6 ms·

Corporation not person in carpool lanes

38 points by nighthawk 14y ago

btilly 14y ago
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 lane. If this was indeed the reasoning, I hope that this argument is made in the appeal.
- fulafel 14y ago
  I'm not from the US but doesn't the "carpool" term imply exactly this definition - people who would otherwise driving in separate cars.
- pinko 14y ago
  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.)
  - btilly 14y ago
    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.
  - marshray 14y ago
    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.
    - pinko 14y ago
      I don't really care; if we were writing the law we'd figure out a reasonable but inevitably imperfect policy for each question. The point isn't to get every possible situation right. It's to come up with the best-bang-for-your-social-buck heuristic.
      - marshray 14y ago
        I think whether or not passengers in a car pulled over for "driving in an HOV lane with suspected unlicensed passengers" are required to produce valid drivers licenses on demand is pretty important.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    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.
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      Relying on a taxi DOES reduce congestion: think about it, I could have chosen to rent a car at the airport and drive for my entire trip, but instead, I took a taxi to my hotel and walked/used transit a lot. Or...I could have bought a car, use that a lot, but instead I decide I only need such a luxury infrequently, and decide to rely on taxis occasionally. Regardless, I live in a heavy taxi city and there is no such thing as a carpool lane (nor would it be very useful since most cars would have at least 2 passengers).
  - frozenport 14y ago
    This also relieves bus congestion which includes people who don't have licenses. Perhaps they should be burdened to show that they are maximizing the general vehicle occupancy, and thus kids count as passengers.
- crazygringo 14y ago
  Not entirely. If you're taking two children, then it's better than two adults driving the children individually. But if it's only one child, there's no alternative.
  - fleitz 14y ago
    Well in that case it could be argued that roads would be less congested than the corporation hiring a courier, taxicab, lawyer, etc to transport itself.
- logn 14y ago
  All unlicensed passengers would create more traffic by taking a taxi alone. I think the only ones not allowed in the carpool lane should be a taxi with one passenger (of course, in addition to the lone drivers). However, you could extend the logic further by saying that a lone taxi driver looking for a better fare causing a second taxi to pick up the unlicensed driver causes more traffic than a taxi with one passenger. So I've neatly saved the current carpool lane rules.
  - gte910h 14y ago
    You want to keep taxi's allowed to use the lanes because then taxis are as fast as renting a car, or owning a car, so you you do not do the above behaviors. If getting to the airport took 2x as long in a taxi, few would use that.
malkia 14y ago
What about pregnant moms?
- nness 14y ago
  Theres a can of worms...
- btilly 14y ago
  According to the California Highway Patrol, they cannot use the carpool: http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html Arizona precedent follows the exact same lines as that FAQ answer: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/01/woman_womans_fe.html 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.
  - malkia 14y ago
    From this I learned that a corporation, in US, is "capable of riding in his or her own seat" :)
NoPiece 14y ago
I 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 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.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  Such a killjoy, bringing reality to the anti-corporate angry mob party.
  - beedogs 14y ago
    comments like these belong on reddit, not here.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      Ouch. This may be the only time that an critical comment from a stranger on the Internet has stung this much. Point taken. I'll try to do better.
- adrr 14y ago
  I thought it was surrounding the DMV definition for "Person" from the DMV code and not corporation personhood. The defendant did have a thing against personhood but seems the defense was that signs were legally vague in accordance to the DMVs definition of person. 470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation. http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm
otterley 14y ago
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.
- dman 14y ago
  Wonder where autonomous cars will fit in.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    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 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.
    - jfoutz 14y ago
      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?
      - ghshephard 14y ago
        Note that the above defines an operator, and regardless, in your scenario, you aren't in the vehicle.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  Indeed, the California Vehicle Code does mention "Natural Person" as follows: 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 http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/veh_code.pdf ]
monochromatic 14y ago
A corporation is not a physical thing embodied in a stack of papers. This guy is an uninformed crank.
DigitalSea 14y ago
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 just cop it on the chin and pay the fine? It's going to cost him a lot of money in legal fees if he appeals this. 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.
- jrockway 14y ago
  Huh? He did it intentionally to waste time and apparently has money to spare on the fight. Either way, there is now legal precedent at odds with the concept of corporate personhood. Presumably he wants this concept to go away and is now one step closer.
  - DigitalSea 14y ago
    Such a shame when people don't put their time and effort towards things that matter. Like you know, helping people and making a difference. I am doubtful he'll achieve anything, but I guess that remains to be seen. He's so far failed once, I guess he can keep appealing and hope something happens.
    - gyardley 14y ago
      You're misunderstanding both the issue and the motivations of the person. This person is not trying to avoid a ticket for riding alone in the carpool lane. He does not want to avoid that ticket. If he avoids the ticket because a judge accepts his logic and agrees that corporations are people, he has failed. This person is trying to demonstrate that corporations are not in fact people by use of an absurdity, and probably intends to take the case as high in the judicial system as he can. He wants to get the judiciary to rule that no, corporations aren't people because he disagrees with the recent Citizens United ruling, which found that corporations were people, and therefore had free speech rights and therefore could make practically unlimited contributions to PACs. It's not my personal politics, but some people believe trying to reduce the influence of corporate money in politics would help a lot of people and make a huge difference. This guy is not at all the time-wasting weasel you think he is.
borlak 14y ago
How does the carpool lane relieve traffic congestion? If people could actually use that lane instead of it being some kind of elitist lane (which is what it feels like, I drive it in all the time (family)), traffic would be better. The times traffic IS bad the damn carpool lane is just as backed up as the other lanes. And then there's the whole problem of needing to get off the lane, which you can't always do (you can only get off at specific spots), and then you're swerving across 4+ lanes of traffic causing a classic 'shockwave' problem.
- gnud 14y ago
  It tries to relieve congestion by reducing the number of cars on the road, not by improving road capacity.

38 points by nighthawk 14y ago

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 lane. If this was indeed the reasoning, I hope that this argument is made in the appeal.

fulafel 14y ago
I'm not from the US but doesn't the "carpool" term imply exactly this definition - people who would otherwise driving in separate cars.
pinko 14y ago
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.)
- btilly 14y ago
  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.
- marshray 14y ago
  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.
  - pinko 14y ago
    I don't really care; if we were writing the law we'd figure out a reasonable but inevitably imperfect policy for each question. The point isn't to get every possible situation right. It's to come up with the best-bang-for-your-social-buck heuristic.
    - marshray 14y ago
      I think whether or not passengers in a car pulled over for "driving in an HOV lane with suspected unlicensed passengers" are required to produce valid drivers licenses on demand is pretty important.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  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.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    Relying on a taxi DOES reduce congestion: think about it, I could have chosen to rent a car at the airport and drive for my entire trip, but instead, I took a taxi to my hotel and walked/used transit a lot. Or...I could have bought a car, use that a lot, but instead I decide I only need such a luxury infrequently, and decide to rely on taxis occasionally. Regardless, I live in a heavy taxi city and there is no such thing as a carpool lane (nor would it be very useful since most cars would have at least 2 passengers).
- frozenport 14y ago
  This also relieves bus congestion which includes people who don't have licenses. Perhaps they should be burdened to show that they are maximizing the general vehicle occupancy, and thus kids count as passengers.
crazygringo 14y ago
Not entirely. If you're taking two children, then it's better than two adults driving the children individually. But if it's only one child, there's no alternative.
- fleitz 14y ago
  Well in that case it could be argued that roads would be less congested than the corporation hiring a courier, taxicab, lawyer, etc to transport itself.
logn 14y ago
All unlicensed passengers would create more traffic by taking a taxi alone. I think the only ones not allowed in the carpool lane should be a taxi with one passenger (of course, in addition to the lone drivers). However, you could extend the logic further by saying that a lone taxi driver looking for a better fare causing a second taxi to pick up the unlicensed driver causes more traffic than a taxi with one passenger. So I've neatly saved the current carpool lane rules.
- gte910h 14y ago
  You want to keep taxi's allowed to use the lanes because then taxis are as fast as renting a car, or owning a car, so you you do not do the above behaviors. If getting to the airport took 2x as long in a taxi, few would use that.

malkia 14y ago

What about pregnant moms?

nness 14y ago
Theres a can of worms...
btilly 14y ago
According to the California Highway Patrol, they cannot use the carpool: http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html Arizona precedent follows the exact same lines as that FAQ answer: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/01/woman_womans_fe.html 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.
- malkia 14y ago
  From this I learned that a corporation, in US, is "capable of riding in his or her own seat" :)

NoPiece 14y ago

I 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 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.

MartinCron 14y ago
Such a killjoy, bringing reality to the anti-corporate angry mob party.
- beedogs 14y ago
  comments like these belong on reddit, not here.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    Ouch. This may be the only time that an critical comment from a stranger on the Internet has stung this much. Point taken. I'll try to do better.
adrr 14y ago
I thought it was surrounding the DMV definition for "Person" from the DMV code and not corporation personhood. The defendant did have a thing against personhood but seems the defense was that signs were legally vague in accordance to the DMVs definition of person. 470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation. http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm

otterley 14y ago

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.

dman 14y ago
Wonder where autonomous cars will fit in.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  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 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.
  - jfoutz 14y ago
    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?
    - ghshephard 14y ago
      Note that the above defines an operator, and regardless, in your scenario, you aren't in the vehicle.
ghshephard 14y ago
Indeed, the California Vehicle Code does mention "Natural Person" as follows: 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 http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/veh_code.pdf ]

monochromatic 14y ago

A corporation is not a physical thing embodied in a stack of papers. This guy is an uninformed crank.

DigitalSea 14y ago

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 just cop it on the chin and pay the fine? It's going to cost him a lot of money in legal fees if he appeals this. 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.

jrockway 14y ago
Huh? He did it intentionally to waste time and apparently has money to spare on the fight. Either way, there is now legal precedent at odds with the concept of corporate personhood. Presumably he wants this concept to go away and is now one step closer.
- DigitalSea 14y ago
  Such a shame when people don't put their time and effort towards things that matter. Like you know, helping people and making a difference. I am doubtful he'll achieve anything, but I guess that remains to be seen. He's so far failed once, I guess he can keep appealing and hope something happens.
  - gyardley 14y ago
    You're misunderstanding both the issue and the motivations of the person. This person is not trying to avoid a ticket for riding alone in the carpool lane. He does not want to avoid that ticket. If he avoids the ticket because a judge accepts his logic and agrees that corporations are people, he has failed. This person is trying to demonstrate that corporations are not in fact people by use of an absurdity, and probably intends to take the case as high in the judicial system as he can. He wants to get the judiciary to rule that no, corporations aren't people because he disagrees with the recent Citizens United ruling, which found that corporations were people, and therefore had free speech rights and therefore could make practically unlimited contributions to PACs. It's not my personal politics, but some people believe trying to reduce the influence of corporate money in politics would help a lot of people and make a huge difference. This guy is not at all the time-wasting weasel you think he is.

borlak 14y ago

How does the carpool lane relieve traffic congestion? If people could actually use that lane instead of it being some kind of elitist lane (which is what it feels like, I drive it in all the time (family)), traffic would be better. The times traffic IS bad the damn carpool lane is just as backed up as the other lanes. And then there's the whole problem of needing to get off the lane, which you can't always do (you can only get off at specific spots), and then you're swerving across 4+ lanes of traffic causing a classic 'shockwave' problem.

gnud 14y ago
It tries to relieve congestion by reducing the number of cars on the road, not by improving road capacity.