HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ujmli@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving with parking lights only
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:48:20 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <24042@galaxy.ucr.edu>, judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:
> Why do people insist on driving only with parking lights on when it is dusk?
> Why don't they just turn on their headlights?  Beside the fact that it is
> illegal in many states, it doesn't make it that much easier to see the car.
> Do people think that they are saving their headlights by only turning on
> their parking lights when it is dusk?  Furthermore, they are called parking
> lights and as such should be used for that purpose, not for driving.  Just
> turn those damn headlights on!!!
> 

Today, I accidentally had my parking lights on. I meant to turn on the 
headlights, maybe I hit the light switch when I was using the turn
signals (my light switches are on the turn signal lever). Also, I had pop-up
lights, and I saw them up, so I must had hit the switch by accident. I didn't
even notice it until I got to parking lot.

Also, whenever I have the car parked with the parking lights on, I'd forget to 
turn the headlights back on when I start driving again.

Jason 





> --
> "It takes a big man to cry.
> but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
> 				Jack Handy
> 
> 
> judson@watserv.ucr.edu
From: rhaar@albert.cs.gmr.com (Bob Haar)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Braking distances.
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:24:59 GMT
Reply-To: rhaar@albert.cs.gmr.com
Organization: G.M. Research and Environmental Staff

In article 11q@news.cso.uiuc.edu, tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
|>
|>In article <1992Nov17.091605.4937@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU |>>
|>>actually, audis in general have very good brakes.
|>
|>That may be, but the best brakes in the world won't do any good when the
|>car is undergoing an "unintended acceleration" at the same time you're
|>trying to stop. ;-)

Especially if the unintended acceleration results from having your
foot on the accelerator pedal instead of the brake. 


---
	Robert Haar               InterNet : rhaar@gmr.com 
	Computer Science Dept., G.M. Research and Environmental Staff
DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is
personal opinion, not an official statement of General Motors Corp.


Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: mpalmer@encore.com (Mike Palmer)
Subject: Re: LIDAR demo on Discovery Channel
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:59:43 GMT

whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:

>In article <1992Nov12.030343.2658@pony.Ingres.COM> kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.234548.12945@news.columbia.edu> scs8@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Sebastian C Sears) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov11.200930.22847@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>>>
>>>>Q2 - If braking hard, how does the cop even know it if he doesn't get
>>>>a "fix" and therefore some reading which indicates a rapidly 
>>>>decreasing speed indicative of hard braking?  LIDAR needs to be
>>>>exactly on the car, if it isn't there's no reading that
>>>>reflects a changing (decreasing) speed.
>>>
>>>	Watch the nose dive. Cops don't need no stinkin' radar reading in
>>>	a lot of states. They just get believed.

>If the only evidence of the speeding charge is the cops observation of
>the car "nosediving" I'd expect anyone with a reasonable effort should
>be able to have that charge dismissed and/or found not quilty.  There
>has to be more evidence than just the fact that a a driver applied his
>brakes to sustain a guilty conviction for speedin (exceeding a certain
>posted limit).  If (I think it was Vermont that this supposedly
>happened in) the speed limit was 55 or 65, how does the cop know
>what speed the vehicle was going at when the brakes were applied.
>Guilt by assuming that the driver wouldn't have hit his brakes unless
>he was speeding is not (IMHO) sufficent to sustain a conviction.
>Likewise, I have never seen anyone convicted of speeding without
>some actual speed identified on the traffic ticket.  Now I'm
>not saying someone might not have had this happen to them, what I am
>saying is that I think I'd be able to get the charge dismissed  or found
>not guilty because the state has not proven it's case beyond a reasonable
>doubt.

>>Also - most - or at least _many_ vehicle mounted radar systems have a audio 
>>feed of the dopler signal.  You *hear* the vehicle hit the brakes...

>No argument, but the original discussion cenetered on LIDAR, not
>RADAR.  I'll assume there's no audible associated with LIDAR.  Even
>given the audible, that alone should would not be proof that the
>vehicle was speeding, it just shows the vehicle was slowing down.
>A speeding conviction still requires (IMHO) an actual speed reading.

>Of course, everything I've said assumes the cop telling the truth.
>If the cop fills in any of the blanks by lieing or just claiming
>you were speeding at XXmph, there's not much you can do.  I'm just
>saying that absent certain key elements, there should not be a case
>against a driver who is observed braking.

You have a right to see the speed he writes on the ticket indicated on
the device used to check your speed (according to "Beating the Radar Rap".
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (REAL LIFE?!?!  HA!!)
Subject: Re: heel and toeing
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: rec
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:11:29 GMT

joso@vega.math.ualberta.ca (Joseph_So) writes:

>Forgive me if this is an old topic. But could someone
>please explain what is the heel and toe technique?

OK, first we need to understand double-clutching.  Double-clutching is a tech-
nique used to reduce wear on the synchros in the transmission when down-
shifting.  It sounds rather complex, but here's how it's done (or at least how
I do it :) :  Let's assume your car is turning 2000 RPM in fourth.  If you put
it in third, it would be turning 3000 RPM.  Now, you need to be in third,
for engine-braking, acceleration, whatever.  You would disengage the clutch,
shift into neutral, engage the clutch, blip the throttle, bringing RPM's up to
about 3000-3500, disengage the clutch, shift into third, engage the clutch.  If
you do this properly, the engine and gear speeds will match up perfectly, the
lever will slide into third smooth as silk, and your passengers will be duly 
impressed.  If you do it wrong, well, lots of interesting things could happen,
but it would be pretty tough to trash your 'box in the process of learning how
to double-clutch.

Now, heel-and-toeing, quite simply enough, is the act of double-clutching while
braking, usually into second gear preparatory to taking a corner.  As you are
performing the double-clutch downshift as above, the ball of your right foot
is on the brake pedal, and you move your heel over to blip up the throttle.
Note here that every car is different in this respect; on my BMW I actually use
my heel for the gas and the ball of my foot for the brake, but on my MG I use
the ball of my foot on the brake and rock the edge of my foot to the right.  On
that car there's little enough space between the gas and brake that I hardly
need to move at all.

On modern cars, it's quite often impossible to heel-and-toe due to the arrange-
ment of the gas and brake.  Of course, with modern synchros, you really don't
need to double-clutch in the first place.  But it is still fun......

In any case, if you'd like to learn to do this, take your car to a parking
lot or something (alone so you don't embarrass yourself in front of friends)
and just practice.  Get double-clutching down to where you get it super-smooth
and halfway natural every time; remember, you know you're doing it right if the
lever offers almost no resistance going into gear.  Then you can practice heel-
and-toe driving.  Neither technique is really necessary on modern cars, but
they're a lot of fun.  And if you have an old car (especially an old British or
Italian car, or a Bug) you want to do everything you can to preserve those
little synchros.

Have fun!
===
Michael T. Chaffee        |******BOYCOTT COLORADO******|  ______    
mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu | Professional Slapthologist |  \    /     HATE
Member, Universal Life Church, Sect of Loons           |   \  /  can never be
Annoyance Theatre Platinum Member |     Evil Genius    |    \/  a FAMILY VALUE
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: New gas sucks (flame)
Organization: SSESCO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:24:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.052956.4276@netcom.com>, linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
|> Am I alone in hating the new politically correct, oxygenated gasoline? It
|> costs more. It lowers your MPG. And what does is do? Reduce emissions by 20%?
|> What good does this do if you have to burn an additional 20% worth of gas to
|> get the same number of miles out a tank? Somewhere I can see monkey suited
|> <insert oil company name here> executives laughing all the way to the bank.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Bruce James Robert Linley | "Well, I tried shoving a weiner in the warp drive,
|> Comp Sci & Engr, UCLA     |  but it didn't do a bit o' good."
|> <linley@netcom.com>       | - Star Dreck, c/o Dr. Demento
|> <linley@seas.ucla.edu>    |

No you're not alone.  Gee, ya really think that farm lobbies had anyting
to do with it?  Nah, couldn't be.

What I think is special is the results that my car recently obtained with
normal gas (mandatory emissions testing here.  All tests are done at state
operated testing stations).  HC was 2ppm (max allowed of 220ppm).  CO was
undetectable by the testing equipment (max allowed 1.20%).  How much is
this shit gas gonna improve that?  Maybe it will help a dirty car, but why
must I suffer?
-- 
William R. Nau
Supercomputer Systems Engineering and Services Company (SSESCO)
511 11th Avenue South, Suite 216
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1536
(612) 342-0003

nau@SSESCO.com
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Night vision
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:08:42 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Nov12.192332.4553@udel.edu> dan@seismo.pnl.gov writes:

>While we're at it, how about requiring an
>annual driving certification for those over 65?  I have too many
>close calls caused by elderly drivers who either are not paying
>attention to their driving, are incapable of reacting within a

As accident statistics show, the most accident-prone group on the road
is young men, not because they have slow reactions or bad sight, but
because they take too many risks. Research in the UK has shown that
the high accident rate in this group is caused by a particular subset
of habitually aggressive and dangerous drivers. So the most
cost-effective way of making the roads safer would be to take these
dangerous young men off the road (all of whom think they are
absolutely first class drivers). The UK government has decided to try
to do this by removing the licence of anyone guilty of dangerous
driving, and requiring them to pass both a specially stiff driving
test, _and_ a psychological test, before they get their licence back.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen)
Subject: Re: Braking distances.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 09:16:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.195009.12782@odin.corp.sgi.com> mikesteg@syclone.detroit.sgi.com (Mike Stegbauer) writes:
>In article <23964@galaxy.ucr.edu>, judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:
>|> The general equation in feet is (mph^2)/10
>|> Thus, the breaking distance for 30 mph is 900 feet
>900 feet from 30mph,  what, do you drive an AUDI?

actually, audis in general have very good brakes.  for example,
autoweek shows a 65-0 braking distance of 156 ft. for the audi 100.
the nissan NX2000, an excellent-handling car, clocks in at 153 ft.
the audi 100 has all-season eagle GAs, while the NX2000 has performance
oriented bridgestone potenzas.  the BMW 325i, one of the finest
performance sedans at any price, stops in 150 ft. with pirelli P600 tires.
i'd say that the audi 100's numbers put it in good company.
and if you look at the S4, the ben-hur of audis, its 70-0 braking
puts it on a par with the porsche 911 america roadster (171 and 170 ft.,
respectively).

>|>, for 50 it is 250 feet,
>|> and for 70 it is 490 feet.
>|> It is the proportional square law.
>These numbers actually seem a little high to me.
>Aren't most cars around 130-150 ft for 60mph?

yeah, those numbers are too high.  i didn't work the numbers,
but my guess is that equation assumes a mu (coefficient of
friction) of 1 or less.  the corvette has clocked 112 ft. for 60-0.
-teddy
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: Night vision
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 00:17:32 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <28180@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>of habitually aggressive and dangerous drivers. So the most
>cost-effective way of making the roads safer would be to take these
>dangerous young men off the road (all of whom think they are
>absolutely first class drivers). The UK government has decided to try
>to do this by removing the licence of anyone guilty of dangerous
>driving, and requiring them to pass both a specially stiff driving
>test, _and_ a psychological test, before they get their licence back.

Here in the US they do it by taking several thousand dollars from us.

So what's the penalty for driving without a license in the UK?
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: yogi@coombs.anu.edu.au (Michael Hanslip)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: autocross info?
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:29:39 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.76.2

pauls@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Paul Stafford) writes:

> I'm interested in finding out more about autocross and/or rallying. does
> anyone have any good books/magazines to point me to?

I have a subscription to an American magazine out of Florida called 
Grass Roots Motorsports, that used to called Auto-X. It deals primarily
with SCCA Solo ][ and Pro Solo events, though it covers IT racing and
hill climbing often and rallies occasionally.
Then there is Rally Magazine. I don't know where it comes from, somewhere in
the US and it deals mostly with SCCA ProRallying. 

both are good small distribution mags that have lots of good info in them
for the interested amateur.

Michael Hanslip.


--
Michael Hanslip
yogi@coombs.anu.edu.au  -  mdh410@csc.anu.edu.au
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Paying a Reasonable Price for Gas
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:04:57 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <1992Nov15.063644.5518@r-node.gts.org> tex@r-node.gts.org (Terence Dulay) writes:
>Maybe not lazy, but illiterate.  Might I suggest that you do some research on
>the Japanese education system, which I think is vastly superior to what we have
>in North America.  Also, may I also

True. I bet they also have as many patents, people on the moon, Richard
Stallmans, etc, etc. as we (US) do.

Since this is rec.autos.your-spelling-sucks, could you provide us with 
a list of automotive milestones and who did them? 

>suggest that you go home, look through all your grade school notes, and 
>teach yourself some basic grammar and spelling.  

Spelling is in the eye of the beholder. Greek is a mispeller's delight
as there are very few spelling rules (everything is spelled exactly as it
sounds). Does it mean I'm smarter 'cause I can spell Greek? Or Japanese?

>How ANY university could accept someone who writes as bad as you do is beyond
>me.  Probably because American standards are set to satisfy American people
>(i.e. very low).

(I'd like to flame more but I've reached my RDA for the day. Any
takers?

>Terence M. "Tex" Dulay                  Scarborough, Ontario, CANADA
>tex@r-node.gts.org                      ...uunet.ca!r-node!tex
>tex@r-node.pci.on.ca
>Toronto Blue Jays - 1992 WORLD SERIES CHAMPS!! *We Stopped The Chop, Eh?*

Baseball sucks also. How are you folks doing in Basketball?

Spiros
-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       (317) 451-0815
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Braking Distances
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:23:16 GMT

In article <By4rIr.G0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (REAL
LIFE?!?!  HA!!) writes:
>cal@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz (Cal Gulliver) writes:

>>And yes, the biggest truck can stop in the same distance as the most 
>>British of sports cars, all else being equal (i.e. air resistance, 
>>aerodynamics, road surface and weather, brake and tyre condition).
>
>Again, I'm sorry, but this simply is not possible.  The only way a big truck
>is going to be able to stop in the same distance as an MG is if it has the
same
>ratio of road friction to mass.  This would necessitate incredibly immense
>tires, probably with more area than the truck has down on the road.  The prob-
>lem is mass; the forward energy of the vehicle increases by the square of the
>increase of mass.

The SQUARE of the (increase) of mass?  Ever heard of the term 1/2 m*v^2?

Chris O'Neill
From: mittal@isi.edu (Vibhu Mittal)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Information on fighting a moving violation?
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:43:13 GMT
Reply-To: mittal@venera.isi.edu ()
Distribution: ca
Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute


Hello!

   I hope this is the appropriate newsgroup to ask this question of:
   what are the possible options that a person has to try and fight a
   traffic ticket? I was issued a traffic ticket for "failing to come
   to a complete halt when taking a right turn on a red light". I
   actually turned on a yellow. (The officer ignored the multitude of
   people streaming through the intersection for the few seconds
   after it turned red). He gave me a citation, in which he wrote
   down my old residential address (on the front of my driving
   license), even though a change of address card is stapled to the
   back of my driving license by the DMV. 

   I received notice that I must pay the "bail amount" before the
   17th of November. The letter unfortunately has a post-mark of the
   19th of November.

   I'm hoping that some of you out there can tell me what I should do
   to fight this ticket. Can the fact that the officer wrote down the
   wrong address  be used to advantage?

   Thanks for any and all suggestions.

   Sincerely,

     Vibhu
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
			   Vibhu O. Mittal
      USC/ISI, 4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA
  Phone: (310) 822-1511, Fax: (310) 823-6714, e-mail: Mittal@ISI.EDU
From: crl0195@hertz.njit.edu (Curt R Lindmark)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving with parking lights only
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:34:20 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <By0x44.Fvp@ssesco.com> nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
>In article <24042@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
>>Why do people insist on driving only with parking lights on when it is dusk?
>>Why don't they just turn on their headlights?  Beside the fact that it is
>>illegal in many states, it doesn't make it that much easier to see the car.
>
>They simply don't think.  It's not dark enough for the headlights to help
>them see, so they can't tell that way.  They see their dash all lit up 
>as it is when their lights are on.  They just don't think about it.

As someone who does do this (and has the courage to admit to it in public),
I'd like to answer on behalf of me and anyone else who does this for the same
reason:

1) When do I turn my headlights on?

  When I know I am having trouble seeing the road and where I am going.

2) When do I turn *JUST* my driving lights on?

  a) when I can no longer clearly see my dashboard read-outs

  b) when I believe that it is dark enough such that some drivers out there
     may have trouble seeing my car.

Hope this makes sense to y'all.  Also: Why don't I turn my headlights on
when I turn my driving lights on?

  a) I drive a Firebird, and the raised headlights increase wind drag
  b) I like the way my car looks with just its driving lights on

O========|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|========0
 Curt R Lindmark      crl0195@hertz.njit.edu         Defender from ages past

Fast, faster, faster, faster, ready to explode
Don't want nothing left of me to scrape of the road
Spirit........OF THE WHEEL!!!!!!!
					-"Wheels of Fire" Manowar
Disclaimer: NJIT is responsible for nothing I don't say which isn't mine.
From: blu@cellar.org (Dan Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving with parking lights only
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:35:24 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:

> Why do people insist on driving only with parking lights on when it is dusk?
> Why don't they just turn on their headlights?  Beside the fact that it is
> illegal in many states, it doesn't make it that much easier to see the car.
> Do people think that they are saving their headlights by only turning on
> their parking lights when it is dusk?  Furthermore, they are called parking
> lights and as such should be used for that purpose, not for driving.  Just
> turn those damn headlights on!!!
> 

As I am always fond of yelling at them... "Ok, I won't hit you, I see your 
parked!", or "Watch it Earl, they got parking lights on, good thing they are 
parked!".

Becised, when was the last time, you actually *used* them?  I never used 
them.  Last time I saw a person use them, they left them on a bit too long, 
and killed the battery.


--
Dan Reed AKA Blu Max - blu@cellar.org - AnalCADGeek! - Industrial Music Maker
    68' Cougar XR-7, 89' VW Golf, 74' Honda CL360t, Vextrex Unit Lover
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: hoffberg@medusa.aps.anl.gov (Mike G. Hoffberg)
Subject: Re: New gas sucks (flame)
Keywords: new gas
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago Illinois
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:23:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.052956.4276@netcom.com> linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robrert Linley) writes:
>Am I alone in hating the new politically correct, oxygenated gasoline? It
>costs more. It lowers your MPG. And what does is do? Reduce emissions by 20%?
>What good does this do if you have to burn an additional 20% worth of gas to
>get the same number of miles out a tank?

They (= Government) should just raise the gas tax the amount that the
new gas costs, give us our old gas, and use that extra revenue to
clean up the environment.

BTW, do people realize how little car polution effects the atmosphere
compared to volcanic eruptions?

MIKE
-- 
Michael Hoffberg               /.\ <Build APS>   ~\   /~  "Jeez, am I the
hoffberg@phebos.aps.anl.gov   // \\ Argonne        \ /     only one who paid
hoffberg@anlaps.aps.anl.gov  //_O_\\ National       |      full price?" F.F.
                            /__| |__\ Lab   Boola! _|_ Boola!
Xref: sparky rec.autos.driving:6765 rec.autos:27698