Should a pregnant woman driving without any other passengers in the car be able to use the car pool lane? Does your answer change if the state in which she is driving charges you with two murders if you kill her and her unborn baby?
No. I associate carpool lane with getting to work quicker, since it's during work commuting times that it's enforced. I would like to think that people who are carpooling are people who are working and carpooling to save money, gas and time.
Cleary not allowed in the car pool lane. Entitlement issues much? Not sure why an answer would change based on a state's murder laws. Is the car pool lane bubble wrapped & somehow safer?
No, and the "double murder" charges in the case of a pregnant woman have always bothered me precisely because it can open up a can of worms as far as giving anti-choice people ammunition.
I don't use the carpool lane when my child is with me, never have. If I was taking co-workers to our job, I'd use the lane. I thought the whole point was to help with rush-hour traffic.
well, I don't think she should use the carpool lane, even if she is in her ninth month.
Second question, depending on how far along the woman is, say 5 and half months on, why yes, then the child's death should be just that. A death (however, I believe, unless driving while impaired, or say without a proper and active DL, it would be involuntary manslaughter. Most don't go around with the intent to kill. And accidents happen).
*** pregnancy may not be deemed a handicap, but I have seen reserved parking for pregnant women, and even some for women with babies and small children.
The spirit behind carpool lanes is that you are eliminating DRIVERS on the road. I don't think it should be based on the number of people in the car, per se. If a mother is driving her child/ren around while running errands, whether said child/children is/are in utero or sitting in a car seat, she's not eliminating another driver, and she *doesn't* warrant the carpool lane.
Now that said, if a mother is driving her child and someone else's child to school, she *should* get the carpool lane because she has eliminated another vehicle from the road.
THAT's the spirit of carpooling.
So, NO, I don't think pregnant women should get the carpool lane. Doesn't matter what the murder laws are in that state.
I once heard a story about this exact topic, I don't know if it is true but I thought it was funny:
A pregnant woman, driving solo in the carpool lane during rush hour was pulled over. When she cited her pregnancy as a valid reason for her to be in that lane the police officer agreed to let her off w/o that ticket. He did however write her a ticket for child endangerment since she, by her own admission, had a child in the front seat of the car. So yeah, I'd have to agree with everyone else, pregnancy doesn't equal carpooling.
If your kid is 16, has a valid drivers license AND their own car, but you're riding together anyway, then go ahead and use the carpool lane, since by riding together, it's one less car on the freeway. Anything short of that should not be considered carpooling.
Makes me think of an episode of Blossom back in the day, where Joey got a blow-up doll, just to use in the carpool lane.
I thought car pool lanes were for people riding together on the way to work. If she's pregnant and alone in the car, then what's she doing in that lane?
The second question is asked because states are basically saying an unborn baby is the same as a person. If the infant (the born kid) in the car gets her in the carpool lane, and the State has passed a law that states killing a 5-mo.-old fetus is murder, then the State has also opened themselves up to women who are 5-months or more pregnant wanting to use the carpool lane (and she's got a good case to get out of any ticket issued, too). Spirit of the carpool lane? No. State's fault? Yep.
Team No Carpool Lane. I would think that to be counted as the second person, said person would have to be able to actually sit in a seat other than the driver's seat. "Sitting" inside the driver should not count.
In most states the definition HOV is vague. The intent is to reduce traffic and emissions but have you ever seen who is in the HOV lane at 3pm? Soccer moms and dads. I'm sure most pregnant drives would get off with a warning.
As for the second question, again the definition of when life begins varies from state to state along with the knowledge and intent of the person committing the crime.
I think if you start giving birth while driving, then by all means use the car pool lane and get to a hospital. However, if you won't make the hospital, please move back into a regular lane so as not to disrupt the flow of traffic.
I don't think you should be able to drive in the carpool lane unless there are two licensed drivers in the car. Why do you get to carpool for driving around someone who can't drive??? Ridiculous. And you should only be charged double murder if the pregnancy is so far along that that state wouldn't perform an abortion. Come to me everyone, I am very wise!
Yes it does. If a state considers a fetus a viable human (it is most certainly not - a sentient being is one who can live, breathe and survive on its own), then they should not fine a pregnant woman driving in a carpool lane. But I don't expect the asshats who make these sorts of ridiculous laws to get the logical connection.
I totally agree with what Little Miss Smoke and Mirrors' (and the majority of all commenters) POV regarding the carpool lane. Unless the second passenger in the car has a drivers license, you shouldn't be in the carpool lane.
My pregnant ass would not use the carpool lane (for one thing, in Toronto, I think you need three people in the car, not two. I could be wrong, but I definitely see signs that state three or more people.), unless I was having a medical emergency or going into labor. Frankly, I'd use that lane in case of medical emergency even if I wasn't pregnant. I feel like this is one of those things that preggos and moms would take advantage of. And I agree with LMSM, driving your kids and other kids to school is a carpool; driving your own children to the mall or soccer practice does not constitute a carpool, however much you would appreciate the speed and convenience of a dedicated lane for busy moms. Wow, didn't realize this was such a hot-button issue. I'm not even touching the other half of the question, which IS actually an important issue. Reproductive rights >>> Abuse of carpool lanes.
How about this - if the unborn child has passed driver's ed, then she can drive in the carpool lane.
Also, in those states where pregnant woman murder = two murder charges on the perpetrator, then if a pregnant woman kills someone else her unborn child is charged as an accomplice, to be put in juvy when he/she is born. Also, if a pregnant woman is eating fast food, charge her with child abuse. Got to be consistent here!
Oh Jesus...are we really starting this debate on the blog today?
ReplyDeleteShe is pregnant, the last time I looked that was not a handicap, she isn't carpooling, and yes, if the kid is viable, you've killed two people.
ReplyDeleteEcho what hoosierlady said. That unborn child is not saving any emissions by carpooling.
ReplyDeleteWTF? Your diet has turned you morbid.
ReplyDeleteNo. I associate carpool lane with getting to work quicker, since it's during work commuting times that it's enforced. I would like to think that people who are carpooling are people who are working and carpooling to save money, gas and time.
ReplyDeleteIt's not carpooling no matter how viable the kid is. The carpool lane is to motivate people to carpool, i.e. decreasing the cars on the road.
ReplyDeleteWhere did this come from?
ReplyDeleteCleary not allowed in the car pool lane. Entitlement issues much?
ReplyDeleteNot sure why an answer would change based on a state's murder laws. Is the car pool lane bubble wrapped & somehow safer?
Last time I checked, a fetus cannot drive.
ReplyDeleteOpening up a can of worms today, Enty. Did you get your new bed yesterday? I was hoping that you finally got a good night's sleep.
I'm with @Vicki. Maybe you should eat something. Have some bacon, and walk around the block a few times.
Pretty sure the thought is that if it's two people if you kill her, shouldn't it be two people for the sake of carpools.
ReplyDeleteNot unless she is gestating a 16yo with a valid driver's license. Carpool lanes are to reduce the number of cars on the road.
ReplyDeleteSorry, back of the line.
Seconded, well said.
DeleteEnd well: this thread won't.
ReplyDeletehaha @Ida.
ReplyDeleteNo, and the "double murder" charges in the case of a pregnant woman have always bothered me precisely because it can open up a can of worms as far as giving anti-choice people ammunition.
Agree with all of you guys on this one. Being pregnant has nothing to do with driving in the car pool lane.
ReplyDelete^like charging women with murder when they lose their baby you mean?? That’s already happening...
ReplyDeleteI don't use the carpool lane when my child is with me, never have. If I was taking co-workers to our job, I'd use the lane. I thought the whole point was to help with rush-hour traffic.
ReplyDeleteAgree w/EmEyeKay
ReplyDelete&
LMAO @ Jax
well, I don't think she should use the carpool lane, even if she is in her ninth month.
ReplyDeleteSecond question, depending on how far along the woman is, say 5 and half months on, why yes, then the child's death should be just that. A death (however, I believe, unless driving while impaired, or say without a proper and active DL, it would be involuntary manslaughter. Most don't go around with the intent to kill. And accidents happen).
*** pregnancy may not be deemed a handicap, but I have seen reserved parking for pregnant women, and even some for women with babies and small children.
@EmEyeKay....that's what I thought too.
ReplyDeleteOh boy. No carpool lane for her. 'Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteBut the real question is can one of my old neighbours continue to use their life-sized cardboard cut out of Mel Lastman in the carpool lane?
ReplyDeleteThe spirit behind carpool lanes is that you are eliminating DRIVERS on the road. I don't think it should be based on the number of people in the car, per se. If a mother is driving her child/ren around while running errands, whether said child/children is/are in utero or sitting in a car seat, she's not eliminating another driver, and she *doesn't* warrant the carpool lane.
ReplyDeleteNow that said, if a mother is driving her child and someone else's child to school, she *should* get the carpool lane because she has eliminated another vehicle from the road.
THAT's the spirit of carpooling.
So, NO, I don't think pregnant women should get the carpool lane. Doesn't matter what the murder laws are in that state.
I once heard a story about this exact topic, I don't know if it is true but I thought it was funny:
ReplyDeleteA pregnant woman, driving solo in the carpool lane during rush hour was pulled over. When she cited her pregnancy as a valid reason for her to be in that lane the police officer agreed to let her off w/o that ticket. He did however write her a ticket for child endangerment since she, by her own admission, had a child in the front seat of the car. So yeah, I'd have to agree with everyone else, pregnancy doesn't equal carpooling.
Whoa...this one will fry my brain today.
ReplyDeletei dont think a preganant woman or a person with small children should use the carpool lane.
ReplyDeleteIf your kid is 16, has a valid drivers license AND their own car, but you're riding together anyway, then go ahead and use the carpool lane, since by riding together, it's one less car on the freeway. Anything short of that should not be considered carpooling.
ReplyDeleteMakes me think of an episode of Blossom back in the day, where Joey got a blow-up doll, just to use in the carpool lane.
I thought car pool lanes were for people riding together on the way to work. If she's pregnant and alone in the car, then what's she doing in that lane?
ReplyDeletelol jax! What you said.
ReplyDeleteThe second question is asked because states are basically saying an unborn baby is the same as a person. If the infant (the born kid) in the car gets her in the carpool lane, and the State has passed a law that states killing a 5-mo.-old fetus is murder, then the State has also opened themselves up to women who are 5-months or more pregnant wanting to use the carpool lane (and she's got a good case to get out of any ticket issued, too). Spirit of the carpool lane? No. State's fault? Yep.
ReplyDeleteTeam No Carpool Lane. I would think that to be counted as the second person, said person would have to be able to actually sit in a seat other than the driver's seat. "Sitting" inside the driver should not count.
ReplyDeleteIn most states the definition HOV is vague. The intent is to reduce traffic and emissions but have you ever seen who is in the HOV lane at 3pm? Soccer moms and dads. I'm sure most pregnant drives would get off with a warning.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second question, again the definition of when life begins varies from state to state along with the knowledge and intent of the person committing the crime.
I think if you start giving birth while driving, then by all means use the car pool lane and get to a hospital. However, if you won't make the hospital, please move back into a regular lane so as not to disrupt the flow of traffic.
ReplyDeleteNo, not becuase life begins at birth or in utero. Becuase women will put pillows under their shirts and abuse it and men too probably.
ReplyDeleteLoL @Vicki.
ReplyDeleteNo & no, however @feraltart makes a fabulous point. LOL!!
I don't think you should be able to drive in the carpool lane unless there are two licensed drivers in the car. Why do you get to carpool for driving around someone who can't drive??? Ridiculous. And you should only be charged double murder if the pregnancy is so far along that that state wouldn't perform an abortion. Come to me everyone, I am very wise!
ReplyDeleteYes it does. If a state considers a fetus a viable human (it is most certainly not - a sentient being is one who can live, breathe and survive on its own), then they should not fine a pregnant woman driving in a carpool lane. But I don't expect the asshats who make these sorts of ridiculous laws to get the logical connection.
ReplyDeleteNo, no on the carpool question.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what Little Miss Smoke and Mirrors' (and the majority of all commenters) POV regarding the carpool lane. Unless the second passenger in the car has a drivers license, you shouldn't be in the carpool lane.
ReplyDeleteMy pregnant ass would not use the carpool lane (for one thing, in Toronto, I think you need three people in the car, not two. I could be wrong, but I definitely see signs that state three or more people.), unless I was having a medical emergency or going into labor. Frankly, I'd use that lane in case of medical emergency even if I wasn't pregnant. I feel like this is one of those things that preggos and moms would take advantage of. And I agree with LMSM, driving your kids and other kids to school is a carpool; driving your own children to the mall or soccer practice does not constitute a carpool, however much you would appreciate the speed and convenience of a dedicated lane for busy moms.
ReplyDeleteWow, didn't realize this was such a hot-button issue. I'm not even touching the other half of the question, which IS actually an important issue. Reproductive rights >>> Abuse of carpool lanes.
Only if she is in labor & rushing to the hospital to give birth.
ReplyDeleteHow about this - if the unborn child has passed driver's ed, then she can drive in the carpool lane.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in those states where pregnant woman murder = two murder charges on the perpetrator, then if a pregnant woman kills someone else her unborn child is charged as an accomplice, to be put in juvy when he/she is born. Also, if a pregnant woman is eating fast food, charge her with child abuse. Got to be consistent here!