- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:19 pm to beerJeep
quote:
Not at all. It’s a loophole that she found and should be allowed to exploit until the loophole is closed.
Exactly. The HOV lane may be intended to reduce traffic but all the signs in Dallas say 2+ people. If her baby was in a car seat in the back she would be in compliance with the rules but the situation is exactly the same.
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:23 pm to 0x15E
quote:
By law, in order to use the high-occupancy vehicle lanes, drivers must have at least one passenger
Is this really the only requirement listed in law? I would have thought it required another person with DL. I never thought having my kids in car allowed me to use HOV lanes.
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:26 pm to 0x15E
If I was the magistrate:
So you are suggesting your unborn child meets the definition of a passenger in order to satisfy the HOV lane statute?
Yes.
Allowing a passenger to occupy the driver's seat with you meets the requirements of the reckless driving statute. Which will it be: reckless operation of a vehicle or an HOV violation?
So you are suggesting your unborn child meets the definition of a passenger in order to satisfy the HOV lane statute?
Yes.
Allowing a passenger to occupy the driver's seat with you meets the requirements of the reckless driving statute. Which will it be: reckless operation of a vehicle or an HOV violation?
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:27 pm to EarlyCuyler3
she looks good doing that too.
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:31 pm to 0x15E
SO how exactly are the cops supposed to tell they are pregnant in the HOV lane?
This post was edited on 7/9/22 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:31 pm to Obtuse1
You go to the court for the violation you were given. The judge can't create new violations.
And, by your standards, every pregnant driver would be guilty of reckless operation.
And, by your standards, every pregnant driver would be guilty of reckless operation.
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:33 pm to BayouBlitz
quote:
And, by your standards, every pregnant driver would be guilty of reckless operation.
No they wouldn't, becuase they are trying to redefine person in the transportation code.
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:33 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
she looks good doing that too.
That face screams "I'm a raging bitch." Have at it.
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:33 pm to SG_Geaux
quote:
SO how exactly are the cops supposed to tell they are pregnant in the HOV lane?
really, we need an IVF lane
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:39 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
No they wouldn't, becuase they are trying to redefine person in the transportation code.
No. The state is defining what a person is.
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:39 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
If I was the magistrate:
So you are suggesting your unborn child meets the definition of a passenger in order to satisfy the HOV lane statute?
Yes.
Allowing a passenger to occupy the driver's seat with you meets the requirements of the reckless driving statute. Which will it be: reckless operation of a vehicle or an HOV violation?
The magistrate doesn't have the authority to issue a reckless operation citation. So she should stick with the HOV violation.
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:40 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:like putting gas into a wrecked car.
IWHI
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:40 pm to BayouBlitz
quote:
The state is defining what a person is.
And the lady who got the ticket wants it redefined in the transportation code to match the penal code. If that were to happen that Obtuses hypothetical would then be reality.
You aren't making any sense.
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:41 pm to BurningHeart
quote:
She's either virtue signaling or a complete dumbass, or both, not knowing the purpose of an HOV lane is to promote carpooling.
What a complete dumbass post this is lol
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:48 pm to BayouBlitz
quote:
You go to the court for the violation you were given. The judge can't create new violations.
And, by your standards, every pregnant driver would be guilty of reckless operation.
If the ticketing officer is there he/she can drop one and bring another charge. The magistrate would have to allow the accused time to properly prepare a defense for the new charge.
I didn't say it was my standard, just that I would use it to make the point or the difference between an unborn child and a passenger. It isn't in order to actually charge her with reckless driving which wouldn't stand. It is a novel approach to the law and should make the legislature act.
I have no real issue with extending the privilege of HOV lanes to pregnant women but it will make HOV lane enforcement almost impossible and you can expect a cavalcade of special interests groups looking for the same privilege (Vets, cops, firefighters, teachers etc).
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:50 pm to Obtuse1
quote:Sp you are willing to put the precedent in Texas law that all pregnant women aren’t allowed to drive without breaking the law?
Allowing a passenger to occupy the driver's seat with you meets the requirements of the reckless driving statute. Which will it be: reckless operation of a vehicle or an HOV violation?
Sorry, but if an unborn child is a person, she had two people in her vehicle and met the requirements of the HOV lane for Texas law. They need to change their law to read two seated people or however else they want it to read
This post was edited on 7/9/22 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:52 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Sorry, but if an unborn child is a person, she had two people in her vehicle and met the requirements of the HOV lane for Texas law.
Incorrect
quote:
They need to change their law
Why? You just said the law says she can do that, what needs to be changed?
quote:
They need to change their law to read two seated people or however else they want it to read
No they don't, because the transportation code doesn't define a person as a fetus
This post was edited on 7/9/22 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 7/9/22 at 1:54 pm to Dire Wolf
quote:
I would support a law to allow pregnant women to use the HOV. It’s a nice gesture and makes the roads safer by getting more women off the main streets
This especially that last part
This post was edited on 7/9/22 at 1:54 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News