HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:51:44 GMT
Distribution: ont
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <6230@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> mmt@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Martin Taylor) writes:

>Andrew Lavigne (alavigne@bnr.ca) quotes a US report with which I disagree.
>Having made my stand against slow discourteous drivers in an earlier
>posting, I would like to mention Ontario history as evidence against:

>  Increasing
> speed limits to more realistic levels will not result in higher speeds but
> would increase voluntary compliance and target enforcement at the occasional
>violator and high-risk driver."

>Ontario used to have a speed limit of 70 mph on expressways, but the
>conventional driving speed was 90 mph or thereabouts.  I remember once,
>passing Kingston, I pulled out of the slow lane to pass, and got a blast
>from a bus that had come up fast behind me without my noticing.  I was
>going with the traffic at 95 mph.  I think the bus must have been doing
>at least 120. (Of course one has to allow something for speedometer
>inaccuracy, but not much).

Either your member is defective, or your speedometer was way off.  I
was doing a substantial amount of highway driving back then.  I would
have said that the average was a touch above 70, you'd relatively
rarely see vehicles going 80, and very rarely 90 or above.  The only
times you'd see significant amounts of traffic >80 was on the 400
outside of holiday rush, because the 400 has always been a drag strip.
Even then, the one time I got my mother's old car up to 90ish, I
was only passed once from Barrie to highway 7.

The averages that someone else just quoted (68mph) sounds a lot more
like it.  And the average speeds haven't changed much, only the speed
limits.

120mph in a bus?  Nah.  90-100 on the outside (and the Ottawa
run still goes like that).
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Xref: sparky ont.general:1692 can.general:4164 soc.culture.canada:6107
From: frampton@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca (Steve Frampton)
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:56:37 GMT
Reply-To: frampton@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca
Distribution: ont
Organization: Vicuna Systems, Kingston, ON (613) 547-5066

jnetto@bnr.ca (John Netto) writes:

> In article <1992Aug25.225845.15460@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca wr
> |> Funny how the young are responsible for a disproportionate number
> |> of accidents.
> 
>  Perhaps someone can show some stats to support this ? I mean, it also has
>  to take into account accidents/kms driven, not just the number of accidents.
>  There would be other variables (type of vehicle, road conditions, alcohol, e
>  to consider upon which to benchmark these figures. Only then can you compare

Well, gee...the only stats I can provide is the amount of $$$ I saved on 
my auto insurance when I turned 25.

+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Steve Frampton - frampton@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca | Steve Frampton     |
| I collect postcards!  If you send me one from | 501-A Princess St. |
| your area, I'll send one in return.  Send to >| Kingston, Ontario  |
| (Don't forget both email and mailing address) | CANADA   K7L 1C3   |
+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------+
Xref: sparky ont.general:1701 can.general:4179 soc.culture.canada:6136
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:50:21 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mid Island Ham Network

ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:

> In <3176@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
> >If 120
> >is too fast and dangerous for me than 100 is too fast and
> >dangerous for half the drivers in Ontario (I'm young with good
> >reflexes and driving skills).
> 
> Funny how the young are responsible for a disproportionate number
> of accidents.
> 


And the old... I remember reading that those causing most of the 
accidents are at opposite ends of the age scale... the young because of 
inexperience and more risktaking, and the elderly because of inadequate 
driving skills for today's traffic, their physical condition and lack of 
practice in heavy traffic conditions. 


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca (Robert Smits Ladysmith BC)
Xref: sparky ont.general:1705 can.general:4188 soc.culture.canada:6148
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:07:32 GMT
Distribution: can

ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
> In <3176@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
> >If 120
> >is too fast and dangerous for me than 100 is too fast and
> >dangerous for half the drivers in Ontario (I'm young with good
> >reflexes and driving skills).
> 
> Funny how the young are responsible for a disproportionate number
> of accidents.

Wrong.
Poorly skilled and inexperienced drivers are responsible for a
disproportionate number of accidents.  Poorly skilled and inexperienced
just happens to describe most young drivers.

By the way,  I'm 27.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: rbutterw@math.uwaterloo.ca (Ray Butterworth [MFCF])
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo
Distribution: ont
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:33:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.074143.11138@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>Martin Taylor (mmt@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca) writes:
>> Ontario used to have a speed limit of 70 mph on expressways, but the
>> conventional driving speed was 90 mph or thereabouts.  I remember once,
>> passing Kingston, I pulled out of the slow lane to pass, and got a blast
>> from a bus that had come up fast behind me without my noticing.  I was
>> going with the traffic at 95 mph.
>
>Well, I am not as old as Martin, but I do remember when the expressway
>speed limit was raised from 60 to 70 mph, and it was still 70 mph when
>I got my driver's license.  In those days I observed speed limits pretty
>strictly, traffic permitting, and I certainly did NOT see a "conventional
>driving speed" of 90 mph.  I may not have been the fastest driver on the
>road, but neither was I uncomfortably slower than the stream.

Well, I'm only a little older than Mark, but I used to drive from Guelph
to arrive in downtown Toronto by 6pm every Friday around 1973 and 1974.
Most of the heavy traffic was in the opposite direction, and I and
the majority of the the traffic going with me tended to drive between
80 and 90 mph for most of the 401 up to the airport where it started
to bog down.  There were some slower cars, but there were also a few
going faster too.
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: drraymon@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Darrell Raymond)
Subject: Re: Bell grudgingly offers free call blocking
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:39:47 GMT

In article <3772@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
> 
> Caller ID and Call trace are fundamentally different.  I believe that
> there is a upfront charge, plus a charge per use of Call Trace.  "Use"
> is done by dialing a code on your phone immediately after hanging up
> from the call you want traced.

  Call Trace is "free" until you use it (starting September 14), then 
there's a $5 charge per use with a monthly maximum of $10.  But like 
Call Blocking, you have to order it, by calling them at 1-800-668-BELL.  

  The code you dial is *57 (touch-tone) or 1157 (rotary).  The code
for Call Block is *67 (touch-tone) or 1167 (rotary).  For some reason
the pamphlet they stuck in the phone bill had the latter numbers but
not the former.
 
> However, the results from "call trace" are sealed - the customer can't
> find out the number traced.  It's kept for the police or the phone company
> to use in investigating any criminal charges - if the customer wishes to
> pursue them - as in harassing phone calls.

  Yes.  I was told that you have to call the police after you do the
trace, and they call a special number to get the trace information.

-Darrell.
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: simon.s.huang@hydro.on.ca ()
Subject: Apartment for rent
Organization: Ontario Hydro
Distribution: ont
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:40:18 GMT

I am posting this for a friend.

Two Bedroom semi-furnished basement apartment for rent.
Parking and backyard.
$500 inclusive (Hydro, Heating adn Laundry facilities)
Please call 482-2639 after 6 pm

Newsgroups: ont.general
From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: Re: Paternalism and the Price of Plonk.
Organization: York University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:57:17 GMT

Marc Roussel (mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) explains :
> .. The real reason the government is going to make small wineries
> charge the same at their stores as the LCBO does is GATT (and perhaps
> the Canada/U.S. Free Trade agreement, although I'm not sure about
> that).  Foreign wineries are claiming that the LCBO markup, in
> combination with the existence of winery stores selling local products
> at reduced rates, amount to unfair trade. ..

I give up.  I don't grok New Age Economics.

supplyanddemandsupplyanddemandsupplyanddemandsupplyanddemandsupplyanddemand 
tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada

Newsgroups: uw.general,ont.general
From: bdb@becker.GTS.ORG (Bruce Becker)
Subject: Re: Warning: notorious Nazi apologist headed our way
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario
Distribution: uw
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:17:31 GMT

In article <92Aug28.135255edt.12046@roll.db.toronto.edu> fche@db.toronto.edu ("Frank Ch. Eigler") writes:
|
|Oh, come now.  Lie-spreading is the bread-and-butter of many activist
|groups.  I don't think he's more dangerous than, say, some of the
|views promoted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.


	Frank, your opinions suck.


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker			Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.gts.org	Uucp: ...!web!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "We want the worm, and we want a cow!"
 _< /_	 	- More Jimison, ordering drinks for his table
Newsgroups: uw.general,ont.general
From: fche@db.toronto.edu ("Frank Ch. Eigler")
Subject: Re: Warning: notorious Nazi apologist headed our way
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: uw
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:53:08 GMT


shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:

>P. S.  Although I detest Irving and his views, I nevertheless
>support his right to speak.  But the Hotel Bayrischer Hof and
>European Sound Import are not compelled to give him a forum,
>and I have every right to express my displeasure at their choices.
>So do you.

Sure, express your displeasure, but leave him alone.  Parade
outside his talk, if you want.  Admit at least that some people
have a legitimate curiosity toward what this person has to say.


abrodnik@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca writes:

>I completely agree that he has all right speak, but does he has right
>to spread lies? Somehow I can't understand this.

Oh, come now.  Lie-spreading is the bread-and-butter of many activist
groups.  I don't think he's more dangerous than, say, some of the
views promoted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
-- 

-- Frank Ch. Eigler -- Comp Eng -- <eigler@ecf.toronto.edu> --
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: chare@unilabs.uucp (Chris Hare)
Subject: looking for an Internet feed
Organization: None: Just Me, Chris Hare
Distribution: ont
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:46:29 GMT

Choreo Systems Inc, my employer, is in the process of considering whether
or not to join the internet community rather than the UUCP dialup we have
right now.  If there is a site in Ottawa and Toronto who would be agreeable
to providing PPP or SLIP access to your sight for access, then please email
me at chare@choreo.ca and we can set up a dialog.

We are examining several possibilities right now, but you know, money is
money, and the boss says there isn't any.  So I have to do this any way I
can.

Thanks

Chris Hare
Ottawa Technical Services Manager
chare@choreo.ca
-- 
????                --- It Always works for me! ---                           
Chris Hare, UNIX Scientist                  Preferred : chare@unilabs.uucp
Just a mild-mannered consultant by day ....
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: landolt@nexus.yorku.ca (Paul Landolt)
Subject: Re: Bell grudgingly offers free call blocking
Organization: York University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:19:37 GMT

dcoskun@alias.com (Denis Coskun) writes:

>My latest phone bill came with an offer for "free automated per-call
>blocking," which means you can dial *67 before placing a call and the
>person you call doesn't get your phone number if they have a caller-ID
>phone.

Thanks for the info.  I called up the Bell 1-800 service number, and I got
it installed. by the way, the number is 1-800-668-3901

>What's not clear to me is why you have to order this service before you
>can use it.  Why doesn't Bell enable the service for everyone -- those who
>want it will use it, and those who don't, won't?

It's _VERY_ possible that the adaministrative nightmare of putting everyone
on call blocking is too much.  Some people just don't want it.  Of course, that
doesn't excuse Bell. However, the notification in each phone bill should be
enough.

>So is Bell trying to hinder call blocking by making you first order it
>or is there a legitimate reason?  (Not surprisingly, I didn't get a
>straight answer from the Bell customer reps I spoke to.)

I got a _very_ straight answer. The conversation went somewhat like this:

BC: Hello?

Me: 'Morning. I received this notice in my phone bill (LIE!) that you are 
    now offering free call blocking.  I would like that added to my service.

BC: Yes, well, we are offering it, but it won't be active until September 14.
    I could put in on your phone now, but you won't be able to use it until
    then.

Me: That would be fine.

BC: Very well. What is your phone number then, sir?

Me: 416-xxx-xxxx (note the call blocking to the Net!!)

BC: (click, clip, tap, tap). Ok sir, call block has been added

Me: Thank you >Click<

There ya go. Slicker 'n snot.  I found the whole ordeal quite painless.
-- 
J. Paul Landolt - Guest of:         | If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
York University - Toronto, Canaidia | ...unless you're a consultant  
+1 416 736 5257                     | ----------------------------------
InterNet: landolt@nexus.yorku.ca    | My opinions. All mine. So sue me.
Newsgroups: ont.general,ut.general
From: acube.eecg.toronto.edu
Subject: Ride Wanted (T.O.-Detroit/Windsor & return)
Keywords: Toronto_Detroit_Ride_Car 
Organization: University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: 26 Aug 92 03:36:31 GMT


Hi!
   I am a graduate student here at the U of T & I have to be
   in Detroit on FRIDAY. 
   
   Could some kind soul give me a ride, on THURSDAY, to Detroit or Windsor. 
   I'll be returning to Toronto on Saturday afternoon (in case somebody
   could bring me back).
   
   Of course, we'll split the rent, gas and other sundries. If you like,
   I'll supply the laughs and jokes free of charge :)
  
   Call  416 351 1590 or email asap.

   Thanx
                           __________
                    ______/_:)__|_:)_\__                   
  _________________ |__()___________()__|_______________________________________

         _______)__
         -------__/
                                                   
Newsgroups: uw.general,ont.general
From: bdb@becker.GTS.ORG (Bruce Becker)
Subject: Re: Warning: notorious Nazi apologist headed our way
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario
Distribution: uw
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:09:43 GMT

In article <92Aug28.135255edt.12046@roll.db.toronto.edu> fche@db.toronto.edu ("Frank Ch. Eigler") writes:
|
|Oh, come now.  Lie-spreading is the bread-and-butter of many activist
|groups.  I don't think he's more dangerous than, say, some of the
|views promoted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.


	Frank, your opinion sucks.


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker			Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.gts.org	Uucp: ...!web!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "We want the worm, and we want a cow!"
 _< /_	 	- More Jimison, ordering drinks for his table
Xref: sparky ont.general:1670 can.general:4124 soc.culture.canada:6029
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Organization: York University
Distribution: ont
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:54:58 GMT

mmt@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Martin Taylor) writes:
|Ontario used to have a speed limit of 70 mph on expressways, but the
|conventional driving speed was 90 mph or thereabouts.  I remember once,
|passing Kingston, I pulled out of the slow lane to pass, and got a blast
|from a bus that had come up fast behind me without my noticing.  I was
|going with the traffic at 95 mph.  I think the bus must have been doing
|at least 120. (Of course one has to allow something for speedometer
|inaccuracy, but not much).

|As soon as the speed limit was reduced, to save fuel (not for any safety
|reasons), the conventional travel speed dropped to about 70 or 75 mph.

	I must disagree: the behavior in southwestern ontario was VERY
	different from what you report, nor do I personally recollect any
	instances of 90-mph speeds in my occasional trips through eastern
	Ontario.

	I believe the 2 mph-delta report, and recollect seeing it mentioned
	in a MOT publication...

|If there are two offences that I would give automatic tickets for, it is
|the complementary pair--being in the left lane other than to pass or to
|prepare for a left turn, and passing on the right when the passed vehicle
|is not turning left.

	That I **do** agree with (:-))

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave.,      | 
Willowdale, Ontario,  | Stupidity is evil waiting to happen.
CANADA. 416-223-8968  |               -- Clay Bond
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: pky@meadow.uucp (Peter Yeung)
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Reply-To: pky@meadow.UUCP (Peter Yeung)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Distribution: ont
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 16:49:05 GMT

In article <6230@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> mmt@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Martin Taylor) writes:
>
>Andrew Lavigne (alavigne@bnr.ca) quotes a US report with which I disagree.
>Having made my stand against slow discourteous drivers in an earlier
>posting, I would like to mention Ontario history as evidence against:
>
>  Increasing
> speed limits to more realistic levels will not result in higher speeds but
> would increase voluntary compliance and target enforcement at the occasional violator and high-risk driver."
>
>Ontario used to have a speed limit of 70 mph on expressways, but the
>conventional driving speed was 90 mph or thereabouts.  I remember once,
>passing Kingston, I pulled out of the slow lane to pass, and got a blast
>from a bus that had come up fast behind me without my noticing.  I was
>going with the traffic at 95 mph.  I think the bus must have been doing
>at least 120. (Of course one has to allow something for speedometer
>inaccuracy, but not much).

So you pull into another lane WITHOUT checking and blame the speeder for
going too fast?

>
>As soon as the speed limit was reduced, to save fuel (not for any safety
>reasons), the conventional travel speed dropped to about 70 or 75 mph.
>If the speed limit were raised again, I think driving speeds would go
>back where they were before.  The only way, I think, to get people to
>drive at reasonable and proper safe speeds is to eliminate speed limits

Is 70mph more "reasonable" and "safer" than 90mph???

>and the offence of speeding.  Make people responsible for the safe
>operation of the vehicle, rather than making them conform to an arbitrary
>requirement that sometimes is overcautious and sometimes totally unsafe.
>
>If there are two offences that I would give automatic tickets for, it is
>the complementary pair--being in the left lane other than to pass or to
>prepare for a left turn, and passing on the right when the passed vehicle
>is not turning left.
>
>-- 
>Martin Taylor (mmt@ben.dciem.dnd.ca ...!uunet!dciem!mmt) (416) 635-2048
>Beauty being skin deep, it would seem that the hippopotamus has an
>epidermal advantage that it has somehow failed to exploit. (Jack Kent)


-- 
Peter Yeung     Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
                Phone: (416) 542-6300    Fax: (416) 858-2233
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:58:45 GMT

In <3176@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>If 120
>is too fast and dangerous for me than 100 is too fast and
>dangerous for half the drivers in Ontario (I'm young with good
>reflexes and driving skills).

Funny how the young are responsible for a disproportionate number
of accidents.

Newsgroups: ont.general
From: cal@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam)
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Distribution: ont
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:53:07 GMT

In article <6230@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> mmt@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Martin Taylor) writes:
>
>Make people responsible for the safe
>operation of the vehicle, rather than making them conform to an arbitrary
>requirement that sometimes is overcautious and sometimes totally unsafe.
>

A while back (possibly a year or more) I heard/read that on the 401-like
expressways in Quebec (such as highway 40 which I believe becomes the
401 at the Quebec/Ontario border) they were planning to try an
experiment of removing the speed limits all together for a period
while they monitored speed-trends to determine what would be a more
"realistic" speed limit.

Has anyone else heard of this?  What has happened to it?

Calvin Henry-Cotnam, CATE            |    MY CANADA INCLUDES CANADIANS!
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute      | I would really like this to include
Toronto, Ontario, Canada             | Quebec - but I won't hold my breath.
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general