Pulled over today: weird experience

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like he was embarrassed that he didn't notice the kids and got defensive and tried to cover with the bs about the spirit of the HOV rule. i wouldn't worry about if if I were you. Annoying, but so what.

Just try to imagine how embarrassed he was when you pointed out there were three people in the car. And then he embarrassed himself further by trying to cover up his mistake with the “spirit of the law” and “warning” nonsense. Lol!!!!!

[Anonymous]

1. Ofcourse children count in the HOV lanes. You can't fit 3 adults in a standard car if you have two car seats as well.

2. The police officers pulling people over in the 65 mph lanes are frequently driving unsafely themselves and creating risks for EZ Pass users. Is it worth it to harass people with kids in the EZ Pass lanes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How about non HOV world parent makes choice to have kids in neighborhood schools that don't involve them spending hours in the car every day? That would be good for kids and good congestion.

Seriously why do kids need to be commuting on 270?

The point of HOV should be to get more throughput of people who need to get through a congested corridor. It is hard for me to rationalize why kids need to get through that congested corridor but I live in DC purposefully so my kids are within walking distance of our home. But in fact it is bad policy to encourage parents to make different choices so I'm really not sure it is in the "spirit" of the law to have parents zipping around in HOV lanes with kids who really don't need to be going to school downtown - most jobs are downtown and most daycares and schools are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Ofcourse children count in the HOV lanes. You can't fit 3 adults in a standard car if you have two car seats as well.

2. The police officers pulling people over in the 65 mph lanes are frequently driving unsafely themselves and creating risks for EZ Pass users. Is it worth it to harass people with kids in the EZ Pass lanes?

I'm a pp that thinks kids should count and that the cop was out of line. I ALSO think cops should patrol the ish out of those HOV roads so people don't game the system. The dramatic uproar about 66 tolls proved there were plenty of cheaters.

[Anonymous]

There is not "spirit" of HOV lanes. The rule says 3 people, and has no limitations on age. I drive with my two kids in the backseat all the time, and we are in compliance. That said, I would not be surprised to be pulled over since you can't see them in the back.

Cop was trying to save face. He should have just said he couldn't see all 3 occupants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How about non HOV world parent makes choice to have kids in neighborhood schools that don't involve them spending hours in the car every day? That would be good for kids and good congestion.

Seriously why do kids need to be commuting on 270?

The point of HOV should be to get more throughput of people who need to get through a congested corridor. It is hard for me to rationalize why kids need to get through that congested corridor but I live in DC purposefully so my kids are within walking distance of our home. But in fact it is bad policy to encourage parents to make different choices so I'm really not sure it is in the "spirit" of the law to have parents zipping around in HOV lanes with kids who really don't need to be going to school downtown - most jobs are downtown and most daycares and schools are not.

I said daycare not school. And a lot of time what daycare you go to isn't a choice.

But since you live in dc why do you care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Ofcourse children count in the HOV lanes. You can't fit 3 adults in a standard car if you have two car seats as well.

2. The police officers pulling people over in the 65 mph lanes are frequently driving unsafely themselves and creating risks for EZ Pass users. Is it worth it to harass people with kids in the EZ Pass lanes?

I don't know what you are talking about in point 2 but it is not harassment to pull someone over who might be violating the law - we need more law enforcement on our roads not less. The OP of this thread really doesn't have a grievance - even the verbal "warning" she was given had no component that was worth posting on DCUM.

And what road around here with HOV requirements also has a 65 MPH speed limit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How about non HOV world parent makes choice to have kids in neighborhood schools that don't involve them spending hours in the car every day? That would be good for kids and good congestion.

Seriously why do kids need to be commuting on 270?

The point of HOV should be to get more throughput of people who need to get through a congested corridor. It is hard for me to rationalize why kids need to get through that congested corridor but I live in DC purposefully so my kids are within walking distance of our home. But in fact it is bad policy to encourage parents to make different choices so I'm really not sure it is in the "spirit" of the law to have parents zipping around in HOV lanes with kids who really don't need to be going to school downtown - most jobs are downtown and most daycares and schools are not.

Wrong. The HOV-3 lanes (495 Express Lanes) are 24 hours. Well, you get to drive for free if you're HOV3, and have to pay if not.

So are they really worried about congestion at 2am on a Saturday night? HOV applies then also.

We use it all the time on the weekend when we go out as a family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How about non HOV world parent makes choice to have kids in neighborhood schools that don't involve them spending hours in the car every day? That would be good for kids and good congestion.

Seriously why do kids need to be commuting on 270?

The point of HOV should be to get more throughput of people who need to get through a congested corridor. It is hard for me to rationalize why kids need to get through that congested corridor but I live in DC purposefully so my kids are within walking distance of our home. But in fact it is bad policy to encourage parents to make different choices so I'm really not sure it is in the "spirit" of the law to have parents zipping around in HOV lanes with kids who really don't need to be going to school downtown - most jobs are downtown and most daycares and schools are not.

How about we let parents decide which works better for them, when the choices are (a) a daycare close to home but far from the job (b) a daycare far from home but close to the job? In the ideal world, everybody would also have a choice (c) home, daycare, and job all close together. But we are not in the ideal world, yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And what road around here with HOV requirements also has a 65 MPH speed limit?

495 Express Lanes are 65mph.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry this happened to you, OP, because pulling over for any reason on the highway is DANGEROUS. That police officer should have been humble and decent enough to apologize, but he wasn't, and it's a shame!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How about non HOV world parent makes choice to have kids in neighborhood schools that don't involve them spending hours in the car every day? That would be good for kids and good congestion.

Seriously why do kids need to be commuting on 270?

The point of HOV should be to get more throughput of people who need to get through a congested corridor. It is hard for me to rationalize why kids need to get through that congested corridor but I live in DC purposefully so my kids are within walking distance of our home. But in fact it is bad policy to encourage parents to make different choices so I'm really not sure it is in the "spirit" of the law to have parents zipping around in HOV lanes with kids who really don't need to be going to school downtown - most jobs are downtown and most daycares and schools are not.

I said daycare not school. And a lot of time what daycare you go to isn't a choice.

But since you live in dc why do you care?

If DCUM and my own personal experience is any guide there is a lot of choice about daycare.

And I care as a DC resident because I want fewer cars on my roads and HOV is a way to filter out single occupancy cars in the burbs - some of that 270 traffic ends up on my street and I really don't think it makes sense to encourage folks to drive through my neighborhood by allowing them to take advantage of HOV by putting kids in the back when those kids should go to preschool/daycare/whatever where they live not where I live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The point of HOV should be to get more throughput of people who need to get through a congested corridor.

In MD, you can use the HOV lanes with one person if you have an electric car. We have a special sticker on the back of our Chevy Volt issued by MD DMV that attests to this.

Yet another example of how HOV isn't just about getting commuters to carpool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is not "spirit" of HOV lanes. The rule says 3 people, and has no limitations on age. I drive with my two kids in the backseat all the time, and we are in compliance. That said, I would not be surprised to be pulled over since you can't see them in the back.

Cop was trying to save face. He should have just said he couldn't see all 3 occupants.

I agree. The Cop could have saved face by explaining to OP that because of her tinted windows, there is a good chance that she will be pulled over frequently by other cops because they cannot see the kids in the back seat rather than talking about spirit laws. You know, something like, "Oh, I didn't see them. I should advise you that you will likely continue to get pulled over by other officers since because of your tinted windows, we cannot see your kids in the back seat."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How about non HOV world parent makes choice to have kids in neighborhood schools that don't involve them spending hours in the car every day? That would be good for kids and good congestion.

Seriously why do kids need to be commuting on 270?

The point of HOV should be to get more throughput of people who need to get through a congested corridor. It is hard for me to rationalize why kids need to get through that congested corridor but I live in DC purposefully so my kids are within walking distance of our home. But in fact it is bad policy to encourage parents to make different choices so I'm really not sure it is in the "spirit" of the law to have parents zipping around in HOV lanes with kids who really don't need to be going to school downtown - most jobs are downtown and most daycares and schools are not.

How about we let parents decide which works better for them, when the choices are (a) a daycare close to home but far from the job (b) a daycare far from home but close to the job? In the ideal world, everybody would also have a choice (c) home, daycare, and job all close together. But we are not in the ideal world, yet.

Fair enough but part of that shouldn't be rewarding their choice with a faster commute on lanes that would be better used by people who have to commute through a corridor. Jobs are concentrated in dense areas - schools tend to be concentrated in neighborhoods. I hadn't thought of this before but I bet there are parents putting their kids in downtown daycares to take advantage of HOV rules - if so I do think that undermines the purpose of the lanes and is a legal form of cheating.