Carpool/HOV Lanes: Vilolation of 14th Amendment

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Jan 3, 2009
101,421
103,226
3,615
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
People who have more than one occupant in their cars don't pay any more in fuel taxes (in fact they pay less, on a per-passenger basis), nor do they pay any more in license and registration fees for their vehicles.

Yet, they're somehow "deserving" of special lanes on urban freeways?

Blow me.

Discuss.

P.S....I'm an habitual poacher of HOV/carpool lanes.....Never been ticketed........Sue me.
 
Rational basis, carpooling cuts down on everything from highway maintenance to fuel consumption. The law is rationally related to a reasonable policy objective.

Put your blow up doll in the passenger seat like everybody else does and you're golden. :thup:
 
I guess I don't have any problem with bus lanes or carpool lanes because they do reduce the traffic in the other lanes where I live since I usually don't have anybody in the car with me. (Our blow up doll sprung a leak awhile back and we've never found a suitable replacement.)

But, just as I have been known to exceed the speed limit a bit when I was in a hurry and could do so safely, I wouldn't feel too much remorse poaching in the carpool lane in a pinch.
 
Did something spark this or have we just run out of topics to discuss on USMB? :eusa_eh:
 
I guess I don't have any problem with bus lanes or carpool lanes because they do reduce the traffic in the other lanes where I live since I usually don't have anybody in the car with me. (Our blow up doll sprung a leak awhile back and we've never found a suitable replacement.)

But, just as I have been known to exceed the speed limit a bit when I was in a hurry and could do so safely, I wouldn't feel too much remorse poaching in the carpool lane in a pinch.
PTTTTTT.

It's the same right-of-way, paid for by the same tax payers.

Yet, zillions of construction and maintenance dollars are set aside to make separate lanes, ramps and interchanges.

What, are y'all nuts?
 
Rational basis: Irrelevant.

When they pay more, then they can get more...Until then, they're moochers hiding behind political correctness.

Doesn't have to be smart to be constitutional under the 14th. In fact it can be really fucking stupid. But it's still rational basis. Unless you think single occupants of cars should benefit from a higher level of scrutiny?
 
Agree with premise of OP but for different reasons. Every morning when I go to work (sole occupant of my car), I watch car after car with only one occupant, boogying along in the CP lane. Add that there aren't that many cars in the CP lane.

What they ought to do is shitcan the CP lanes and just add another full-out traffic lane. I think that would reduce traffic a lot more than what's going on now.

I also think that people who drive single drive in a CP lane are violating hate crime statutes. ;)
 
Rational basis: Irrelevant.

When they pay more, then they can get more...Until then, they're moochers hiding behind political correctness.

Doesn't have to be smart to be constitutional under the 14th. In fact it can be really fucking stupid. But it's still rational basis. Unless you think single occupants of cars should benefit from a higher level of scrutiny?
Equal protection, man.

What makes a car with two people in it more worthy of a right to the road than a single occupant vehicle?

Separate but equal?
 
I guess I don't have any problem with bus lanes or carpool lanes because they do reduce the traffic in the other lanes where I live since I usually don't have anybody in the car with me. (Our blow up doll sprung a leak awhile back and we've never found a suitable replacement.)

But, just as I have been known to exceed the speed limit a bit when I was in a hurry and could do so safely, I wouldn't feel too much remorse poaching in the carpool lane in a pinch.
PTTTTTT.

It's the same right-of-way, paid for by the same tax payers.

Yet, zillions of construction and maintenance dollars are set aside to make separate lanes, ramps and interchanges.

What, are y'all nuts?

Well I never said I wasn't nuts. :)

For me its a matter of convenience. If carpool lanes make it easier for me to drive in the other two or three lanes, I accept that as a reasonable trade off.

Or maybe its more of picking and choosing what hill I think impoirtant enough to defend. :)
 
Rational basis: Irrelevant.

When they pay more, then they can get more...Until then, they're moochers hiding behind political correctness.

Doesn't have to be smart to be constitutional under the 14th. In fact it can be really fucking stupid. But it's still rational basis. Unless you think single occupants of cars should benefit from a higher level of scrutiny?
Equal protection, man.

What makes a car with two people in it more worthy of a right to the road than a single occupant vehicle?

Backwards. What makes the State legislature believe it is advancing a rational policy objective by setting aside a single lane for cars with more than one occupant? Whether it works is irrelevant, the 14th doesn't care about stupidity or results.
 
The HOV on I93 south of Boston seems to cause more traffic than it relieves. A cop has to stand in the lane and check to make sure nobody is cheating and of course they have to have a cop car parked there with all the lights flashing. With the lights flashing people instinctively slow down to a crawl while approaching the split even if they aren't using the HOV lane. This causes a major back up where the car pool lane starts Every.Damn.Day.Twice.A.Day.

I work nights so I'm never in the traffic. I'm the guy heading in the opposite direction that points and laughs at the rat race.
 
The HOV on I93 south of Boston seems to cause more traffic than it relieves. A cop has to stand in the lane and check to make sure nobody is cheating and of course they have to have a cop car parked there with all the lights flashing. With the lights flashing people instinctively slow down to a crawl while approaching the split even if they aren't using the HOV lane. This causes a major back up where the car pool lane starts Every.Damn.Day.Twice.

I work nights so I'm never in the traffic. I'm the guy heading in the opposite direction that point's and laughs at the rat race.

:lol:
 
Uh-huh....Automotive Jim Crow is cool.

Glad we cleared that up.

:)

Well let's attack this from a different perspective. So long as ANYBODY regardless of race, creed, sociopolitical standing, etc. etc. etc. can use the carpool lane as long as s/he has one or more passengers, how does that violate the 14th amendment? Seems to me equal protection means that everybody is treated the same under the law. So the law restricts a lane to two or more people in a vehicle.

Same as laws that say you can't be married to more than one person or you can only have so many dogs or cats on your property or you can't have the big party booth if its just you and your date in the restaurant.
 
*Note to self* find realistic blow up dolls if go to CA for visit and wanna drive on Freeway.
 
Uh-huh....Automotive Jim Crow is cool.

Glad we cleared that up.

:)

Well let's attack this from a different perspective. So long as ANYBODY regardless of race, creed, sociopolitical standing, etc. etc. etc. can use the carpool lane as long as s/he has one or more passengers, how does that violate the 14th amendment? Seems to me equal protection means that everybody is treated the same under the law. So the law restricts a lane to two or more people in a vehicle.

Same as laws that say you can't be married to more than one person or you can only have so many dogs or cats on your property or you can't have the big party booth if its just you and your date in the restaurant.
Irregardless of race, religion, social background, I still pay the same fuel and registration taxes.....The people on HOV lanes pay no more than do I.

Equal protection, baby.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top