Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here in Southern California we have carpool or HOV lanes; there are probably similar lanes in many of your cities. The lanes are signed with a message that only vehicles with two occupants may use the lanes. (There are exceptions like motorcycles.)
Shouldn't the rule be written such that only vehicles with two licensed drivers be allowed? The whole point of a car pool lane is to provide an incentive to carpool and take a car off the road. So, a lady driving with a two year old in a car seat is not carpooling yet currently she can use the lane.
People could argue that the rule would be hard to enforce. However just because it is hard to enforce (like seat belt rules and cell phones) doesn't mean it wouldn't be beneficial. Most people would comply with the law anyway. It would be a passively enforced rule.
Good question. I am always amazed when I go to Seattle how few cars have 2 people in them - I agree with you in principle but don't see any practical advantage in changing the law as it is here (in WA).
The HOV lane in Seattle anyway does not confer a huge advantage.
I think just the number of people in the car, it doesn't matter if they are licensed or not. A parent could be carpooling three neighborhood children instead of each parent bringing their own child.
So how will the cops know when someone is cheating on HOV? I suppose they'll need to stop each and every car to ask for driver's license. Is it worth the energy really?
So how will the cops know when someone is cheating on HOV? I suppose they'll need to stop each and every car to ask for driver's license. Is it worth the energy really?
You missed the point.
Some laws are enacted with no real intention of actively enforcing them. For example, cell phones and seat belts. Police actively enforce speeding. Some laws are made because we know most people will obey them simply because they are laws.
If it became two licensed drivers, 95% of people would comply anyway - besides it is very easy to spot a non licensed driver in the car, a child for example. Most people won't risk it. If there are two adults, it's pretty likely they both have licenses.
About the carpooling a bunch of kids, sure there will always be 0.002% of people for which this law will be unfair - but compared to the benefits of prohibiting those using the lanes without benefiting society, it is worth it.
Perhaps we could help address the unemployment problem by having jobless people line up at the beginning of the HOV lane, and require otherwise solitary drivers to "rent" them as passengers to comply with the law. The rental fees would of course be higher during rush hours. Good-looking folks, or especially good conversationalists, could earn bonuses. The thought occurs to me that since I fit both the latter categories, a career change may be in order, should this idea catch on.
I don't think it matters. Too hard to enforce anyway. Besides, a mom and her 16 year old kid could qualify for that, although nothing implies that they would have traveled separately if not for the HOV lane. And besides, how many moms with three kids are driving during rush hour, compared to single drivers in their own cars? I'm not arguing with your point, actually. I'm just saying it probably wouldn't make much of a difference. I'd guess that most passengers during peak travel times (even in L.A. where peak travel is most of the day) would be licensed drivers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.