11–20 of 52 posts
What about pregnant moms?
Arizona precedent follows the exact same lines as that FAQ answer: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/01/woman_womans_fe.html
I therefore expected the same reasoning to apply here. But the article doesn't say that the judge followed that line of reasoning. Which surprised me.
The law has distinguished between Persons (which can include corporations) and Natural Persons (which does not) since corporations were invented. The latter is even a term of art in the law. Though I haven't researched it, it's probably even mentioned specifically in the California Vehicle Code. The judge was probably just too busy and irritated by this complete waste of his time to even remember.
The law has distinguished between Persons (which can include corporations) and Natural Persons (which does not) since corporations were invented. The latter is even a term of art in the law. Though I haven't researched it, it's probably even mentioned specifically in the California Vehicle Code. The judge was probably just too busy and irritated by this complete waste of his time to even remember.
DIVISION 1. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED Application of Definitions 100. Unless the provision or context otherwise requires, these definitions shall govern the construction of this code.
...
Person
470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.
Amended Ch. 1010, Stats. 1994. Effective January 1, 1995.
[Edit: Full Vehicle Code here: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/veh_code.pdf ]
Unsurprising verdict. However the judge's reasoning is very weak. I frequently drive in the carpool with one or more children who cannot drive in the car. By the judge's reasoning, this should not be allowed because our driving together does nothing to relieve congestion. Why not? Because I'm the only person present who is legally allowed to drive, so we'd be in one car regardless of the availability of the carpool l…
Actually, insofar as the goal is to reduce cars on the road, it seems entirely sensible to me to exclude children -- or anyone without a drivers license -- from counting towards the passenger threshold. I'd be all for having to produce N valid licenses in the car to avoid the ticket, rather than N human bodies. (That also neatly sidesteps the issue of corporate personhood.)
The law has distinguished between Persons (which can include corporations) and Natural Persons (which does not) since corporations were invented. The latter is even a term of art in the law. Though I haven't researched it, it's probably even mentioned specifically in the California Vehicle Code. The judge was probably just too busy and irritated by this complete waste of his time to even remember.
Wonder where autonomous cars will fit in.
38750. (a) (4) An “operator” of an autonomous vehicle is the person who is seated in the driver’s seat, or if there is no person in the driver’s seat, causes the autonomous technology to engage.
...
38750 (c) (1) (G) The autonomous vehicle has a separate mechanism, in addition to, and separate from, any other mechanism required by law, to capture and store the autonomous technology sensor data for at least 30 seconds before a collision occurs between the autonomous vehicle and another vehicle, object, or natural person while the vehicle is operating in autonomous mode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wonder where autonomous cars will fit in.
DIVISION 16.6. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES ... 38750. (a) (4) An “operator” of an autonomous vehicle is the person who is seated in the driver’s seat, or if there is no person in the driver’s seat, causes the autonomous technology to engage. ... 38750 (c) (1) (G) The autonomous vehicle has a separate mechanism, in addition to, and separate from, any other mechanism required by law, to capture and store the autonomous technol…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DIVISION 16.6. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES ... 38750. (a) (4) An “operator” of an autonomous vehicle is the person who is seated in the driver’s seat, or if there is no person in the driver’s seat, causes the autonomous technology to engage. ... 38750 (c) (1) (G) The autonomous vehicle has a separate mechanism, in addition to, and separate from, any other mechanism required by law, to capture and store the autonomous technol…
So if I remotely summon an autonomous car to pick up a kid from school, the carpool lane is legal while the car has only the kid?
If this guy wants to waste money so easily, the least he could do is perhaps consider donating some money to a charity. If he wants to throw his money away, at least he'd be helping people.
This whole case has been ridiculous from the start. It was pretty obvious from the start that this case wasn't going to end in the defendants favour, I honestly don't know why this guy has decided to waste the courts time with this. A stack of papers is not a corporation, the corporation itself might own the papers but paper does not encompass an entity. It's a carpool lane violation, not murder why can't this guy ju…