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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am glad that the rule was enforced (by pulling you over). However, he was WAY out of line by being completely unprofessional, inaccurate and worse. See above PPs, he should have apologized.

Why should he have apologized for pulling over what appeared to be a single driver? Is he supposed to have x-ray vision that can look into her car (with its shades on) and see she has two babies back there? It sucks OP was inconvenienced and I also agree that the spirit of law comment was stupid, even though I agree with it. But the Mommy privilege is ridiculous here.

If I bump into someone on the metro because there are a million people around I say sorry. It generally is a result of the circumstances not my personal action but I apologize because thats how you are a nice human being.

What the cop did was the equivalent of bumping into someone and saying, 'this was your fault but I'm not gonna hold it against you too much'

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.

No. The police officer is not correct. He is supposed to be following the actual law. If he or you or anyone else thinks the law ought to be different, he should be lobbying the lawmakers, not stopping drivers and giving them warnings. Obviously, he did not know about the kids in this car, but are you saying he would be well within his authority to stop parents driving with their kids to lecture them on the spirit of the law and give a warning every time he sees a parent with kids? Obviously not.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I am glad that the rule was enforced (by pulling you over). However, he was WAY out of line by being completely unprofessional, inaccurate and worse. See above PPs, he should have apologized.

Why should he have apologized for pulling over what appeared to be a single driver? Is he supposed to have x-ray vision that can look into her car (with its shades on) and see she has two babies back there? It sucks OP was inconvenienced and I also agree that the spirit of law comment was stupid, even though I agree with it. But the Mommy privilege is ridiculous here.

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.

I am glad that the rule was enforced (by pulling you over). However, he was WAY out of line by being completely unprofessional, inaccurate and worse. See above PPs, he should have apologized.

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.

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?

The trolls are now here. Wonderful.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your husband deserved his ticket. He was given a warning. He didn't fix the taillight. That is a terrible example of "wrongly putting a warning in the system".

OP has no "right" to "one free warning" that just got unfairly used up. If she gets in the HOV lane solo, she should get a ticket.

PP isn't saying her husband didn't deserve the ticket. She's explaining the consequences of having a warning in the system. But unless you got paperwork OP you didn't get an official warning like this IMO.

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.

Agreed. That cop is an asshole.

+1

Drive in the HOV lane, OP.

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.

Anonymous wrote:OP: ok I got it. My privilege is showing. FWIW I am not white, I am south Asian. Guess I’ll stick to the regular lanes from now on

No, you are perfectly fine in the HOV lanes. F anyone who says otherwise, even that cop.