Quote:
|
Children and infants are accepted as qualifying carpool passengers. Why? The point is to get cars off the road. If you insist on perpetuationg this experiment in social engineering, then make the requirement 2 or more licensed drivers.
|
I like that one. Never thought of it.
The same thin happened here in the OC. Years of traffic congestion on the freeway to widen the lanes only to install a car pool lane.
The car pool lane laws are also occupancy biased. They should be based upon maximum occupancy of the vehicle along with the minimum 2 person per car. For example, a four door car with front and rear seats can carry 4-5 individuals with comfort. But the law only requires 2 passangers to use the car pool. This effectively wastes 2-3 open seats in the vehicle and keeps 2-3 more cars on the highways. Conversly, the P-car only has two seats that can carry 2 passangers comfortably (If you disagree come ride with me from OC to LA and you can sit in the back seat.) A single driver in the P-car is therefore contributing less to traffic congestion since it does not have the ability to remove 2-3 additional cars from the highways. P-cars should therefore be rewarded with car pool privleges regardless of whether or not a passanger is present. In fairness, car pool pool laws should utilize a rule that you must be carrying 1/2 of the maximum occupancy of the car. This is readily apparent by the current rules that a normal passanger car may utilize the car pool lane with only 2 out of the 4-5 seats filed. Extending this basic rule would permit P-cars to use the car pool lane with only the driver. Sounds fair to me!