3 ms·
I guess it's worth her asking and finding out given the literal wording of the policy is "A vehicle occupied by two or more people or a motorcyclist may use HOV
by nonameiguess 4y ago
I guess it's worth her asking and finding out given the literal wording of the policy is "A vehicle occupied by two or more people or a motorcyclist may use HOV lanes." (https://www.txdot.gov/driver/managed-lanes/high-occupancy-vehicle-lanes.html https://www.txdot.gov/driver/managed-lanes/high-occupancy-ve...)
That said, the clear intent of HOV lanes is to reduce congestion and improve air quality by inducing multiple potential drivers to become one driver, or car drivers to use motorcycles instead. To meet that intent, any passenger who can't drive shouldn't count, but the current wording seems to be a compromise regarding the intractability of figuring out by just looking whether a passenger is a person who can drive or not.
- cardiffspaceman 4y agoI'm sure a lot of parents pull in to the carpool lane on the basis of the children they have with them. To better meet the goal of reducing car trips, the law should only count licensed drivers traveling in the same car. And that is not a perfect criterion either.
- Georgelemental 4y agoA parent who already has many children who can't drive in their car doesn't have the room for other drivers, so they would be unable to use the HOV lanes were it not for the child "loophole". IMO incentivising parenthood is something the government should incentivize, so allowing them extra HOV privileges is OK