A woman in Seattle tried to use this argument a few years ago. That judge not only exercised common sense and said “No way” but he got creative as well. He told her “OK, I’ll dismiss the HOV violation but there is another law on the books; only one person per seat belt” and gave her a fine for that !
2006-08-12 05:10:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
20⤊
10⤋
States require that so as to hire HOV lanes, there could be 2 (or, if published, 3) separate persons occupying seats in a motor vehicle. till your "passenger" is able to driving in his or her own seat, you won't be able to count style them. i surely do no longer see why you're attempting to make this right into a political concern. All states, blue and crimson, manage this the comparable way.
2016-11-04 10:41:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Judge and/or the jury must have been an idiot(s). Or just looking to make the news.
The idea of the HOV lane was to encourage commuting with someone else who might otherwise drive alone. In her case, she couldn't drive w/o her unborn baby even if she wanted to.
2006-08-12 08:25:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Yada Yada Yada 7
·
17⤊
10⤋
The answer has always been yes due to common courtesy (perhaps she has an appointment, or she is in labor - yay). No government has bothered to appeal these rulings to a higher court.
My guess would be that the appeals courts would use the Roe v. Wade test for viability and decide accordingly.
2006-08-13 09:56:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
17⤊
10⤋
I think she's abusing the system. The other person in the car (the fetus) would not be doing any of its own driving were it post-natal.
I hate people.
2006-08-12 05:04:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Recovering Blonde 3
·
17⤊
10⤋
I've always heard that you have to wait until the baby is born.
2006-08-12 05:08:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by fightintxaggie98 3
·
17⤊
10⤋
she got lucky
2006-08-12 05:08:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by jet 1
·
17⤊
10⤋