This is true, HOV lanes are designed to reduce traffic congestion and the white CA stickers are designed to promote EV's. Obviously law enforcement can see if a car has 2,3,4 people in it but the stickers serve a different purpose. If you don't want to put them on or take passengers don't drive in that lane, seems simple to me.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
This is true, HOV lanes are designed to reduce traffic congestion and the white CA stickers are designed to promote EV's. Obviously law enforcement can see if a car has 2,3,4 people in it but the stickers serve a different purpose. If you don't want to put them on or take passengers don't drive in that lane, seems simple to me.
I saw a black Model S this morning on the 405 N got pulled over by CHP on the side of the carpool lane, I drove past them around 25 mph in the carpool lane and the Model S has no HOV stickers and no plate (new car). Not 100% sure the reason for the stop since I drove pass them but it might be due to no stickers.
green1
Active Member
I'm in favour of the system used in some other countries where fines are tied to income or net-worth. The fine is designed to sting, but not debilitate. Right now fines in most of north america are high enough to debilitate the poor, but nowhere near enough to sting the rich. by adjusting the fine to match the means of the perpetrator you fix both of these such that the pain of the ticket is the same regardless of how rich you are.
Are there different fines? In the link for the page that was posted earlier, it said the fine was a minimum of $481. That seems like it would be a good deterrent. I do agree that it might still be too small for those who are uber rich. As some (including you, IIRC) have suggested, perhaps the fine should be based upon the violator's income.
siucity
Button Pusher
A fine based on wealth probably hurts...
BBC News - Switzerland millionaire hit by record speed fine
BBC News - Switzerland millionaire hit by record speed fine
green1
Active Member
I think that's the whole point to a fine...it's supposed to hurt, otherwise it won't serve it's purpose of encouraging a change in behaviour.
That certainly is a large fine...but based on his "wealth assessment" of $22.7 million, it actually isn't that bad as it's only 1.3%.
Hmm. I guess it would hurt more than I originally thought. I was going off annual income originally. If I had to pay based on net worth, then I wouldn't be too happy with a 1.3% fine.
I think you guys are making the wrong assumption. It's not the amount of the fine that will solve this problem it's the enforcement of the law that will. If you read the posts of the people that are ignoring the law it's because they have never been pulled over. The fine in CA is almost $500. That is big enough to alter behavior IF it was enforced.
green1
Active Member
Imagine a person living paycheque to paycheque getting the "normal" fines, and having to chose between food and fine, and then see this guy complain, I'm all for making it proportionate to means.
- - - Updated - - -
You do actually have a point there. Studies have shown that behaviour is changed more by perception of likelihood of being caught, than it is by severity of punishment. That said, when you have the people admitting they get caught, but just throw money at the problem and make it go away, I think you need to work on the other side of the equation as well.
Agree but I don't think these law breakers are being caught. I think they are saying what they would do if they were.
jeffro01
Active Member
I agree with that approach 100%. However, as alluded to in follow up posts to the one I'm quoting, enforcement must occur as well.
Jeff
Gizmotoy
Active Member
Often they can't see that a car has more than 1 person in it, though. Children count. If there's one or more child seats in the car, good luck figuring out how many people are actually in there. I've often wondered if they really want to make it "2 or more persons over driving age", but decided against it because of the parental backlash and the difficulty of fitting that on a sign. If the point was to reduce congestion, counting a child towards carpooling doesn't really make much sense: it's not like the alternative is they drive themselves and add another vehicle to the road.
Trucks and SUVs are also permitted to completely black out the rear windows, so you can't really see in there either.
Enforcement is a difficult proposition.
CuriousG
Active Member
If the person still has the No Emissions placard then it's obvious the person doesn't have the sticker. Or maybe they were just speeding. I'm more concerned as to why they didn't pull over to the right.
aesculus
Still Trying to Figure This All Out
See the new transponders that have a switch on them for the number of occupants (1,2,3 or more). This is one of the reasons they have restrictions that state the transponder has to be able to be seen from the outside of the car. So law enforcement can validate you have the switch set correctly. It's getting crazy out there.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
They could put up cameras facing oncoming traffic which would have a good view of the front seat. Probably need to have a camera facing the other way to capture license plate, HOV stickers (and rear passengers). Then just send out tickets like they do for red light cameras.
Hell yes there's entitlement with the HOV lane and it's warranted in my opinion. It's designed to cut down on emissions. We own a ZERO emissions vehicle. The fact the CA even charges 8 bucks for the stickers is absurd never mind the fact that they want you to put stickers on your car. Until they make a license plate version, I'll be keeping the stickers in the glove and taking the risk.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
No. The HOV lanes were designed to cut down on congestion. EVs have been allowed access as a way to encourage adoption of EVs.
Do what you're gonna do, but let's not change the facts.
Xminus6
Member
Reduce congestion to what end? I wasn't around when they implemented the idea but it seems like the reduction in congestion has always been linked to a reduction in consumption and/or pollution. ICE vehicles are at their most inefficient and dirtiest sitting in stop and go traffic. So the purpose of the HOV lane always seemed to be related to pollution.No. The HOV lanes were designed to cut down on congestion. EVs have been allowed access as a way to encourage adoption of EVs.
Do what you're gonna do, but let's not change the facts.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
I wasn't present either. Luckily, we have the internet and google search that documents the rationale for creation of HOV lanes in California.
Even today, with EV access being allowed, the CA Dept of Transportation only mentions the reduction of congestion as the purpose of HOV lanes.Electric vehicle access to HOV lanes is truly a privilege & is one that will eventually end. We're not entitled to it. It's temporary only.
