Ask Mike: Pregnant in the carpool lane
Hey Guys,
Commuting is the pits. The carpool lane (aka the HOV lane) can make it a bit less painful, but what if you don’t have another body in the car? Do you actually need one? A lot of folks on Yahoo! Answers wonder if pregnant women can legally ride in the carpool lane. The answer? Sure, but there has to be another person in the car, too.
It’s not hard to imagine how this might come up. Pregnant women “eating for two” is a common expression. Some might say they’re also driving with a little passenger. But the law says otherwise. According to the Virginia Department of Transportation, a pregnant woman counts as one person. It’s a different story once the little miracle is born. “Babies of any age… count as a person” in the world of high occupancy vehicles.
Rules of the road vary state to state, but, near as I can tell, this one is in effect across the board. California has a similar law, as do Washington and Arizona.
One woman tried to test this law back in 2006 and lost the case. Candace Wilkinson of Phoenix claimed that her fetus should meet the second person requirement for carpools. The judge didn’t agree and the woman was forced to pay the fine.
Bottom line — the carpool lane is nice, but don’t use it unless you have another person in the car with you. Buns in the oven do not count.
Thanks for reading,
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Rating:
(33 votes, average: 3.61) - Permalink
- Comments (100)
Loading ...
Subscribe
That’s too funny. A fetus isn’t a person
A featus is a person, but I don’t think that it should count if you if you are driving and go in the carpool lane… your baby doesn’t need to get anywhere fast. He/she is just fine in your stomach and is growing, it’s not like they’re going to work or something.
I thought that the common roadway was narrowed to create HOV lanes were in order to reduce the number of vehicles on the road by rewarding carpooling. Infants don’t drive, so my understanding was woefully uninformed. HOV lanes are also to convenience mom’s taxi on its many trips.
So a baby is a person for the sole purpose of making use of the HOV lane, but a bundle of useless cells when abortion is the topic?
If I have my pet cat in the car I guess I can now make use of the HOV lane.
Ok, prove the person is pregnant. Sounds harsh, right? You see someone who looks pregnant they must be pregnant. Ah, now there’s the rub. There have been plenty of overweight women who have been asked when their due. People can mistake someone who is overweight for someone who is pregnant and vice versa. Which can be an insult.
Now the flip would be to use that insult when your not pregnant to your advantage. How can the officer disprove the claim? Thus they want to be able to physically describe the vehicles occupants. Something they can’t do for an unborn child.
What about schizophrenics?
A fetus is so a person. That is so insensitive to say.
So if the fetus reaches the age of viability (when it could survive outside the womb) does it then become ‘legal’.
it would be different if she was having the baby, and traffic was backed up and she needed to get to the hospital right away, but other than that, no. The carpool lane is not for a regular pregnant lady.
Yet if a drunk driver hit the pregnant woman and killed her, the drunk would be tried for double vehicular homicide.
I would say that wouldn’t be aloud because the fetus is still not considered a “person” until it is born and given a name, birth certificate, etc. Nice try though.
There is an obvious reason for that and why carpool lanes exist in the first place. The idea of carpooling is to get cars off the road by having people that are going to the same place share a ride. A living fetus can’t go anywhere the mother isn’t going so that isn’t going to take cars off the road. Kids, such as a soccer team, can cut down the number of cars by sharing rides with adults other than their parents. One could lie or bend the truth by saying one kid in the car is a relative and she is doing errends and they happen to be going to or from the same place such as a doctor. The law just keeps the police from having to stop every adult with a kid, because it would be more trouble that enforcing the spirit of the law.
I agree a fetus def. isn’t a person! but try telling that to someone whose pro-life. hahaha.
A lady in Dallas tried testing this, too. I don’t recall the year but it wasn’t long after the HOV lanes were implemented. FAIL!!!
Yep, the judge in Texas came to the same conclusion as the one in Virginia.
I agree, Mike. Unless two (2) heads are showing, stay out of the carpool lane.
A ‘fetus’ is a person from the time of conception BUT you still have to show two heads in the carpool lane. And dummy’s don’t count, it’s been tried before.
LOL. being a pregnant lady, i find this interesting! i’ve also been told not to eat for two – eat for one. only 6 times a day rather than 3! very interesting and funny to finally learn pregnant people do not qualify.
did you know (i found this out in ATL, GA) that motorcyclists are allowed to drive in the HOV lane even when alone?
A fetus is indeed a person, just a unborn one, just ask the majority of young mothers who had a abortion, they will tell you they know they killed and won’t do it again. Likely the reason for not allowing pregnant women to drive in the HOV lane is more of a matter of enforcement than the question is a fetus a person or not. If pregnant women were allowed in the HOV lane, half the population of drivers would be having a pillow under their dresses.
Don’t be ridiculous. There’s one person in the car. Even if you want to call a fetus a person, you can’t say the woman is carpooling. Why not count her liver as another passenger while you’re at it?
Pregnant should be alowed to use the the carpool lane because her water can break at any time. People may say she sould’nt be driving at any time in that condition but people are not perfect.
A fetus IS a person! No one can come to be, without being a fetus first.
I agree with the judge’s ruling on the woman in the 2006 incident. Her baby is an occupant of the mother, not the car.
If that works then all the eggs in my ovaries should count too.
Please. You cannot be serious. This is a joke all by itself, and if you need proof, it’s been litigated already in several states and the matter has been settled. In the narrow scope of rules around carpool lane usage, a fetus is not a person. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise is just plain nuts. If you want to argue fetus personhood in the wider scope of the abortion issue, than fine. But please leave alone those people who come to discussions about driving and commuting looking for useful information.
HAHA THIS IS SOOO FUNNYY!!
People have been trying all kinds of tricks to use the HOV lane. Fines now over $300 in some places.
Pregnant doesn’t help much if at all. Attempts have been made with puppets, full life rubber toys etc. No luck- no way.
A gal tried this in Houston a few years ago and was ticketed. But I must disagree with the first comment, since a fetus is a person. Just not one that counts for the HOV lane until it’s breathing the smog the rest of us breathe.
A fetus is a person, first of all. Its the most precious kind of person.
I agree with the Judge though, two bodies carpool. Counting pregnant mommy as one body, bambino and all.
But, there should be some leniency as pregnant women do crazy things so half the fine for blaming it on your pregnancy. LOL
Agreed. They don’t have handicapped plates for pregnant women. And if you are that pregnant, you should let someone else drive you (even if it’s your own car).
Oh wow :O
glad the laws make sense for a change.
Car pool lands are designed to reduce traffic obviously the “bun in the oven” would not be traveling without the “oven”.
Kind of a double standard since a drunk driver can be charged with 2 homicides if he kills a pregnant woman…
What if the baby is due any minute.
Can we use the carpool lane if its faster?
I have been pregnant twice. Both times, they eventually ended with the birth of a human baby. Before that, I didn’t have to buy 2 seats in an airplane or buy 2 tickets to the movies, so no, it doesn’t qualify me for the carpool lane, either.
I also don’t agree that when a pregnant woman is murdered that it is 2 crimes, unless the fetus could have survived outside her womb.
It is NOT a bun in an oven–ust because the cat has kittens in the oven doesn’t make them biscuits! These feti are almost humans beings, but not yet..
A fetus is definitely a person, but I agree with the ruling. Although I have enjoyed the benefit of driving in the carpool lane with my kids in the car, isn’t the point of it to REDUCE vehicles on the road?! So really, the carpool lane should only be able to be used if you have another licensed driver in the vehicle, thereby reducing the number of vehiceles on the road by one.
And I suppose since her fetus has his own bmw sitting in the driveway at home, he’s helping out the pollution/heavy traffic situation (ahem, the whole reason behind the carpool lane) by carpooling with mom.
Tell that to the ‘Pro Life’ campaigners.
No. In order to have an enforceable HOV-lane rule, the cop must be able to tell, at a glance, whether there are two or more people in the car. A pregnant woman will appear to be one person.
Others have said that the other passenger must be a licensed driver. That is impractical for the same reason. If there are two people in the car, that should be sufficient. Otherwise, the cop would have to stop every vehicle, to determine whether the other driver(s) is (are) licensed, and that would back up traffic, and defeat the whole purpose of the carpool lane.
I believe a fetus is a person but the car pool lane is for multiple people who drive and unborn babies obously cant drive
quote: “I agree, Mike. Unless two (2) heads are showing, stay out of the carpool lane.”
So does that mean that if a man drives naked, he can be in the HOV lane?
First off Car pool lanes should go back to old requirements, 2 people isn’t nearly enough in my opinion. Second how do you prove you are pregnant in some cases? Seriously some people could look pregnant and be fat or something. The cops don’t have time for that argument. Last is how is a mother and baby really carpooling? Babies shouldn’t count.
Great question. I asked this same exact question to both a police traffic officer and a Los Angeles City Attorney and they both answered no. Neither of these two individuals know one another. This is just a chick excuse to get away with something and wants you to fell sorry or have compasion for her. Boo hoo. Kept your legs closed next time.
this is a good example of why religion sucks
Yea for pregrant woman? No wonder + that what she said
A fetus is not a person. I see some people here saying it is, but it’s not until it’s sentient. If you want to argue otherwise, then you might as well try to argue that your finger or your nose is a person, because it’s a clump of cells with your DNA, just like you were when you were a fetus.
a person who sits in another seat is a passenger. that constitutes a carpool…not a pregnant woman.
A fetus isn’t a person? Ha. Neither are you. I agree with the last comment. I don’t even think people should get to drive in the HOV lane if they have someone without a driver’s license in their car. The entire point behind HOV is that people are car pooling and saving gas, instead of taking 2 separate cars. It’s more economical. Buuuut everyone can take advantage of it if they have a second person in the car….makes no sense.
Haha good question.
No, that does not count. Legally, the fetus is not a person because it is not born, does not have a birth certificate/any proof of existence, or a citizen in any country…
I think a pregnant woman in the 9th month of pregnancy should be allowed to use the carpool lane and use the handicap parking. It is so difficult to get around at that point and to make them walk across the parking lot is ridiculous. What if someone was about to give birth too? Access to the HOV lane allows them to get off the road faster!
i don’t even know what a car pool lane is.
A fetus is not a person, it is by definition a parasite. Kill the host, the parasite dies.
A person is a viable human being, not an unborn one.
This is a very interesting question! Another good consideration that goes hand and hand with that, would be that if the woman got into an accident and her along with the baby were killed. Would the offending driver be responsible for two deaths of the woman and the baby? Would the baby be considered a life as it should be?
LOL women shouldn’t drive.
A fetus is so a person. That is so insensitive to say.
Michelle, grow up and realise what the person meant by this in the general context of this post. >.<
mmm…
Very very difficult question….
Well think of it this way, a seed isn’t a plant until it’s sprouted.
That’s just the kind of self-absorbed, self-involved, lazy and entitled thinking that I expect from pregnant women these days. First it was the “expecting mothers” parking spaces next to the stores (ignoring the fact that exercise is a *great* thing for pregnant women) and now they want special treatment because apparently it’s harder to drive when you’re knocked up? What’s next, a special lane for fat people because they weigh as much as two people and can’t see the pedals? I was proud of my wife for asking me to park far away just so she was forced to get up and walk a little, and I’m doubly proud of her because when I told her about this question she said “what an idiot! Give her another ticket for being lazy and stupid!”
By that woman’s logic I should be able to use the HOV lane because I’m carrying around enough genetic material i my nads to repopulate the United States. A few hundred million sperm should count as at least *one* passenger, right?
I’ve heard of a guy driving a hearse riding in the carpool lane “legally” til a cop told him that wasn’t a rule yet, then they made it one.
also, the laws here say that the other person in the car MUST be in the passenger seat.
I know someone that got carpool privileges on the Outerbridge crossing in NY with a pregnant wife. the toll person said, “Its a Life!”.
How do you objectively define whether or not a fetus is a person? How do you do that? It’s difficult, not only because life is hard to define, but because of the weight of implications it carries.
If a fetus is living, then that automatically gives a moral responsibility to the parents of an unborn child, and a burden of guilt for everyone who has had or encouraged an elective abortion. But recognising it would mean there is an opportunity for thousands of lives to be saved.
But however it’s defined, in the context of this question, the spirit of the law is presumably to encourage people to share journeys and have fewer cars on the road. Since the mother and her unborn child are inseparable, there’s no question of them being in separate cars.
An alternative application of the law might simply be to try and improve the improve the journey speed per passenger. If you have a car with one person in, and a car with two people in, you can get a better balance by letting the two people go faster.
This is a more difficult case, but since the fetus is always exactly where it wants to be – i.e. inside its mother’s womb, then journey speeds don’t really apply to it, just the mother.
Yeah sure a fetus IS a person whatever but the fraggin THING is not a physical PERSON placed in the PASSENGER seat of the vehicle. Thus I agree with Mike, prego-whale, c-dumpsters, have absolutely NO right to be in a/the car-pool lanes by themselves.
The better question is, what about conjoined twins?
Let me get this straight..
A drunk driver can crash into and kill a mother and her unborn child, and then get prosecuted for killing two people, which has happened in the past, in which case the unborn fetus is then deemed a ‘person’, but in the case of a pregnant woman driving in a car pool lane and then gets pulled over for whatever reason, the unborn child isn’t deemed a ‘person’..
Sounds like good ‘uncle sam’ is simply making decisions that ultimately put more money in their pockets and leaves the very citizens asking “How can that be?”
Unfair and illogical if you ask me because all it means is that the Government can say when/how/under what circumstances a fetus is a person and when it’s not!
I call “BS!”…”Fail”…”Foul!”…whatever is the more appropriate name you wanna give to this situation!
A “featus” isn’t a person a fetus is a person/newborn.
The question is not in the definition of life and fetus, it is in the definition of Carpool. An arrangement whereby several participants with a common destination travel together in one vehicle , the participants sharing the costs and often taking turns as the driver. I don’t see where the confusion is…
here in california if you get caught driving solo in the car pool lane you can and will get cited ,like mike said women that are pregnaunt have claimed in traffic court that there were two people in the vehicle (their ciations were up held the judge did not see it that way)
Oh christ, someone took us into the fetus issue
duck and cover!!!!
A fetus is a person as;
a catterpiller is to a butterfly.
One becomes the other, but one is NOT the other at any given time. Likewise a person can not re-become a fetus.
This question has been answered by the courts a long time ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/earlyshow/main1203514.shtml
look, i know that the law says this and that but is very importnat for the women to be around doctors, than cars, man. if you have to go you have to go, in this case the carpool lane, man
Are there two seatbelts in use?
A fetus is NOT a person. It’s not even living a life.
The fetus is alive and it is a person, so yeah. Why not. It’s not that big of a deal. Let them ride in the carpool lane and get over it. You’re just upset because you didn’t think of that idea yourself.
(and for the people saying they fetus isn’t alive, you are wrong. If you have a heartbeat, then you are alive. They develope their heart and brain at 4 weeks of development, and they have a heartbeat at 5 weeks of development, so therefore they are alive. Stop trying to justify something that anyone on this planet, with any common sense, would know is wrong.)
A fetus is not a person.
I used to have a problem with infants counting for the carpool lane. Then I drove home with an infant who was wailing and couldn’t calm down. It’s very stressful, and once I was in that situation, I decided it was a good thing. I still think so even though my baby is older now.
As for a fetus counting for HOV, I don’t think it should, though there are probably times when pregnant women may test that theory just because they have to pee REALLY bad.
hmm… in some cultures when they find out they are pregnant that’s their birthday
No, a pregnant woman should NOT be using the carpool lane unless there is another person sitting beside her. Being pregnant shouldn’t mean you get special treatment. It’s not a disability.
1. A fetus is not a person.
2. A fetus is not a baby.
3. A fetus is a fetus.
= No, you cannot drive in the HOV lane.
By the way, I just have to add … sickening how the anti-choice people will try to insert their rhetoric into ANY topic about pregnancy. And before anyone trys to call me a hypocrite … this comment came AFTER the dozens of anti-choice comments that have tried to link HOV lanes and pregnancy to abortion. Gimme’ a break will ya? It never ends.
It “doesn’t count” because they’re both occupying the same seat.
That is all.
Some people will do anything to get into the HOV lane or to get out of a ticket. They just need to suck it up and pay their ticket. As another person had posted. Are there two seat belts being used? But realistically the spirit of the law was meant for at least two persons sitting in the car in separate seats.
dont remember when or where but there wasa court case like this. pregnant woman got a ticket and so on. dont remember the outcome, anyone know?
I wonder what insurance think about your unborn child if there was too be an accident. Maybe that would make sense in allowing pregnant woman go through the carpool lane. I guess it would also depend how far along you are in the pregnancy.
If car pool lane is approved for pregnant women, then it will create a mess detecting or not whether the driver is pregnant or not (unless you get a sticker), but then cops need to look out whether the passenger is female or not. It should stay as it is.
Does getting someone pregnant in the HOV qualify as a more legal useage?
There is something that seems to be missing in all these comments: in legal studies, the study of jurisprudence, of criminal justice, and criminology, (of which I hold an advanced degree and have been deemed an “expert witness” in a court of law), there is the “rule of the law” and the “intent of the law”. In a nutshell, the rule of the law says that going 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone is speeding. The intent of the law is to enforce the speed limit for what is deemed excessive, usually about ten or eleven miles over the limit. The subject who is granted this determination, “discretion” if you will, is generally the law enforcement officer. Of course, we all know this is an inherently flawed system as law officer’s are human beings and consequently subjected to the same personality disorders, lack of sound judgement, etc. that every other human being on this planet suffers from. And that is why you have those so called urban legends about the such and such state trooper who issued a speeding ticket to the pregnant couple in labor, going to the hospital, for going five over the limit, (some of which are not legends, but out and out fact). That criticism aside, the system is designed with a set of “checks and balances” such as an appearance in court, of appeals, etc.
To get back to the task at hand, the question remains, is driving in the HOV lane as a pregnant women a violation? In the states that specifically address this issue, i.e. Washington state, yes, it is a violation, as there is judicial case law that rules that a pregnant women does not meet the statutory definition of “two persons” in a HOV lane. To confuse this with or intertwine it with the pro-choice/pro-life debate is asinine at best.
In other states that have not addressed this phenomena, one need only look to the “intent of the law” and the “rule of the law”. In this case, they are the same: the intent, and the rule, was not to allow pregnant women to use the HOV lane. The intent, and the rule, was to encourage people to carpool, to reduce emissions, road wear and tear, traffic, etc. by allowing a less congested lane of travel to those going to and from their place of employment.
As it is unreasonable and capricious, and a violation of most state and certainly the federal constitution, to specifically make this intent statutory, (i.e. requiring law officers to stop those using the HOV lane and inquire their destination to confirm they are in fact going to work) those who are travelling together but not commuting. per se, get to also enjoy the benefits of the HOV lane; however, the pregnant female is not one of those to benefit.
I believe a fetus is a life and IS a person. But it does not need to go anywhere. And it’s inside the woman so technically it only looks like one person. But honestly, this is not a huge issue. If a cop finds a woman in the HOV lane give her a warning and move one. big deal. Now let’s discuss something important like poverty. not HOV lanes.
Also yeah if you can conceive at any time by all means take that lane. But if you’re five months than it really should not count. Yeah the fetus is a life but it’s not in the car.
Ha ha. The “pro-life” white men in government want everyone to treat the fetus like it’s more important than the mother, but the mother can’t have any of the logical benefits of this (such as driving in the carpool lane), only the difficulties and inconveniences of it.
I taught traffic school in Arizona and this question came up all the time. Arizona laws says you must have more than one person in the vehicle, but they do not have to be licensed drivers, relatives, etc. A fetus does not count, nor does a corpse (the other question that came up all the time).
The only person in the car when a pregnant woman is driving I think only the unborn child would count not the pregnant woman, thus she cannot drive in the carpool lane as there is only one person in the car.
If you really want to drive in the HOV highway, just find someone you can pay money to spend some time with you. I have heard that people will do stuff like this for money and some people even make lots of money doing stuff for money.
The same law exists in Texas though I think they should exempt pregnant women. I think the less traffic they have to deal with the less stress, thusly less pain. Plus what if her water broke while she was stuck in traffic and the HOV lane was divided from the rest of the road?
They should be allowed not because they are “two people in one”, which does not even sound clever but just because they are pregnant. If driving in that lane provides an easier/safer comute then by all means they should be allowed. (I am a man by the way, in case you are wondering)
Whether or not the fetus is a person matters not. What matters is whether it can take a car off the road, or reduce emissions by carpooling. Since the baby travels with the mother, no matter what, it’s not a separate “person” because it has no choice. The people who complain about “double standard” for a drunk driver killing a pregnant woman. Really? You object to a double vehicular homicide if a driver kills a pregnant woman if a pregnant woman can’t use the HOV lane? Wow.
What is the purpose of the carpool lane? I’d give a ticket to a pregnant woman for driving in the carpool lane, no hesitation.
well pregnant women need to pee more…so i suppose the quicker they get to where they need to go, the better….
I am pro-life and I STILL agree w/ this law. I believe a baby is a person in the womb, but it would make no sense to let a pregnant woman with no one else in the car ride in the carpool lane.
If they are 5+ months pregnant and have to pee, why not?
Of course if they get pulled over for not being observationally correct, it puts lots of people at risk.
Another woman tried it to the policeman. He told her that if it was a person then he’d have to issue a ticket for carrying an infant passenger not in a car seat.
LOL. being a pregnant lady, i find this interesting! i’ve also been told not to eat for two – eat for one. only 6 times a day rather than 3! very interesting and funny to finally learn pregnant people do not qualify.
http://www.xsweddingdress.info
did you know (i found this out in ATL, GA) that motorcyclists are allowed to drive in the HOV lane even when alone?