Should this woman have gotten a HOV-lane ticket?

Guess they should be buying two bus tickets then by that logic.

@Blackwater_Park, that is a logical extension; but I’d have to say that looking for logic anywhere in this nasty, degrading, wrong-headed business is a lost cause.

In this connection, I’m thinking about the partitioning of British India in 1947 and how so many people living on the wrong side of the divide (India, Hindu; Pakistan, Muslim) had to migrate to the other side.

@Jeruba I agree

So, her fetus does not count as a person in a high occupancy vehicle lane. Hmmm.
What about elevators?
Amusement park rides?
Movie theaters?
Old Country Buffet?

I hope women start bringing cases like this to the courts. That will tie them up for years.

“When is a fetus not a person? Whenever a politician doesn’t want it to be.”

She was ticketed because it was a male cop!!! Had the cop been female, she would have received a warning ticket & drove on.

Are you sure about that?

The traffic law department is slow in getting the traffic law match the the state law. That may be why she got the ticket, similar to what they say about technology and the law, “the law is too slow to keep up with thechnology.” something like that.

In order for the baby not to be considered a passenger, he/she would have to be anywhere but in the car. But the baby is in the car and is not the driver, and anyone who is not a driver must be a passenger.

The intent of the HOV is to reduce the number of cars. So the passenger should be a potential driver who is now not driving. A fetus does not qualify. Neither does a kid.

Neither does a 4-year old, but they count in an HOV lane.

I don’t think your definition is quite right, @RocketGuy

I came back to this thread to take back my words in my posts above and post exactly what @RocketGuy posted. The officer is right to give her the ticket.

HOV lane used to be called “carpool” lane. Adult drivers were supposed to carpool. Police have let kids pass, just to keep the peace. It’s sometimes hard to tell whether a kid is old enough to drive too. Better to go after the blatant violators.

@elbanditoroso , @RocketGuy is right in his definition. You wrote “Neither does a 4-year old, but they count in an HOV lane.” but I wonder how the law addresses the children who obviousy can’t drive.

If they pull over a mom with her kid, the mom will complain and the kid will be late to school/soccer. That would be bad PR.

Yes, it would, and rightfully.

A quick Google search turned up the law for HOV lanes in New York City. It just states two or more people, nothing about them having to be potential drivers:

https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-02801

@chefl this was litigated in Georgia when they opened up the HOV lines on I-85 and I-75 through Atlanta.

The court decided that a kid who can’t drive is still a person for the purposes of HOV lanes.

My guess is that as soon as you make exceptions to that rule, you get into a real morass:

- the person who has a broken right leg and couldn’t drive no matter what
– a blind person
– an elderly person who no longer has a license
– someone coming home from the doctor who is stil under some sedation and can’t drive

Better that they have a single rule than have a policeman trying to figure that stuff out.

also the kid might or might not be old enough to drive. Don’t want the police to waste time figuring that out.

That makes sense.

So, should she have gotten the ticket or not?

@chefl that’s the question.

If Texas is being consistent, based on their personhood laws, then no she shouldn’t have been ticketed.

But it’s not Texas that ticketed her, it’s a traffic officer who may or may have not made an error.

All I know is pregnant women are given proiority in many, places. I have no problem with pregnant women driving on HOV-lane, regardless of the abortion law in wherever.

So, in Texas and some of the other states in US, the unborn person is included in the long list of people who can’t drive. So, she shouldn’t have been ticketed.

In some locations people stand near the entrance and volunteer (for a small fee) to be a passenger so the driver can use the carpool lane. This is certainly not what the architects of the HOV lane rules had intended.

^^ We used to call that hitchhiking and the rider was beholden to the driver for the favor!

I know that takes place in San Francisco – any maybe in and around NYC/NJ – there was a specfic names for those people (slugs?).

Hey, for every law, there is a way to get around it, @LuckyGuy

Found it – see this website

@elbanditoroso I haven’t seen any HOV lanes in NJ or NYC.

NYC HOV
NJ HOV

“In the 1990s, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes were operational on three New Jersey roadways. Today, they exist on only one.

HOV Lanes
HOV Lanes (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)
With the goal of easing traffic congestion, encouraging carpooling and reducing air pollution, HOV lanes were established on Interstate 80 in 1994, the New Jersey Turnpike in 1996 and Interstate 287 in 1998.

In 1998, the lanes were terminated on I-287 and I-80 after a study found them ineffective.”

Read More: What roads have HOV lanes in NJ? | https://nj1015.com/what-roads-have-hov-lanes-in-nj/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

You’re right, there are one or two still I haven’t seen any. I stand corrected.

@LuckyGuy – I seem to remember that LA and SF areas had rideshare lots where solo drivers would pick up a rider to allow them to use the carpool lanes. It was a win-win because the rider got a free ride to somewhere close to where they needed to go.