5 ms·

Is there another source that clarifies the claim that CA law explicitly includes corporations in the car pool lane laws? As it is, this is such an obvious publ

by Evbn 14y ago

Is there another source that clarifies the claim that CA law explicitly includes corporations in the car pool lane laws? As it is, this is such an obvious publicity stunt that I am not inclined to trust the lawyers for Frieman. Some lady in Seattle goes around "marrying" corporations. Unsurprisingly, they aren't legal marriages.

xyzzy123 14y ago
Right; a corporation is a legal person, but there is an additional distinction in the law - you can only marry a natural person (which means the obvious thing). I haven't looked at the relevant laws, but even if this guy wins his case they will just patch the law to explain that the rules in carpool lanes require natural persons. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person
- philwelch 14y ago
  Not even a patch may be necessary. At most, the court will rule that corporations don't count as persons for the purposes of carpool lane rules, and the precedent will serve as case law in case anybody else is as stupid as this guy.
toast0 14y ago
CA Vehicle Code section 470: '"Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.' -- http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm CA Vehicle Code section 21655.5 (b): ' The Department of Transportation and local authorities, with respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, shall place and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, signs and other official traffic control devices to designate the exclusive or preferential lanes, to advise motorists of the applicable vehicle occupancy levels, and, except where ramp metering and bypass lanes are regulated with the activation of traffic signals, to advise motorists of the hours of high-occupancy vehicle usage. No person shall drive a vehicle upon those lanes except in conformity with the instructions imparted by the official traffic control devices. A motorcycle, a mass transit vehicle, or a paratransit vehicle that is clearly and identifiably marked on all sides of the vehicle with the name of the paratransit provider may be operated upon those exclusive or preferential use lanes unless specifically prohibited by a traffic control device.' -- http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21655_5.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21655_5.htm So that references whatever is on the sign (in case of three or more occupancy required), I couldn't find an image of the signs around here, and this isn't a super official site, but it says the signs say "Two or more persons per vehicle, motorcycles and ILEVs permitted" -- http://rideshare.511.org/511maps/hov_lanes.aspx http://rideshare.511.org/511maps/hov_lanes.aspx But Section 21655.5 (f) 'It is the intent of the Legislature, in amending this section, to stimulate and encourage the development of ways and means of relieving traffic congestion on California highways and, at the same time, to encourage individual citizens to pool their vehicular resources and thereby conserve fuel and lessen emission of air pollutants.' So, without the intent clause; I think it's reasonable to interpret "Two or more persons" to include corporations, but as it does not impact traffic congestion, I don't see how it fits into the intent clause, so I think there is considerable freedom for a Judge to consider the intent of the legislature and deny this interpretation. I agree that the most likely consequence is to alter this section of the vehicle code to expressly consider natural persons only.
- brownbat 14y ago
  > I think it's reasonable to interpret "Two or more persons" to include corporations But are there any legal grounds to suggest that a corporation is always located where its incorporation papers are? Even if the judges took this line of reasoning seriously this far, we have to figure out where a corporation is located. It's probably at a headquarters, or at least whatever address they've confirmed with the secretary of state for receipt of service.
  - toast0 14y ago
    Yes, showing that the corporation is in the vehicle would also be difficult, and I do doubt that location of the incorporation papers constitute the location of the corporation.

by Evbn 14y ago

xyzzy123 14y ago

Right; a corporation is a legal person, but there is an additional distinction in the law - you can only marry a natural person (which means the obvious thing). I haven't looked at the relevant laws, but even if this guy wins his case they will just patch the law to explain that the rules in carpool lanes require natural persons. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person

philwelch 14y ago
Not even a patch may be necessary. At most, the court will rule that corporations don't count as persons for the purposes of carpool lane rules, and the precedent will serve as case law in case anybody else is as stupid as this guy.

toast0 14y ago

CA Vehicle Code section 470: '"Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.' -- http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm CA Vehicle Code section 21655.5 (b): ' The Department of Transportation and local authorities, with respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, shall place and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, signs and other official traffic control devices to designate the exclusive or preferential lanes, to advise motorists of the applicable vehicle occupancy levels, and, except where ramp metering and bypass lanes are regulated with the activation of traffic signals, to advise motorists of the hours of high-occupancy vehicle usage. No person shall drive a vehicle upon those lanes except in conformity with the instructions imparted by the official traffic control devices. A motorcycle, a mass transit vehicle, or a paratransit vehicle that is clearly and identifiably marked on all sides of the vehicle with the name of the paratransit provider may be operated upon those exclusive or preferential use lanes unless specifically prohibited by a traffic control device.' -- http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21655_5.htm http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21655_5.htm So that references whatever is on the sign (in case of three or more occupancy required), I couldn't find an image of the signs around here, and this isn't a super official site, but it says the signs say "Two or more persons per vehicle, motorcycles and ILEVs permitted" -- http://rideshare.511.org/511maps/hov_lanes.aspx http://rideshare.511.org/511maps/hov_lanes.aspx But Section 21655.5 (f) 'It is the intent of the Legislature, in amending this section, to stimulate and encourage the development of ways and means of relieving traffic congestion on California highways and, at the same time, to encourage individual citizens to pool their vehicular resources and thereby conserve fuel and lessen emission of air pollutants.' So, without the intent clause; I think it's reasonable to interpret "Two or more persons" to include corporations, but as it does not impact traffic congestion, I don't see how it fits into the intent clause, so I think there is considerable freedom for a Judge to consider the intent of the legislature and deny this interpretation. I agree that the most likely consequence is to alter this section of the vehicle code to expressly consider natural persons only.

brownbat 14y ago
> I think it's reasonable to interpret "Two or more persons" to include corporations But are there any legal grounds to suggest that a corporation is always located where its incorporation papers are? Even if the judges took this line of reasoning seriously this far, we have to figure out where a corporation is located. It's probably at a headquarters, or at least whatever address they've confirmed with the secretary of state for receipt of service.
- toast0 14y ago
  Yes, showing that the corporation is in the vehicle would also be difficult, and I do doubt that location of the incorporation papers constitute the location of the corporation.