Pulled over today: weird experience

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gotta tell you, OP - I think the true spirit of the HOV lane is for multiple potential DRIVERS to be in one vehicle to cut down on congestion ... plus, he didn't make a "mistake," he couldn't see your infants. I can guarantee he wasn't embarrassed - he was probably biting his tongue so he wouldn't say what I just wrote.

You are owed nothing.

+100

You ARE violating the spirit of the HOV lanes. HOV lanes are arrears for drivers who carpool to get more cars off the road.

Your infants can't drive.

You are an asshole.

(I bet you drive a giant SUV, don't you?)

Kudos to the cop for pulling you over and for restraining himself from telling you what an asshole you are.

Sorry, meant *rewards*, not arrears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d be upset because now under your license/license plate is the warning that you were in the HOV as a single passenger.

There was no warning to give because you broke no law. I’d have pushed that more. I understand he must have been embarrassed to realize he was wrong but entering a warning in the system is wrong as well.

Example, husband was pulled over for a taillight out. The police gave him a warning and logged it in the system. About a week later another policeman noticed this light out and pulled him over. He said he was going to give him a warning but when he ran his info he saw he’d been warned the week prior and not taken care of it. A ticket was then issued.

So now say you make a mistake and get in the HOV solo and get pulled over, your warning has been logged on a false accusation and you’ll just straight up get the ticket.

OP, you really should nicely contact his jurisdiction, in writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you and the cop are both right. Technically (and legally) speaking, there is not prohibit you from counting your kids as "occupants" of your vehicle. However, the "spirit of HOV" law (as cop told you) is to lessen the number of drivers on the road.

Jesus. For the millionth time. Letting parents get their kids dropped off quickly DOES lesson drivers on the road. A parent who would be on the road for 2 hours being on the road for 1 hour or even 90 minutes reduces congestion.

Jesus x 2. you stupid or something? having more cars on the HOV will make HOV traffic slow and, therefore, make things worse for everyone. think before you speak stupid.

Parents have always used the HOV. They are factored into HOV calculations. If they intended parents to not use the HOV they would specify that children in carseats don't count.

1. That doesn't make it right.

2. Sometimes you have to use your common sense. Not everything in life comes with written instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you and the cop are both right. Technically (and legally) speaking, there is not prohibit you from counting your kids as "occupants" of your vehicle. However, the "spirit of HOV" law (as cop told you) is to lessen the number of drivers on the road.

Jesus. For the millionth time. Letting parents get their kids dropped off quickly DOES lesson drivers on the road. A parent who would be on the road for 2 hours being on the road for 1 hour or even 90 minutes reduces congestion.

Jesus x 2. you stupid or something? having more cars on the HOV will make HOV traffic slow and, therefore, make things worse for everyone. think before you speak stupid.

Parents have always used the HOV. They are factored into HOV calculations. If they intended parents to not use the HOV they would specify that children in carseats don't count.

1. That doesn't make it right.

2. Sometimes you have to use your common sense. Not everything in life comes with written instruction.

Hrmm, that's funny. The law just happens to be written. Glad to know everyone should kowtow to a single cop's undemocratic whims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, he was right. You are violating the spirit of the HOV rule. The rule IS to encourage ADULTS (Who would otherwise be driving separate cars) to carpool. You six month old twins would have no other way to get around so you're not reducing traffic by having them in the car. How do you not understand that?

This is BS.

If you don't like the current definition of who count as "people" under HOV, lobby to get it changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you and the cop are both right. Technically (and legally) speaking, there is not prohibit you from counting your kids as "occupants" of your vehicle. However, the "spirit of HOV" law (as cop told you) is to lessen the number of drivers on the road.

Jesus. For the millionth time. Letting parents get their kids dropped off quickly DOES lesson drivers on the road. A parent who would be on the road for 2 hours being on the road for 1 hour or even 90 minutes reduces congestion.

Jesus x 2. you stupid or something? having more cars on the HOV will make HOV traffic slow and, therefore, make things worse for everyone. think before you speak stupid.

Parents have always used the HOV. They are factored into HOV calculations. If they intended parents to not use the HOV they would specify that children in carseats don't count.

1. That doesn't make it right.

2. Sometimes you have to use your common sense. Not everything in life comes with written instruction.

What the hell are you talking about? My point is that the HOV laws INTEND for parents to use the HOV.

How about tourists driving in from their hotel in Tysons during morning rush? They only have one car, they wouldn't have otherwise taken separate cars, are they breaking the spirit?

How about a guy taking a woman out on a date. They live in DC and are going to dinner in Springfield so they take the HOV. They never would have driven separately.

How about me and my husband who would frequently drive out to Centreville to have dinner with BIL and SIL and their kids who drove with our kids in the back seat. No circumstance where we would have taken separate cars.

Are all these instances breaking the 'spirit' of the HOV?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you and the cop are both right. Technically (and legally) speaking, there is not prohibit you from counting your kids as "occupants" of your vehicle. However, the "spirit of HOV" law (as cop told you) is to lessen the number of drivers on the road.

Jesus. For the millionth time. Letting parents get their kids dropped off quickly DOES lesson drivers on the road. A parent who would be on the road for 2 hours being on the road for 1 hour or even 90 minutes reduces congestion.

Jesus x 2. you stupid or something? having more cars on the HOV will make HOV traffic slow and, therefore, make things worse for everyone. think before you speak stupid.

Parents have always used the HOV. They are factored into HOV calculations. If they intended parents to not use the HOV they would specify that children in carseats don't count.

1. That doesn't make it right.

2. Sometimes you have to use your common sense. Not everything in life comes with written instruction.

Not the PP you're responding to, but laws are quite literally written instructions. And OP was following them. The cop wasn't wrong to pull her over (couldn't see the passengers) but he was wrong to bluster and threaten her (which is what a warning is) instead of admit his mistake. People acting like this is a Blue Lives Matter issue are nuts. Cops shouldn't issue warnings for legal behavior, I don't care if your grandpappy was a sheriff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh well, sounds like you'll live. At least you weren't shot & killed.

+1

+2
Not to mention he's right about the spirit of HOV. You ended up with only a warning, his is truly a no harm no foul situation, what outcome are you looking for?

There is no "spirit of the HOV." That's just some bullsh#t the officer made up. The law is the law. When did living, breathing babies stop qualifying as "persons"?

The appropriate response from a respectful and socially well-adjusted man is to laugh at the mistake, wave at the babies, and say "Have a good day, ma'am."

Bootlickers like you disgust me.

OMG you need to chill out - let me guess you hate traffic enforcement and think it infringes on your civil liberties somehow?

Of course there is a spirit of HOV - it is to move people more efficiently. The law may allow children to count but I'm not really sure why they should as children don't really need to commute through congested corridors but maybe I'm missing something (and I'm a parent who commutes).

But you can't ticket someone for violating the spirit of HOV and that obviously didn't happen so this entire thread is stupid.

But I'm glad the police are trying to enforce the HOV rules which lots of drivers, including presumably the person I'm responding to, think the rules are optional.

I posted earlier but clearly you didn't see it. Moving children around quickly and efficiently IS in the spirit of the HOV. Commuters dealing with children and drop offs take more roads and go more miles than other commuters because they frequently have two commutes, the one to the childcare provider and the one to their job. Putting them on the HOV DOES help with congestion and moving people around more quickly. They frequently DO have to commute through congested corridors to schools and childcare providers.

Just because you are a parent that doesn't have to move their child through a congested commute that doesn't mean others don't.

I believe police should enforce the law, and I think OP should let it go, but I think the police officer was wrong to give a warning or to act defensive. It is totally reasonable to have not seen the carseats and to have pulled the woman over. Saying, 'oh I didn't see those, have a nice day m'am' would have been appropriate.

NP. This whole idea that the point of HOV is to allow parents to drive their children around quickly and efficiently is ridiculous. It's meant for commuters going to work. Sure, parents are included in that, but the point is that it helps clear congestion for commuters to/from work. The world doesn't revolve around parents shuffling their children around, even though clearly your world does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you and the cop are both right. Technically (and legally) speaking, there is not prohibit you from counting your kids as "occupants" of your vehicle. However, the "spirit of HOV" law (as cop told you) is to lessen the number of drivers on the road.

Jesus. For the millionth time. Letting parents get their kids dropped off quickly DOES lesson drivers on the road. A parent who would be on the road for 2 hours being on the road for 1 hour or even 90 minutes reduces congestion.

Jesus x 2. you stupid or something? having more cars on the HOV will make HOV traffic slow and, therefore, make things worse for everyone. think before you speak stupid.

Parents have always used the HOV. They are factored into HOV calculations. If they intended parents to not use the HOV they would specify that children in carseats don't count.

1. That doesn't make it right.

2. Sometimes you have to use your common sense. Not everything in life comes with written instruction.

Not the PP you're responding to, but laws are quite literally written instructions. And OP was following them. The cop wasn't wrong to pull her over (couldn't see the passengers) but he was wrong to bluster and threaten her (which is what a warning is) instead of admit his mistake. People acting like this is a Blue Lives Matter issue are nuts. Cops shouldn't issue warnings for legal behavior, I don't care if your grandpappy was a sheriff.

Exactly

[Anonymous]

I drive in the HOV with my kids all the time. Even the dumbest cop will only make up that "spirit of the HOV" rule and then leave. You will never get a ticket for it unless the law is changed as written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh well, sounds like you'll live. At least you weren't shot & killed.

+1

+2
Not to mention he's right about the spirit of HOV. You ended up with only a warning, his is truly a no harm no foul situation, what outcome are you looking for?

There is no "spirit of the HOV." That's just some bullsh#t the officer made up. The law is the law. When did living, breathing babies stop qualifying as "persons"?

The appropriate response from a respectful and socially well-adjusted man is to laugh at the mistake, wave at the babies, and say "Have a good day, ma'am."

Bootlickers like you disgust me.

OMG you need to chill out - let me guess you hate traffic enforcement and think it infringes on your civil liberties somehow?

Of course there is a spirit of HOV - it is to move people more efficiently. The law may allow children to count but I'm not really sure why they should as children don't really need to commute through congested corridors but maybe I'm missing something (and I'm a parent who commutes).

But you can't ticket someone for violating the spirit of HOV and that obviously didn't happen so this entire thread is stupid.

But I'm glad the police are trying to enforce the HOV rules which lots of drivers, including presumably the person I'm responding to, think the rules are optional.

I posted earlier but clearly you didn't see it. Moving children around quickly and efficiently IS in the spirit of the HOV. Commuters dealing with children and drop offs take more roads and go more miles than other commuters because they frequently have two commutes, the one to the childcare provider and the one to their job. Putting them on the HOV DOES help with congestion and moving people around more quickly. They frequently DO have to commute through congested corridors to schools and childcare providers.

Just because you are a parent that doesn't have to move their child through a congested commute that doesn't mean others don't.

I believe police should enforce the law, and I think OP should let it go, but I think the police officer was wrong to give a warning or to act defensive. It is totally reasonable to have not seen the carseats and to have pulled the woman over. Saying, 'oh I didn't see those, have a nice day m'am' would have been appropriate.

NP. This whole idea that the point of HOV is to allow parents to drive their children around quickly and efficiently is ridiculous. It's meant for commuters going to work. Sure, parents are included in that, but the point is that it helps clear congestion for commuters to/from work. The world doesn't revolve around parents shuffling their children around, even though clearly your world does.

I posted earlier exactly how putting parents on HOV lanes helps clear congestion for commuters to/from work.

Non HOV world:

Parent drives kid to daycare: 30 minutes
Parent drives from daycare to work: 30 minutes

HOV world
Parent drives kid to daycare on HOV: 15 minutes
Parent drives without kid from daycare to work: 30 minutes

That car is on the road 15 less minutes. Multiply times the number of parents. Significant reduction in congestion.

[Anonymous]

OP didn’t get a written warning, guys. Nothing in the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today I was pulled over on the beltway in the express lanes. I have twins that are in infant carriers in the back seat with the window shades on each window. These aren’t super dark, just the typical shades sold at Target. I got pulled over because the cop thought I was cheating the HOV lanes by not paying. So I’m pulled over (which is always disconcerting) and the cop walks over and tells me I had my Express pass switched to HOV and I would be ticketed since I was the only person in the car. I pointed out that I have two 6 month olds in the back. He got flustered and said I wasn’t following the “spirit of HOV” laws that are meant to encourage adults sharing the car to reduce traffic. He said he would just give me a warning, but never gave me any official paper work so I didn’t get his name/ badge number. I wish I would have asked for it, but I hate being stopped on the side of the road with cars flying by.

This is weird right? I’ve been stewing on it all morning and have gone from bewildered to just mad.

I would have demanded his badge number and called his supervisor. The proper response was "my mistake, ma'am, on your way." Not babbling about spirit of the law. His job is not to enforce the spirit of a law, rather the letter of it.

I'm going to go ahead and guess you are not black, or you might be dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you and the cop are both right. Technically (and legally) speaking, there is not prohibit you from counting your kids as "occupants" of your vehicle. However, the "spirit of HOV" law (as cop told you) is to lessen the number of drivers on the road.

Jesus. For the millionth time. Letting parents get their kids dropped off quickly DOES lesson drivers on the road. A parent who would be on the road for 2 hours being on the road for 1 hour or even 90 minutes reduces congestion.

Jesus x 2. you stupid or something? having more cars on the HOV will make HOV traffic slow and, therefore, make things worse for everyone. think before you speak stupid.

Parents have always used the HOV. They are factored into HOV calculations. If they intended parents to not use the HOV they would specify that children in carseats don't count.

1. That doesn't make it right.

2. Sometimes you have to use your common sense. Not everything in life comes with written instruction.

What the hell are you talking about? My point is that the HOV laws INTEND for parents to use the HOV.

How about tourists driving in from their hotel in Tysons during morning rush? They only have one car, they wouldn't have otherwise taken separate cars, are they breaking the spirit?

How about a guy taking a woman out on a date. They live in DC and are going to dinner in Springfield so they take the HOV. They never would have driven separately.

How about me and my husband who would frequently drive out to Centreville to have dinner with BIL and SIL and their kids who drove with our kids in the back seat. No circumstance where we would have taken separate cars.

Are all these instances breaking the 'spirit' of the HOV?

If you live in DC and are driving to Springfield for dinner, you should get a ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today I was pulled over on the beltway in the express lanes. I have twins that are in infant carriers in the back seat with the window shades on each window. These aren’t super dark, just the typical shades sold at Target. I got pulled over because the cop thought I was cheating the HOV lanes by not paying. So I’m pulled over (which is always disconcerting) and the cop walks over and tells me I had my Express pass switched to HOV and I would be ticketed since I was the only person in the car. I pointed out that I have two 6 month olds in the back. He got flustered and said I wasn’t following the “spirit of HOV” laws that are meant to encourage adults sharing the car to reduce traffic. He said he would just give me a warning, but never gave me any official paper work so I didn’t get his name/ badge number. I wish I would have asked for it, but I hate being stopped on the side of the road with cars flying by.

This is weird right? I’ve been stewing on it all morning and have gone from bewildered to just mad.

I would have demanded his badge number and called his supervisor. The proper response was "my mistake, ma'am, on your way." Not babbling about spirit of the law. His job is not to enforce the spirit of a law, rather the letter of it.

I'm going to go ahead and guess you are not black, or you might be dead.

Not worth doing those kinds of things since the warning was just his way of saving face. There is no way he put that on the books, since it was his mistake. He is clearly the kind of person who hates it when he's proven wrong.