Corporation not person in carpool lanes
sfgate.com
Corporation not person in carpool lanes
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes
#2Unsurprising 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 lane.
If this was indeed the reasoning, I hope that this argument is made in the appeal.
Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes
#3Unsurprising 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.)
Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes
#4What about pregnant moms?
Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes
#5I think the wiki article on corporate personhood should be read by everyone who is bothered by the "corporations are misnomer" meme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
--
The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.
Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes
#6The 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.
Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes
#7Unsurprising 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.)
I would not disagree, except that there is the small detail that there actually is legal precedent on this one. A pregnant woman counts as one, a mother with a small baby, 2.
So this judge's line of reasoning flies in the face of existing precedent, and I wouldn't be surprised if a clever lawyer could make some hay out of that fact.
Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes
#8Unsurprising 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.)
What if the passengers decline to produce drivers' licenses?
Should the driver be guilty of violating the carpool lane if it turns out one of the passengers had a suspended license or were uninsured?
What about a passenger who is validly licensed yet legally drunk? They couldn't legally drive a car.
What about passengers with valid licenses who have no car? What if they have a working car but its tank is empty and they have no money to buy gas. They're not reducing congestion either.
Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes
#9What about pregnant moms?
Theres a can of worms...
Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes
#10Unsurprising 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.)
Should Taxi's be allowed to drive in the Carpool lane with a single passenger? Here, we have a situation in which the driver wouldn't normally be on the road.