How we do it down south….
Phoenix, AZ– Fetuses do not count as passengers when it comes to determining who may drive in the carpool lane, a judge has ruled.
Candace Dickinson was fined $367 for improper use of a carpool lane, but contended her unborn child qualified to use the lane. Motorists who use the lanes normally must carry at least one passenger during weekday rush hours.
Municipal Judge Dennis Freeman rejected Dickinson’s argument Tuesday, applying a “common sense” definition in which an individual is someone who occupies a “separate and distinct” space in a vehicle.
Now if I can have it explained to me how a 5-year-old riding with mama is carpooling, maybe the world will start to make sense.
Eideard blogged the initial story back in November: [here]
Candace Dickinson wanted her fetus to count as a person in a carpool but do you think she bought it an extra ticket the last time she flew on an airplane?
Concerning the 5yr old: it is technically two people.
I don’t think there has been a restriction on the age of the person, and if there isn’t, then the 5 year old counts.
I think that carpooling rules shouldn’t count children at all. The point of a carpool lane is to remove motorists from the road. Indeed, the unenforcible standard should be to count only those people capable of obtaining a drivers license on their own. This could include, not only children, but people with disabilties that prohibit the operation of a motor vehicle. Otherwise, what’s the point of a carpool lane?
In recent years, several states, in an attempt to chip away at Roe v Wade, have declared an unborn fetus a person. To cause the death of an unborn person is classified as murder.
So if her fetus is an unborn person then why would the fetus not count as a person in the occupancy lane?
If the fetus is not a person, then how will that square with the death of a fetus?
If the fine were $0 and no points on her license she would have admitted that she was just trying to get somewhere faster by breaking the rules.
When it comes to fines and penalization, people HAVE TO come up with clever answers because that is someone’s ONLY recourse. The state is too powerful to fight and oppose in any other form.
Judge was right… it’s extreme common sense… if it’s a human and it takes up a seat, it counts. Splitting hairs as to the intent of the driver and whether each instance is truly fulfilling the carpool mantra is just impractical.
It’s so obvious. Just change the carpool rule to count only how many drivers are inside the car. And it’s very simple: just count the number of driver licenses.
The spirit of the carpool is to reduce the number of cars on the road, right? That only happens if a driver decides to leave his/her car at home and ride with someone else.
The problem with trying to distinguish potential drivers from those who can’t drive is it’s unenforcible without causing an undue burden on motorists. It’s easy for the police to count heads, without pulling cars over, to determine violations. Having to actually check all the licenses of passengers requires a stop.
but if she had a “backseat abortion” would it be considered carpooling?
In regard to the comment by Pat, if the state declares a fetus as a person are the tax laws applied the same as someone who is actually born, eg: school tax, etc.
Yes, requiring that carpool lanes only be used by people carrying licensed drivers puts a bit more of a burden on police officers but that’s a judgement call for which they are/can be trained. If they see a small person, they can pull them over and ask for the license of all people on board. Unfair to people that don’t “look old enough to drive” but that’s the breaks.