CarTalk.com Best of Deals Car Reviews Repair Shops Cars A-Z Radio Show

Carpool lanes w/children

Well, I included college students because I don’t want to give them one more excuse to be late for class!

The Carpool or HOV lanes were designed to “save” gasoline and other petroleum based fuels. If the country really wanted to save gasoline, they (we) would REDUCE the number of non-HOV lanes to two each way and allow only public transportation (i.e. buses) on the special lanes. Since this would cause a horrendous problem for most drivers of cars and motorcycles, we would naturally want to take the bus or train.

As long as we make it convenient for people to drive petroleum powered cars, we will.

If the state legislature had wanted to specify that HOV was only available for working carpoolers who were avoiding taking their own cars, they would have said so.

“They let a hybrid, etc car in the lane regardless of number of people in the car.”

Not the new ones in California. All the stickers are gone. It’s not enough to drive a hybrid or EV. You have to display the sticker on your bumper. It was a gimmick to get more people to buy hybrids. The measure had its inteded effect, and it’s over. Still, those with stickers can ride in the HOV lanes.

Its really nice to have such laws but in our country we dont have those kind of laws. I dont know why our lawmakers wasnt able to think about this. The politicians are only concerned about enriching themselves. Well i havent heard of groups that have this kind of clamour. I dont know if this law is applicable in our country.

Since this would cause a horrendous problem for most drivers of cars and motorcycles, we would naturally want to take the bus or train.

No, we wouldn’t. We would naturally want to vote out of office whomever was responsible for enacting such legislation to make this happen.

In a democracy, you can only do what the people will let you do.

If the state legislature had wanted to specify that HOV was only available for working carpoolers who were avoiding taking their own cars, they would have said so.

…and they would have one heck of a time enforcing this rule. I don’t see how it would be possible.

Well, the OP is entitled to an opinion…I just think it’s BOOOGUS.

The gov’t passes a law that is intended to promote a certain behavior (either HOV, or “sin taxes” on booze, or blue laws shutting bars* on Sunday(other than those in hotels).)

As a citizen, you have the obligation to follow the rules (or, alternatively, to flout the rules and risk punishment.) It is perfectly acceptable (and, IMO, a form of principled dissent) to exploit any technicality to comply.

That’s why you have:

  1. Fireworks stores just across state lines (As “interstate commerce” is not subject to state laws against fireworks.)
  2. “Floating casinos” (see, again, “interstate commerce.”)
  3. “Joe’s Bar” renamed “Joe’s Hotel” to avoid blue laws.

As to whether there’s a “moral” component to using the HOV lanes in such an instance…every day in my town, there are traffic jams on the “regular” lanes, and not on the HOV lanes. It could be argued that the HOV restricting is increasing the aggregate fuel burn and pollution by bunching up traffic, and that it’s “morally right” to flout these laws as much as possible.

(Frankly, I just ignore the “moral aspect” of HOV entirely.)

In NH the permit is issued to the person, not to the car. If the person is the registered owner of the vehicle, he/she can then choose get a “handicap plate”, but, as with the hanging placard, it’s the person not the car that has been given the permit. It’s illegal for any individual not awarded a handicap permit to park in a spot requiring said permit, even if driving the vehicle of one who has been awarded the permit.

When I got my permit they gave me a spare placard to use should I get a second car or be ridng with someone else. If I’m riding with someone else, it is legal for the placard to be used with their car.

My permit is renewed every 5 years with my license, not every year with my registration.

Well, the OP is entitled to an opinion…I just think it’s BOOOGUS.

The gov’t passes a law that is intended to promote a certain behavior (either HOV, or “sin taxes” on booze, or blue laws shutting bars* on Sunday(other than those in hotels).)

As a citizen, you have the obligation to follow the rules (or, alternatively, to flout the rules and risk punishment.) It is perfectly acceptable (and, IMO, a form of principled dissent) to exploit any technicality to comply.

That’s why you have:

  1. Fireworks stores just across state lines (As “interstate commerce” is not subject to state laws against fireworks.)
  2. “Floating casinos” (see, again, “interstate commerce.”)
  3. “Joe’s Bar” renamed “Joe’s Hotel” to avoid blue laws.

Wow. You don’t know much about the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution or blue laws, do you?

Unless floating casinos are in international waters, they are in waters belonging to a state that allows casinos.

It’s perfectly legal to buy fireworks in a state that allows such sales, unless the state bans sales to non-residents, but it may be illegal to transport them to or possess them in a state which says such actions are illegal.

You know how you avoid blue laws? Do your shopping on Saturday.

If a stretch has four lanes, I seriously doubt if parsing out one of the lanes as an HOV lane reduces congestion over using all four lanes for all traffic. I know that the goal is to encourage carpooling to help save the earth, but I’ve yet to see any data that it works. I doubt if I ever will. My guess is that making more cars sit in lines idling than perhaps there would be if all the lanes were fully used contributes more to pollution than the HOV lane saves.

IMHO it’s political “feel good”.

Wow. You don’t know much about the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution or blue laws, do you?

Well, I’m not sure how you define “much,” but I clearly know more than you.

Unless floating casinos are in international waters, they are in waters belonging to a state that allows casinos.

Any navigable waterway, that crosses a state line, is Federal. (Well, is “interstate.”)

It’s perfectly legal to buy fireworks in a state that allows such sales, unless the state bans sales to non-residents, but it may be illegal to transport them to or possess them in a state which says such actions are illegal.

It’s also perfectly legal to sell fireworks in violation of state laws, so long is one is selling solely to out-of-state residents, and thus all sales qualify as “interstate commerce.” The “state line” fireworks shops along the PA/WV/OH borders are legendary.

You know how you avoid blue laws? Do your shopping on Saturday.

The “Hotel/Bar” distinction is a time-honored one in PA. While fading somewhat with the repeal of meaningful “blue laws,” plenty of old-time “bars” are referred to as “hotels” in their name.

This reminds me of when my dad was working at GNC.

They had a (share of a) company jet, but the company policy was that it was only to be used for three or more people at a time: any less than that, one was supposed to buy an airline ticket.

Well, dad wasn’t high-up enough to really need the jet himself, but his boss was. So, every so often he was “designated ballast” when his boss wanted to somewhere. (He always said, “It beats working…”)

totally agree with same mountainbike.HOV lanes are the dumbest idea ever.

If you want less pollution and move more traffic, those lanes should be for everyone.

To think that people are going to carpool and be able to go to school/teacher meetings, go to the doctor or dentist,have a family emergency and not have a car at their disposal is not going to happen in the USA. What if the boss wants you to work overtime?

People who do carpool are in a very small minority.

Only in the USA does the minority control the majority

Only in the USA does the minority control the majority

Really??? Have you heard of a country called Cuba? What about North Korea?

If you really believe that to be true, you must not get out much.

As long as we make it convenient for people to drive petroleum powered cars, it’s a great day for Americs, everybody!

Wow. You don't know much about the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution or blue laws, do you?  

Well, I’m not sure how you define “much,” but I clearly know more than you.

Unless floating casinos are in international waters, they are in waters belonging to a state that allows casinos.  

Any navigable waterway, that crosses a state line, is Federal. (Well, is “interstate.”)

....... Simply not true.  Argument from ignorance.

It's perfectly legal to buy fireworks in a state that allows such sales, unless the state bans sales to non-residents, but it may be illegal to transport them to or possess them in a state which says such actions are illegal.  

It’s also perfectly legal to sell fireworks in violation of state laws, so long is one is selling solely to out-of-state residents, and thus all sales qualify as “interstate commerce.” The “state line” fireworks shops along the PA/WV/OH borders are legendary.

… You’re funny. You say it’s legal to do something you say is illegal. That right there is funny. I didn’t say the sale was illegal, I said the transportation or possession may be illegal. You don’t read well.

You know how you avoid blue laws? Do your shopping on Saturday.  

The “Hotel/Bar” distinction is a time-honored one in PA. While fading somewhat with the repeal of meaningful “blue laws,” plenty of old-time “bars” are referred to as “hotels” in their name.

… The name makes no difference at all. What counts is the license. Argument from ignorance, again.

oldwrench, I haven’t received your check for this month. Could you see to that, please?

  1. In re: navigable waterways:

The power to regulate commerce comprehends the control for that purpose, and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States… For this purpose they are the public property of the nation, and subject to all the requisite legislation by Congress. [United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967).]
(MJ75F: 1, ZW: 0).

  1. In re: fireworks, there is no Federal law against fireworks sales. A sale of fireworks, to an out-of-state resident intending to take same across state lines, is the very definition of “interstate commerce.” (MJ75F: 2, ZW: 0).

  2. The preponderance of “old” bars in the Commonwealth of PA using the term “hotel” in their name does indeed date back to Pa. L.C.B. “blue laws” that exempted hotels from Sunday sale bans (I guess because legislators didn’t want out-of-towners to think we were a bunch of backwater hicks). Plenty of bars that were “Hotels” in name only did so to have Sunday sales. (I suspect part of the success of this scheme might have been that the Pa.L.C.B. was “on the take” back in the day.)
    (MJ75F: 3, ZW: 0).

Having fully demonstrated the fallacy of your argument, I no longer desire to extend it, and will not answer any responses from you.

. In re: navigable waterways:

The power to regulate commerce comprehends the control for that purpose, and to the extent necessary, of all the navigable waters of the United States.... For this purpose they are the public property of the nation, and subject to all the requisite legislation by Congress. [United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967).]  

(MJ75F: 1, ZW: 0).

  1. In re: fireworks, there is no Federal law against fireworks sales. A sale of fireworks, to an out-of-state resident intending to take same across state lines, is the very definition of “interstate commerce.” (MJ75F: 2, ZW: 0).

  2. The preponderance of “old” bars in the Commonwealth of PA using the term “hotel” in their name does indeed date back to Pa. L.C.B. “blue laws” that exempted hotels from Sunday sale bans (I guess because legislators didn’t want out-of-towners to think we were a bunch of backwater hicks). Plenty of bars that were “Hotels” in name only did so to have Sunday sales. (I suspect part of the success of this scheme might have been that the Pa.L.C.B. was “on the take” back in the day.)
    (MJ75F: 3, ZW: 0).

Having fully demonstrated the fallacy of your argument, I no longer desire to extend it, and will not answer any responses from you.

For those of you playing at home, that last sentence means “look for my next post on this matter in the near future.”

  1. The case you cited has nothing whatsoever to do with interstate commerce, being a Fifth Amendment case, the thrust of which was that the STATE in whose territory the water was had rights to the LAND under the water. You are wrong, I am right.

  2. I never said anything about Federal law. Breaking the state law by crossing a state line into a state in which the thing being transported is illegal is an example of crime, NOT the definition of interstate commerce. Again, you don’t know much.

  3. I’m disappointed that you think the Pennsylvania Liquor(?) Control Board is corrupt.