Driver and baby considered carpool?

[Lonyo]

Car-pool lanes are to reduce traffic, cars are meant to pool their occupants.
This means you *should* have someone in your car who woul dotherwise be driving their own car to their destination.
A baby could not drive their own car ,and unlicensed driver could not (legally) drive their own car anywhere.

It should be licensed drivers only who count, otherwise you are not reducing the number of cars on the road, you are just cheating so you can use the carpool lane.

 

[MacBaine]

Licensed drivers

 

[T2T III]

I can understand where some of you are coming from. Babies do count as a passenger. Not really a legitimate passenger when it comes to reducing emissions and trying to relieve commuter congestion. However, we have to step back for a second and realize how the high-occupancy lanes were created and throught out. After all, politicians brought them into fruition ... and therein lies the problem because "they" couldn't decide how to count a passenger. :roll:

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Car-pool lanes are to reduce traffic, cars are meant to pool their occupants.
This means you *should* have someone in your car who woul dotherwise be driving their own car to their destination.
A baby could not drive their own car ,and unlicensed driver could not (legally) drive their own car anywhere.

It should be licensed drivers only who count, otherwise you are not reducing the number of cars on the road, you are just cheating so you can use the carpool lane.

 

[rh71]

why count babies and not pets then ?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: rh71
why count babies and not pets then ?

Because babies are just immature people and pets aren't?

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: rh71
why count babies and not pets then ?

Because babies are just immature people and pets aren't?

they are of the same ability, but a different species. WHy is one ok for a carpool lane and the other, not ?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: rh71
why count babies and not pets then ?

Because babies are just immature people and pets aren't?

they are of the same ability, but a different species. WHy is one ok for a carpool lane and the other, not ?

I think you answered your question yourself.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: rh71
why count babies and not pets then ?

Because babies are just immature people and pets aren't?

they are of the same ability, but a different species. WHy is one ok for a carpool lane and the other, not ?

I think you answered your question yourself.

Surely carpooling should be about reducing the number of cars on the road, so if carrying a baby in your car does this, so does carrying a pet.
They are of the same ability in terms of being able to drive a car, and would cut down on the number of cars being used. What is the difference?

A baby can't drive a car on its own, neither can a pet. It shouldn't matter that babies are immature people, except for the fact that being immature people stops them being able to drive.

 

[ggnl]

The law specifically covers that here. A baby equals one person. Unborn babies don't count.

 

[Fausto]

The dumbness is strong with this thread.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: ggnl
The law specifically covers that here. A baby equals one person. Unborn babies don't count.

Well that's just a stupid law.
The idea of carpooling shouldn't cover babies.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: ggnl
The law specifically covers that here. A baby equals one person. Unborn babies don't count.

Well that's just a stupid law.
The idea of carpooling shouldn't cover babies.

As has been pointed out, it most certainly should.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: Fausto
The dumbness is strong with this thread.

That would make this thread perfectly unique in the annals of ATOT history.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: ggnl
The law specifically covers that here. A baby equals one person. Unborn babies don't count.

Well that's just a stupid law.
The idea of carpooling shouldn't cover babies.

You be the politician that argues that point with a room full of angry soccer mommies. I posted in another thread about car pool lanes that they have basically become an Americanized version of Kremlin Lanes where all sorts of connected and favored groups get use of them totally outside of what the original intent of them was. I don't know about other areas of the country but that is how it works here.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: ucdbiendog
it does count as carpool. however, i do not think it should. i thnk only licensed drivers should count for that

I would bet that this depends on the state and locality. I know people in Nashville have been ticketed for driving in the HOV lane with children in the back. I did it all the time but never got a ticket. I wold have fought it if I did.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Fausto
The dumbness is strong with this thread.

That would make this thread perfectly unique in the annals of ATOT history.

Good point. I'll petition for a sticky immediately.

 

[Thraxen]

Does a baby count? I have no idea. But a baby should not count, IMO. As others have pointed out the entire point of a carpooling is to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. But that does not mean that all non-licensed drivers shouldn't count. A school bus for example carries lots of kids from different families. If there was no bus service then each individual family would be responsible for transporting their children to school. So the bus is actually reducing traffic. This really isn't the least bit complicated.

 

[NoReMoRsE]

You need **3** people for it to be considered a carpool.

 

[LoverBoyJ]

Originally posted by: NoReMoRsE
You need **3** people for it to be considered a carpool.

some roads in California needs 3 or more people.