HOV/Carpool lane - baby counts?

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

From CalTrans:
"Each child counts as an occupant, but pets, infants still in the womb, inflatable dolls or ghosts do not (we've heard 'em all). Violators are subject to a minimum $271 fine."
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq79.htm

===================================

My response:

JetX, StephenK, or anybody - -

For the life of me, and it's bugging the hell out of me, in all of my research materials, and from researching the Internet, too, I can't seem to locate any Statute, Rule, Regulation or other lawful fiat, concerning HOV lanes and the violation or fines.

If you haven't been successful in your own search for the same, then perhaps, it's a communist conspiracy and there ISN'T any such law!

Now, I've found the laws concerning "setting up" and "allowing" HOV lanes, but absolutely NOTHING about violating such rule, or the fine involved.

Got a Statute, Regulation, or some other, number?

IAAL

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My further response:

SpawnX, I have edited my response to you, above, to include more information and authority for my position. Hopefully, you'll take up the task and research and read the cases I have cited for you.

IAAL

 

[spawn_x]

IAAL, I believe you're correct. I guess that could be the reason my google search was coming up sort of empty.

I also noticed on the CHP site that to qualify for carpool the being has to be occupying a seat, which I guess throws the whole thing into the water.

My apologies, the train of thought was on the wrong tracks.

 

[spawn_x]

My further response:

SpawnX, I have edited my response to you, above, to include more information and authority for my position. Hopefully, you'll take up the task and research and read the cases I have cited for you.

IAAL

Thanks, will definitely do that.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Thanks, will definitely do that.

My response:

SpawnX, despite the fact that I mentioned that your concern and question about a "fetus" had gone a little "far afield" from the writer's post, I did want to say that your questions were also an important, and worthy, topic nonetheless.

Due to the fact that I felt was an excellent, timely, and important topic, I went ahead and responded to you.

In the meantime, I hope you, or someone, can help me to find a Statute, etc., concerning California HOV lanes and their fines. I'd really like to read the California "authority" for violating the HOV lanes. It's still bugging me, and I think it would also assist our original writer.

IAAL

 

[spawn_x]

My response:

SpawnX, despite the fact that I mentioned that your concern and question about a "fetus" had gone a little "far afield" from the writer's post, I did want to say that your questions were also an important, and worthy, topic nonetheless.

Due to the fact that I felt was an excellent, timely, and important topic, I went ahead and responded to you.

Oh I did not mean that my thoughts were not on topic, but more that what I thought was true - wasn't..

I seriously remembered (wrongly) that there were several cases of pregnant women in carpools that were dismissed, however as you said they may have not been actual wins.

Where do you stand on that IAAL? I personally think giving fetuses human rights is rediculous on any level and the way things are going I would not be surprised if abortion will become illegal.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Oh I did not mean that my thoughts were not on topic, but more that what I thought was true - wasn't..

I seriously remembered (wrongly) that there were several cases of pregnant women in carpools that were dismissed, however as you said they may have not been actual wins.

Where do you stand on that IAAL? I personally think giving fetuses human rights is rediculous on any level and the way things are going I would not be surprised if abortion will become illegal.

My response:

My personal beliefs, one way or the other, are not an issue. I merely report on, and obey, the law. My feelings one way or the other have no bearing on the writer's post. Your question, above, is undoubtedly meant for another thread.

Let's see if any of us can find an "authority" for violating an HOV. That's "on topic".

IAAL

 

[StickyFingers]

OK..IAAL, I took you up on the challenge here is what I found:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21650-21664

As far as a penalty for violation this all I could find.

21655.9. (a) Whenever the Department of Transportation authorizes
or permits exclusive or preferential use of highway lanes or highway
access ramps for high-occupancy vehicles pursuant to Section 21655.5,
the use of those lanes or ramps shall also be extended to vehicles
that are issued distinctive decals, labels, or other identifiers
pursuant to Section 5205.5 regardless of vehicle occupancy or
ownership.
(b) No person shall drive a vehicle described in subdivisions (a)
and (b) of Section 5205.5 with a single occupant upon a
high-occupancy vehicle lane pursuant to this section unless the
decal, label, or other identifier issued pursuant to Section 5205.5
are properly displayed on the vehicle, and the vehicle registration
described in Section 5205.5 is with the vehicle.
(c) No person shall operate or own a vehicle displaying a decal,
label, or other identifier, as described in Section 5205.5, if that
decal, label, or identifier was not issued for that vehicle pursuant
to Section 5205.5. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.

Maybe you could check out the site..who knows maybe I overlooked something. But this is as close as I could get.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Thank you, StickyFingers. Yes, I did find that Statute, along with the others concerning HOV lanes, and the authority for making them. However, I'm still at a loss to figure out how the fine has been arrived at; I believe someone on this thread mentioned $271.00. If that's true, and when you add the California Government code "enhancement" of 170% to that fine, then that's going to be one Lolapalooza of a fine!

Thanks again.

IAAL

 

[spawn_x]

From personal experience I'll vouch that its not 271 minimum.

I got a carpool violation ticket and mine was around 320 with all the fees, so it has to be a lot less than 271.

 

[CalieGirl]

This has been a long thread, and have watched it.

I can personally be a vouchee in this matter. EVERY sign I see posted, as to violating the "car pool Lane, between the hours of 6o am-10:00 am, and the hours of 3:00 pm-7m", is in fact a minimum of exactly 271.00.

Sucks, but that is CA.

 

[spawn_x]

I am not arguing that the signs state 271, I am arguing that it is enforced.

I am telling you from experience, I paid about 320 dollars for traveling alone in the carpool lane - and that is WITHOUT fighting it in court, speaking to a DA, or doing anything else to help out with the fine.. Simply walk over to the window, find out what the fine is, and pay it.

With 271 dollars the fine would be not 320 with taxes and fees...

Not calling you a liar, just speaking from my experience.

 

[CalieGirl]

Spawn, I am in no way arguining what you paid for your fine, I am just giving input as to what the sign's say, that is al, that is what was up for debate a few posts ago.

On a lighter note, try sticking Doll heads in your back window, works like a charm. So Far.

 

[spawn_x]

Oh I know you weren't arguing.. Sorry if I came off like that.

As for things that work - I don't want to risk the fine to find out what works and what doesn't... I've paid too much in traffic violation tickets.

I also believe that carpool lanes are nonsense and if merged with the freeway could somewhat help the traffic problem in Los Angeles - after all, they DO occupy 20-25% of over half the freeways here..

On that note, does anyone know if anything is going to be done about the traffic or is this now just one of the perks of living here?

 

[CalieGirl]

Spawn, perks of living in the Bay Area also. What do you think the chances of Arnold putting this on the TOP of his list?

It's crazy, but I love living here.