Woodalls Open Roads Forum: Search
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Help and Support  |  Contact



Open Roads Forum  >  Search the Forums

 > Your search for posts made by 'msmith1199' found 1265 matches.

Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 64  
Next
  Subject Author Date Posted Forum
RE: What's More Accurate?

GM I have three gauges and none of them match. Should I try a fourth?
msmith1199 09/03/15 03:49pm Class A Motorhomes
RE: Bad Gramer

I was once a secretary for a woman in a high position for state govt. She had 2 Master's degrees. She could NOT spell.....the one word I always saw that was wrong was "across".....she'd spell it accross. :) That is why she was in a high position, so she could have a secretary to do that for her.
msmith1199 09/03/15 03:48pm Around the Campfire
RE: Bad Gramer

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've talked to others who share my problem, and that is I can't proofread my own work right after I write it. For some reason I read it and my eyes see everything as just fine. Then I log on the next day and look at something I posted and the errors pop out. Or especially if I read it days later they pop out. I do a lot of writing in my retirement job so I have a guy I work with who proofreads my reports. No matter how hard I try, I've never been able to catch everything.
msmith1199 09/03/15 03:41pm Around the Campfire
RE: What's More Accurate?

I have three really nice fairly expensive air gauges, and none of them match when checking the pressure. So the answer is who knows. You would have to get a gauge that you know has been calibrated and is accurate, and compare it to that, but if good gauges don't even match where can you even find one you know is correct? Maybe NASA or JPL would have one?
msmith1199 09/03/15 03:37pm Class A Motorhomes
RE: Avoiding Sacramento

We have decided How does this sound? We are going to I 80 over the mountains to Reno and then take 95 south in Nevada to Hwy 6 to Bishop. Should avoid most of the higher passes. Our back up plan will be to go to I 99 south to Bakersfield and then hold up for a nice day to tackle the Tehachapi. California weather is very predictable in the winter. Snow comes from storm fronts that move in normally from the north. What that means is the snow is very predictable. You'll know if you are facing snow or not and what the road conditions will be several days in advance. I like the 95 idea through Nevada, just keep in mind that is "middle of no where" country. You may drive for hours without seeing another car and won't have cell phone service out there. That's not a big deal unless the weather is iffy. As long as you have clear skys and no chance of snow, go for it. But if it's questionable stick to the main roads. I'd do 395 myself just for safety. But if there's a chance of snow, I'd just go straight down 395 or 99 and then over Tehachapi. Tehachapi is below 5000 feet so it rarely gets a lot of snow except during bigger really cold storms where the snow level gets that low.
msmith1199 09/02/15 06:36pm Roads and Routes
RE: Avoiding Sacramento

Thank you all. I said dead of winter, because we are leaving WA State end of November and depending on the weather, taking a slow route down the Oregon Coast to Hwy 20 and over to Beale, but if the weather forecast is ugly, take I5 and stay at Valley of the Rogue State Park in Oregon until we get clear weather and make for the Siskiyou Pass. So, it may be December or January. And I really want to see the Alabama Hills near Lone Pine. What about going via Yosemite? Highway 120 through Yosemite (Tioga Pass) closes in the winter and doesn't open until Spring. Dates when it closes and opens depends on the snow level.
msmith1199 09/02/15 06:30pm Roads and Routes
RE: Avoiding Sacramento

Lynne, in my post I said head south on CASR 71. Please note this was a typo in my post. The correct State Route designation is SR 70. Hope you weren't confused. Thanks, Dennis So, to reiterate: South on SR 70 then South on US 99/ I-5 then East on I-80 just NORTH of Sacramento. You'll connect with US395 in Reno. I was confused. Couldn't figure out what the heck 71 was. I also couldn't figure out why you would tell them to go South on 70 to 99 to 80 and then take 80 to get to 395. That goes right through a whole lot of Sacramento that they want to avoid, and also adds lots of miles. If they want to get to 395 from Beale, then take 65 to 193 and then 193 hooks up with I-80 near Auburn.
msmith1199 09/02/15 06:27pm Roads and Routes
RE: Avoiding Sacramento

When does the OP mean by the 'dead of winter'? If this coming winter is anything like last winter it means when you see snow on the peaks at 13,000 feet.
msmith1199 09/02/15 06:22pm Roads and Routes
RE: Avoiding Sacramento

What if I went via Placerville and then down to Stockton and catching the 99 there? Or am I just trading one bad route for another? Thanks That is a very nice scenic route if time isn't an issue. It will probably add 3 or 4 hours to the drive even over going through Sac in the middle of rush hour. There is no real way to avoid Sac that would not add several hours to your drive. Seriously, even if you have to take I-5 south during rush hour, that is going to be the fastest route.
msmith1199 09/02/15 06:20pm Roads and Routes
RE: West Coast Travel - 5th Wheel

Thanks everyone, and yes a boneheaded question without more details! Anyway, we plan on traveling from Buffalo, NY to the following; Yellowstone, Glacier, Portland, to Astoria then following the Coast south, then East toward Salt Lake City, then through major National Parks in AZ, NM, ending up in Florida for the winter... Don't be afraid to take Highway 1 down the coast if you want to. It is a two lane windy road with cliffs to the side, but it is easily doable if you can take that kind of driving. If you've only driven on the flat roads back east all of your life AND you are afraid of heights, then you may want to thing about avoiding it, but it is a doable road with great views.
msmith1199 09/01/15 10:36am Roads and Routes
RE: West Coast Travel - 5th Wheel

Give us your planned route once you hit California or Oregon. If you're planning on driving Highway 101 all up the coast, you'll have no issues. However, it's not recommended you drive Highway 1. They're completely different. Regardless, the roads you take to even get to Hwy 101 could make a difference for you. What is your route? If you're first leaving the end of September you could also be entering the rainy season for the coast but then again, you know how the weather can change and you could have gorgeous weather. Bring a raincoat - in case! :) Who says it's not recommended to take Highway 1??? He's driving a Tundra with a TT. That can easily do any part of Highway 1.
msmith1199 09/01/15 10:33am Roads and Routes
RE: Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

Dodge Guy, the officers were not suspended. They probably got a commendation for what they did. And it is a crime to possess funds derived through criminal activity. You guys can dislike it all you want, but it is the law, at least for now. Where was the criminal activity? You stated "it is a crime to possess funds derived through criminal activity" the only ones that committed this crime were the police! because they stole the money and were in possession of the money through criminal activity! you can twist the law all you want, but in this case the police were wrong and the courts agreed! Actually one Federal Judge agreed. The case is under appeal so we'll see what the appellate court says. And I'm trying to tell you facts, not twist anything. The circumstances of the case clearly indicate the money is proceeds from criminal activity. It is a civil case so the standard is not as high as a criminal case. The subject who possessed the money has the absolute right to prove that the money was received and possessed in a lawful manner, but he has refused to do so. What the judge ruled on was the manner that the officers made the stop and seized the money was not proper, not that seizing the money itself was not proper. In fact, if you read the case, if at the first traffic stop there had been a dog available and they were able to search the motorhome there, then in all likelihood the Judge would not have ruled against the prosecutor in this case. The Judge didn't like the two traffic stops and the length of detention for traffic offenses that eventually led to the seizure.
msmith1199 09/01/15 09:39am Class A Motorhomes
RE: Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

Dodge Guy, the officers were not suspended. They probably got a commendation for what they did. And it is a crime to possess funds derived through criminal activity. You guys can dislike it all you want, but it is the law, at least for now.
msmith1199 08/31/15 09:11pm Class A Motorhomes
RE: Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

gatijinet, I get you don't like asset seizure. But you can't keep changing your argument. Or I guess you can, but I'm done with you. Anybody who wants to read through all this can see my position.
msmith1199 08/31/15 08:00pm Class A Motorhomes
RE: Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

Be leery all you want, you are still wrong. You are mostly wrong about what you think I have said, but you are also wrong on the facts. So you think that if the officer stopped the guy for having the curtain blocking his view and for driving on the fog line, and the judge determined that the fog line violation "may" not have happened, that somehow makes it legal to drive with the curtain blocking your view? I guess I don't understand that logic. Also if you read the 27 pages you see the judge did not fault either of the officers for their probable cause for the traffic stops. He faulted them for detaining the guy too long based only on traffic violations and an officers hunch. Is the judge right? Well you think so, even though you are confused about what the judge actually ruled. I also think the judge is probably going to be found to be right based on the Supreme Court ruling that came down while this case was being litigated. All I have ever said is the US Attorney is appealing the case and we'll see what the appellate court says. And I'm somehow evil for wanting to see what the final outcome is? You have an outcome that you think you support so you want it to stop here but the system allows for either side to appeal. If the judge in this case had sided with the Government's case would you want it to stop, or would you support the guy appealing?
msmith1199 08/31/15 05:57pm Class A Motorhomes
RE: Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

And that's the judges opinion, but it doesn't matter, there was another violation that isn't in question.
msmith1199 08/31/15 05:46pm Class A Motorhomes
RE: Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

Now the court thinks that touching the fog line is not a violation and you have to cross it to be in violation (that is in a footnote) but that is not relevant as you only need one traffic violation to stop somebody, and the curtain blocking the side window is enough.
msmith1199 08/31/15 05:43pm Class A Motorhomes
RE: Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

"Fisher articulated two separate observed traffic violations to justify his investigatory traffic stop: (1) he “noticed the vehicle drift to the right and drive on the white fog line,” and (2) he “further noticed the driver had the curtain pulled forward on the driver’s side window which obstructs the driver’s view of the vehicle’s left blind area,” both in violation of Nevada law.6" "As discussed below, the Court believes that the two traffic stops are inextricably connected and that Gorman’s total detention was unreasonably prolonged. However, the Court finds under Heien that both stops were supported by reasonable suspicion based on the officers’ belief that they observed traffic violations. These determinations were not objectively unreasonable.7"
msmith1199 08/31/15 05:37pm Class A Motorhomes
RE: Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

And now you are being slanted in the information you are providing from the case. You have listed one item when the officer cited three different reasons for the stop, two of which were law violations. Covering the rear window is not a law violation. So lets look at all three. And this is the second stop that was made on the motorhome: 1. Fisher observed Gorman’s motor home traveling westbound with the driver’s side window obstructed by a window curtain that had been pulled forward. (That is a law violation, you can't obstruct your side view.) 2. Fisher followed the motor home and observed it drift to the right onto the fog line three times and remain on the fog line each time for approximately 400 yards. (Another violation, not driving within the traffic lane is a illegal) 3. Fisher also observed that the rear window of the motor home was obstructed by blinds or curtains that were partially closed. (Not a law violation and I don't know why the Deputy even included this, but it doesn't matter as you only need one law violation for a traffic stop and we already have two) But you did give us a fine example of slanted reporting when you posted on the one item and tried to make it look like the guy was stopped for having blinds on his rear window. That is exactly the techniques used by media reporters to slant a story.
msmith1199 08/31/15 03:28pm Class A Motorhomes
RE: Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

My comments were to Skylark regarding the links he posted. Some of the articles written about the case in Nevada are slanted (by the authors of those articles) as they don't tell the entire story.
msmith1199 08/31/15 03:21pm Class A Motorhomes
Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 64  
Next


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:

© 2015 Woodalls | Terms & Conditions | PRIVACY POLICY | YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS