insurance), or
	3) defending your position with his insurance company later?

Note that in the first case, you are "guilty" and are trying to hoodwink
the system, whereas in the other two cases, you are "innocent" and are
seeking to right a wrong.  The morals are not relevant since you could
easily be in the other person's shoes.

Also, the reason for the other person stopping suddenly is unimportant
(or, is it not?).  Assume that it was due to a pedestrian suddenly
coming in the way.  Are there any other circumstances which affect your
options?

Case 2 is particularly interesting since neither party can be stamped
"guilty" in an obvious fashion.  Also this case occurs often on freeways
(e.g. in pile-ups).

How does the insurance premium of *BOTH DRIVERS* get affected?
-- Rajeev
From: defaria@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:34:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Stupidity in cars (was Re: Why don't people use their lights?)
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: ca.driving

>/ hpcuhe:ca.driving / jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) /  4:26 pm  Nov  4, 1992 /

>My '90 Laser shuts off the headlights when you turn off the ignition,
>but leaves the parking lights on.  I suspect that what the law actually
>requires is that there be a way for the parking lights to be on with
>the ignition off.  This could be considered a safety feature for when
>one needs to leave one's car somewhere at night.  

Which leads me to the questions: What are "parking lights" for anyway?  and
Have you ever really used "parking lights" when "one needs to leave one's car
somewhere at night"?  (I haven't!)
From: mtb30@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Mark Ball)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Stupidity in cars (was Re: Why don't people use their lights?)
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:38:20 GMT
Reply-To: mtb30@RUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Mark Ball)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <ostubble.720992607@uclagsm> ostubble@agsm.ucla.edu (Otha Stubblefield III) writes:
>Chaw@cs.Stanford.edu (Sudarshan S. Chawathe)   writes:
>
>
>>Specific e.g.:  I haven't encountered any car that would beep at
>>you (say for 5 sec.) if you drive for 10 sec at night with your
>>lights off.  All this needs is a simple circuit that should cost
>>less than $10.
>
>My friend's Chevy Cavelier (86 or 87) has an indicator on the dash
>that comes on if you are driving with your lights off and the outside
>lighting is very low.

A friend's T-bird has all sorts of gadgets including a daylight
sensor.  But that's a little extreme.  I figure the best simplist
light switch would be a cross between the T's door locks and a dome
light--three positions OFF, AUTO, ON.  AUTO turns the lights on
what the car goes into gear after starting and turns them off when
the ingnition is turned off.  This idea is so simple I don't understand
why auto manufacturers don't implement it.  My car's EGR already has
the necessary sensors.

mark
--
Memory fault(coredump)
From: raman@translab.its.uci.edu (Balaji Ramanathan)
Subject: Re: Stupidity in cars (was Re: Why don't people use their lights?)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:54:15 GMT
Distribution: ca

In article <1dcktuINNjij@fido.asd.sgi.com> danac@morc.asd.sgi.com (Dana Crom) writes:
>In article <32640017@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com> defaria@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria) writes:
>
>>Which leads me to the questions: What are "parking lights" for anyway?  and
>>Have you ever really used "parking lights" when "one needs to leave one's car
>>somewhere at night"?  (I haven't!)
>
>I believe that parking lights are for when you need to park, after dark, in
>a high-traffic area like a freeway shoulder, in a traffic lane on a city
>street, etc.  In other words, for emergency service only - your car broke
>down and someone might not see it in time without the lights.  And yes, I
>mean parking lights, not emergency flashers.
>Dana Crom    DoD #0679 | Silicon Graphics, Inc. |  Smile - let them *WONDER* 
>danac@morc.asd.sgi.com | (415) 390-1449         |  what you've been up to . . .
>

	In India, from where I come, cars do not have emergency flashers.
There I have seen parking lights being used about the same way you would
use flashers.  However, now that cars have flashers I think parking lights
are redundant.  After all, flashers are anyway more visible than parking
lights.

--
------------------->8      Cut here for Signature!       8<---------------------
Balaji Ramanathan,                   | 
Institute of Transportation Studies, |         I don't believe in luck!
University of California, Irvine.    |              I RELY on it!!
From: jslee@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (John Lee <jslee>)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Bumped Bumpers!
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:35:11 GMT
Reply-To: jslee@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (John Lee)
Distribution: ca

> jimiii@nimbus.com (Jim Warford) writes:
>>	1) denying to co-operate right there, or
>You can do that.  Just don't leave the scene without giving your name, DL#
>and insurance information or it becomes felony hit and run.
	!It's a felony only if someone is injured; else it's a misdemeanor.
	![California] In either case you don't want to do this.

JSLee
From: xeons!xeon.the.mage@midiline.la.ca.us (Xeon The Mage) 
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: RE: WHY DON'T PEOPLE USE
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:26:00 GMT
Reply-To: xeons!xeon.the.mage@midiline.la.ca.us (Xeon The Mage) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Xeon's Magic Shop BBS - Canyon Country - CA - 805-250-0627

-> It's not required in B.C., but far more Canadians drive with their
-> lights on.  Also, all cars sold in Canada for the last two or three
-> years have been required to have daytime running lights.  The running
-> light circuit (which is on whenever the car is in turned on/in gear,
-> except when the driver has turned on the headlights) automatically
-> turns on the low beams or the high beam bulbs on partial power.

I think that california has been considering doing this for a while now.
As it currently stands buses and motorcycles must always drive with
their lights on.
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Judge offers probation. I accept. C'est la vie.
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:24:43 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Chris Calley (calley@optilink.UUCP) wrote:
: Immediately after entering my plea, judge notes how pristine my driving 
: record is (little does he know what it used to look like), and offers 
: me probation.  If I'm a good little boy for the next 6 months, they will 
: dismiss the charge. . . .

[reformatted lines, and stuff deleted. . . .]

: I'll never know [if I could've won the case on the merits].

Should you blow probation, Chris, you ought to be able to take the original
case to trial on the merits.  There is caselaw that seems to indicate this.
If and when it happens, ask, and I'll try to dig it up.

--
 __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|_____________________|_
From: defaria@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:16:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Stupidity in cars (was Re: Why don't people use their lights?)
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: ca.driving

>/ hpcuhe:ca.driving / danac@morc.asd.sgi.com (Dana Crom) /  6:22 pm  Nov  5, 1992 /

>I believe that parking lights are for when you need to park, after dark, in
>a high-traffic area like a freeway shoulder, in a traffic lane on a city
>street, etc.  In other words, for emergency service only - your car broke
>down and someone might not see it in time without the lights.  And yes, I
>mean parking lights, not emergency flashers.

Rediculous!  Why not the emergency flashers?  Why the parking lights?  What
then are the emergency flashers for 'cept for situtations like this?  Face it
parking lights serve no useful function.  They only time I ever saw them used
with any frequency is at "Lover's Lane" and it only served to help the cops
bug you when you didn't want to be bugged anyway.
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: looking for a good mechanic in sf
From: eburk@bugs.sfsu.edu (Eli Burk)
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:37:39 PST
Reply-To: eburk@bugs.sfsu.edu (Eli Burk)
Keywords: mechanic


looking for a good mechanic in sf
i have a 84 honda accord
--
Basic training in the techniques of cheerleading, including arm motions,  
cheer-
leading rountines, voice projection, double stunts, pyramid design, along  
with
a development of safety guidelines, crowd control and teamwork. [class at  
UNLV]
eburk@futon.sfsu.edu -or- eburk@sutro.sfsu.edu -or-  
eburk@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Stupidity in cars (was Re: Why don't people use their lights?)
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:46:07 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <chaw.720936938@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> Chaw@cs.Stanford.edu (Sudarshan S. Chawathe) writes:
>
>Actually this brings up an interesting question.  We all know
>that electronics is dirt-cheap (at least compared to the price of
>a car!) And we can all no doubt think of so many little features
>that involve just a little circuit here and there.  Yet, most
>cars will not have these features. Why?  My guess is that the car
>manufacturers want to reserve these nifty things for `luxury'
>models, so that the customer can be more easily convinced to
>cough up more money for the car.
>
   I don't know how much experience you have in the computer
   business using computers and software, but the next time yours
   acts up and barfs all over your work or files, think about using
   a computer to operate the brakes on your car.   We won't talk
   about malicious things such as viruses....
From: gharriso@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Graeme Harrison)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: New Toys for the CHiPpies
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:40:24 GMT
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server

The CHP Z28 Camaros did 0-60 in about 6.9 seconds if my memory banks
are intact. This isn't the first time the CHP ordered Z28s as I recall
they had several 1979 Z28s for awhile, but seems that the officers had
a habit of blowing those motors up...I kid you not!
 
At least they didn't order 1993 Kawasaki ZX-11s as pursuit motorcycles
which can exceed 180mph, do the 1/4 miles in *very* low 10s and 0-60mph
instantly. However, can't see them giving up their open face helmets,
shades, bomber jackers, tan pants, short gloves for full leathers, full
faced helmets and knee pucks. :-) 

Graeme Harrison
DoD#0649
'No tickets since 10/88 and counting!'
Newsgroups: ca.driving,rec.autos
From: deven@twg.com (Deven Naniwadekar)
Subject: Are Radar Detectors banned in Oregon?
Keywords: radar detectors, oregon
Organization: The Office
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:33:31 GMT


Could someone please tell me if radar detectors are banned in Oregon?

Thanks
-Deven

Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: georgew@hspice.portal.com (George Wu)
Subject: Re: Bumped Bumpers!
Organization: Meta - Software
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:43:51 GMT

-
     Generally speaking, if you rear-end someone, it's your fault and that's
that.  The theory is, no matter how or why the car ahead of you stopped or
slowed, if you'd been following at a greater distance you would have avoided
the accident.  If you couldn't stop in time, it's because you were following
too closely.  (I say generally, because I know of one case in which a police
officer incorrectly claimed the vehicle in front swerved into another lane.)

     As for making the claim to your insurance company, that's entirely in
your discretion.  If you decide to pay for the damages out of your own pocket,
the insurance company won't object.  If they somehow hear about the accident,
ie. if you're also ticketed your DMV will reflect the moving violation, your
rates may still be affected.

							George


-- 
----
George J Wu,  georgew@hspice.portal.com or georgew@metasw.com
Meta-Software,  1300 White Oaks Road,  Campbell, CA 95008,  (408) 369-5400
Never be the first to believe.  Never be the last to deceive.  ---  Chess
From: markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Panitz)
Newsgroups: ca.driving
Subject: Re: Radar Detectors
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:26:55 GMT
Organization: The Palmtree BBS - 310/453-8726 - Santa Monica, CA

the CHP does use Radar if some Jursidtions (ie Malibu) ask the CHP and pay
for the radar .
Newsgroups: ca.driving