Fetus On Board (Roe v. Wade vs. HOV Lane Edition)

From the penumbra of traffic regs come this abortion-related brainteaser:

A pregnant woman ticketed for driving in the carpool lane will have her day in court next month to argue that her unborn child counts as a second person in the car.

"I understand the reasoning for the HOV lane," said Candace Dickinson, 23. "But whether my son is in a car seat versus in my stomach, I don't get it. It's the same thing."

The near-full-term Ahwatukee Foothills woman was driving to work on Interstate 10 near Interstate 17 at 6 a.m. last week when a Phoenix police officer pulled her over.

"He asked how many people were in the car with me, and I said, 'Two' and he said 'No, one.' I said I was nine months pregnant and had my son in the car with me," she said. "The way the law is written, he can occupy the vehicle without occupying a seat."

Whole thing here. No word yet if the mama-to-be has been caught ordering off the kids menu at Pizzeria Uno.

Comments

[Johnny Clarke]

Well, if the intent of the law is to reduce traffic, then children shouldn't qualify regardless of their age.

[The Owner's Manual]

In Santa Clara, CA, this came up years ago and , yup, preggers got exempted. Now, try claiming the fetus on your income tax.

[Hokie Explorer]

That is ridiculous. HOV lanes are intended to encourage car pooling. Being pregnant does not qualify. I guess the easiest way would be to make the lane 3+

[thoreau]

Johnny Clarke makes a good point. However, another way to carpool is for one parent to drive children from more than one family to some event. If a parent takes his kid plus the kid next door to school/soccer practice/etc. then that's one less car on the road. So I can see allowing kids to count, but only count as half. i.e. 2 adults, or 1 adult and 2 kids.

Sure, there's no way of knowing if those 2 kids are from separate families, but it's practical.

And, of course, all of this would be moot if all roads were private, yadda yadda. There, I said it.

[thoreau]

I just realized that I never addressed the issue of whether fetuses should count as kids for carpooling purposes. Well, in principle they probably shouldn't, but who wants to be the unsympathetic jerk who says no to the pregnant women?

[Jennifer]

If fetuses count for HOV lanes then pregnant women have to pay double admission at movie theaters and amusement parks.

[lee]

I'd be glad to be that unsympathetic jerk. And even more unsympathetic: properly it should be two people who both have driver's licenses and cars--otherwise it doesn't accomplish its stated goal, reducing the number of cars on the freeway.
P.S. The judge let that woman in Santa Clara county slide but made it clear that she was the last person who could pull that stunt.

[thoreau]

lee-

What about the parent who agrees to drive the neighbor's kids to school along with his own? That's one less car on the road.

Strictly speaking, if you really wanted to get exacting with this, you'd have the cops check to see if the kids were from multiple families with cars, or for adults check that at least one passenger owns a car (and isn't just a co-owner with the driver, e.g. husband and wife).

But, pragmatically, I think a policy of 2 child passengers or one adult passenger is good enough. Keeps things simple while still encouraging ride sharing.

Now, I've heard that carpool lanes still don't encourage enough ride sharing to actually reduce congestion, so maybe there's no sense in having them. I'm just saying that the easiest way to do them if you have them is 1 adult passenger or 2 child passengers.

[Lemur]

Jennifer - you example doesn't work because children recieve free admission almost everywhere until they are 3 years old.

Also, since a large majority of carpool lane occupants (at least where I live) are parents with kids, they really should be called "parent lanes".

[Eryk Boston]

OK, now let's hear a suggestion for a HOV standard that can be read while doing 70 mph, drinking coffee and talking on a cell phone.

[James Anderson Merritt]

You all seem to be dancing around the hippo in the living room: bit by bit, pre-natal humans are acquiring the legal status of people. If a fetus qualifies as a "vehicle occupant" for HOV lane purposes, that's one more aspect of "personhood" to be established. At some point, "critical mass" will be reached, and the inevitable question will be asked in court: "If the fetus qualifies as a person in these tens or hundreds of other legal situations, why doesn't it qualify as a legal person, period?" At that point, those who don't want the fetus to be declared a person will have to marshall powerful arguments, indeed, to buck the accumulation of precedent and practice. How many years will it take for this case to come to court, I wonder?

[fyodor]

What about the parent who agrees to drive the neighbor's kids to school along with his own? That's one less car on the road.

Okay, how about one passenger who has the ability to drive OR two people who can't including one who lives with someone who can?

Anyway, a preggers woman shouldn't count cause she has no choice but to bring her "passenger" with her!

But as we all know, the larger point is that government is always prone to confusing its damn self.

[M1EK]

"Now, I've heard that carpool lanes still don't encourage enough ride sharing to actually reduce congestion"

The point isn't to "reduce congestion", the point is to move another X people as efficiently as possible. If the remaining lanes are as slow as before, but more people overall are moved, the HOV lane is a winner. (Note: it's not as simple as you think - you also have to calculate how many additional people will ride the bus now that its trip is more reliable and faster, assuming it uses the HOV lane too - in Houston and Dallas, the transit agencies donate money to build HOV lanes for this reason, well, also because TXDOT hates the earth and wouldn't build them otherwise, but still).

[kelley]

Pregnancy doesn't count in California. From the CHP website: "California law requires that in order to utilize the HOV lane, there must be two (or, if posted, three) separate individuals occupying seats in a vehicle. Until your "passenger" is capable of riding in his or her own seat, you cannot count them."

http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html

[Johnny Clarke]

Yep, I'd say if the unborn child counts as an occupant, the lady should have been cited for not securely strapping it into a safety seat...

Now, something I've always wondered is if a person can be charged with murder for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry, why is it "her right to choose" when she has an abortion? Does the fetus have rights or not?

[independent worm]

HOV lanes are idiotic. I live in Northern Virginia where an entire interstate highway (I-66) is HOV ONLY during morning and evening rush hours.

Problem is, DC isn't a factory town where the whistle blows at Quittin Time and we all go home at once. If you live 15 miles away the odds that somebody within easy distance of your home ALSO works near your office AND gets out of work at the same time as you do every day are infinitesimal.

Similarly, on 270 north into Maryland, the left lane is HOV during rush hour. The number of people living way up in Frederick or Hagerstown who go into and out of work at the exact same time and live AND work right near each other? Somewhere between zero and two. So traffic sits and rots while a perfectly good lane that taxpayers paid for but can't use just sits there empty. All to pay homage to some idiotic pretense that we're going to save the world by carpooling.

So anything that cuts into the senseless HOV-mania that adds millions of vehicle-hours to our roads every year is fine by me.

[Pinky]

The hippo in the living room is that the woman failed to strap her fetus into a DOT approved child car seat.

[Kip]

She should have been ticketed for having a small child up front where there are airbags, not having the child in a carseat, and endangerment or wreckless driving for driving with her child on her lap.

[lee]

Thoreau
be sure to count all the lawyers trips should an accident occur while you are transporting someone else's child. Don't think "They said I could, even asked me to" will help!

[Julian]

Does this mean a hearse can use the HOV lane while carrying a corpse? How about transporting donor organs? What percentage of parts would constitute an additional occupant? Next thing you know, someone with a panic-attack preventing companion ferret will try the same thing.

Personally, I think HOV are useless... but I think people who go out of there way to find "cute" ways of violating the spirit of the law even more useless.

The woman admitted she knew what the HOV lane was intended for (ie reducing traffic congestion/pollution by carpooling), yet she chose to use it anyway. She deserves to pay the damn ticket... and court costs.

I do agree with those who suggest the one adult passenger or two child passenger rule.

[lee]

KIP, We all want "wreckless driving" or did you mean reckless?

[Brian Courts]

Now, something I've always wondered is if a person can be charged with murder for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry, why is it "her right to choose" when she has an abortion?

Because the state has an interest in protecting the life of the fetus that is outweighed by the mother's interest in the use of her own body, but which is not outweighed by, say, someone's interest in kicking her.

[Ruthless]

It is shit like this that loosens scales from eyeballs of the zombies who are the hoi polloi.
We need more "carrying to logical conclusion" examples.

[M1EK]

"Problem is, DC isn't a factory town where the whistle blows at Quittin Time and we all go home at once. If you live 15 miles away the odds that somebody within easy distance of your home ALSO works near your office AND gets out of work at the same time as you do every day are infinitesimal."

Actually, DC is pretty much the perfect market for HOV. Sure, the guys working around the Beltway aren't good potential HOV users, but that zip strip up from Springfield sure as hell carries more people than a regular lane would. Hell, the term "slugging" was invented based on DC's disproportionately HIGH use of HOV lanes by strangers who become carpoolers.

I bet I-66 carries more than the equivalent number of regular lanes could too, although the last time I was there we only took 66 in the reverse-commute direction...

[M1EK]

Oh, and by the way, factory towns where the whistle blows and we all go home instead of working 60 hours a week sounds pretty damn good to me. Is 33 too early to be burned out? At least I work at home now so I get to see my family on bathroom breaks...

[Ruthless]

Gambler on board.

Did anybody see 60 Minutes this eve?
quote from earlier on H&R:
http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/050906/112603307510.html?.v=2

Tony Blair says to Bush, let 'em come over here to get their companies listed.

Comment by: Ruthless at November 16, 2005 03:36 PM

[Johnny Clarke]

Brian - But I thought we were trying to keep the state out of people's bodies?

Eh, I don't care one way or the other but I find it amusing that in the one case it's a minor operation and in the other it's a heartless, rat-bastard murderin' thug who deserves to hang!!!

[Jennifer]

Johnny and Brian--

I always figured the legal difference between an abortion and a woman losing a pregnancy as a result of an assault was akin to the difference between consensual sex and rape--it boils down to whether or not the woman is willing to go along.

[Shem]

At some point, "critical mass" will be reached, and the inevitable question will be asked in court: "If the fetus qualifies as a person in these tens or hundreds of other legal situations, why doesn't it qualify as a legal person, period?" At that point, those who don't want the fetus to be declared a person will have to marshall powerful arguments, indeed, to buck the accumulation of precedent and practice

Not really. All they would have to do is say "if the woman doesn't want the embryo/fetus in her body, you can't force her to keep it." It's a pretty simple matter, actually; either the State can force you to care for another being, or it can't, and if if can then we'd better start socialized medicine/work/everything, otherwise anyone anywhere dying of an inability to get anything makes us all guilty of manslaughter, at least.

[Pig Mannix]

Now, something I've always wondered is if a person can be charged with murder for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry, why is it "her right to choose" when she has an abortion? Does the fetus have rights or not?

For the same reason it's considered theft if you take my TV out of my house without my permission, but it ain't if I throw it out on the curb myself.

[Zorgust]

I say that she has a fight ahead of her. Since, the way traffic laws work you are guilty until proven innocent, I most likely see the judge making some stupid gesture to punish her (but not so bad that he looks like a "heartless bastard" punishing a pregnant women). He will probably do something "funny", like let her off for the carpool ticket, but give her a fine for not putting the baby in a car seat, "hahahaha!".

Why is pregnant women traveling in the carpool lane a big deal though? I understand, it goes against the principle of having a carpool lane, but is there really that many pregnant women to make it statisticly significant? If a carpool lane is 90% effective, that is pretty effective.

[jw]

Re: the hippo in the livingroom.

One of these days the courts and/or the legislative bodies are going to have to decide the answers to two questions: What exactly constitutes a human being (as opposed to "human life") and at what stage in its development does a fetus reach that status? It would also be nice if they could get the majority of people to agree with their answers.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

This has come up a number of times, it usually doesn't fly, at least in Californicate.

[Hakluyt]

HOV-lanes actually cause more numerous traffic-jams. They also in general don't encourage ride-sharing.

[paul]

I'd be glad to be that unsympathetic jerk. And even more unsympathetic: properly it should be two people who both have driver's licenses and cars--otherwise it doesn't accomplish its stated goal, reducing the number of cars on the freeway.

So, now we're beginning to see why HOV lanes are so stupid, and never succeed in their goal. It seems that there are always mom's or dads carrying their infants. I do it. HOORAY for HOV lanes.

[MikeP]

While it does go against legal sensibilities, note that, ceteris paribus, you the driver in a solo lane are better off if a pregnant woman drives in the carpool lane: It's one fewer car in _your_ lane. It is mainly envy that makes one upset at her because she is more better off than you are.

I'm schizophrenic, so I should be allowed in the carpool lane. No I shouldn't.

[Hakluyt]

MikeP,

The HOV lane causes problems if it doesn't have dedicate off and on-ramps though, since having to move over so many lanes at rush hour tends to clog up the system. If it does have its own dedicate on and off ramps, well, you're spending a bunch of money for such a small portion of the population that carpools.

[Jeff P.]

Yes, tell her she's correct that the child counts as a person, but arrest her for having a child in her lap while operating a vehicle.

In my eyes, you are not a person until you laugh.

[Phil]

I live in Northern Virginia where an entire interstate highway (I-66) is HOV ONLY during morning and evening rush hours.

Just for everyone else's clarification, it's only HOV inside the Beltway, and it's only for the inbound lanes during morning rush and the outbound lanes during evening rush.

Personally, for me, it works out well. I work in Arlington, and my wife works in DC. We get on 66 around 6:50am at Nutley St., suffer through the congestion between there and the Beltway onramps (and the morons who wait until the last second to get from the center-left lane to the Beltway lane, thereby clogging a lane that HOV users proceeding onto 66 could be using), then it's generally smooth sailing* into the city.

*Precluding the presence of rain, snow, bright sunlight, or any of the other factors that cause the poorly-trained jerkoffs that pass as "drivers" down here to come to complete stops on the freeway.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

Since HOV lanes increase pollution, traffic jams and contruction costs
(http://www.trainweb.org/mts/hov/rides-rebutted.html, for example),
they're just yet another failed social-engineering scam.

So, I hope the pregnant chick gets away with scamming the scammers.

[Hakluyt]

When are we getting those cars that fly again? 🙂

[Hakluyt]

Mr. F. Le Mur,

Hypothetically they are an interesting idea, but in practice they've proven to be far less useful, etc. than promised.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

If the woman wasn't so stuck in her "mother" ego she would realize how foolish she's being.

It seems to me that some women expect the world to cater to them hand and foot due to their astounding accomplishment of getting knocked up.

[Timothy]

I'm just wondering what kind of crazy woman keeps a baby in her stomach. Either she's got unique physiology, or she eats babies. If the thing is in her stomach, she ought be arrested for murder and cannibalism pending a complete physical to make sure she doesn't have an intestinal pregnancy.

[M1EK]

"Since HOV lanes increase pollution, traffic jams and contruction costs"

That's a load of crap. Talk to people who actually work in transportation about them sometime, rather than to road-warrior ideologues.

Even the road-happy TTI says that HOV lanes work in most cities (work being defined differently than you would like, I'm sure, boiling down to "how can we move more people from X to Y" which doesn't necessarily help the SOV drivers).

[Lil B]

My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ goes everywhere with me and I believe this too should count as a HOV.

[fyodor]

For the same reason it's considered theft if you take my TV out of my house without my permission, but it ain't if I throw it out on the curb myself.

Per that analogy, causing a woman to miscarry should be considered assault against her and/or vandalism against her property but not murder against the unborn fetus.

[R C Dean]

All they would have to do is say "if the woman doesn't want the embryo/fetus in her body, you can't force her to keep it."

But if not keeping the fetus in her body kills the fetus, and the fetus is a person, then her "choice" is one that the law cannot permit.

It's a pretty simple matter, actually; either the State can force you to care for another being, or it can't,

It can require you to provide financial support, if you are a man. It can also send you to jail for child abuse if you don't care for children in your custody up to a certain level.

and if if can then we'd better start socialized medicine/work/everything

Well underway, thanks for noticing.

[Hakluyt]

M1EK,

Talk to people who actually work in transportation about them sometime, rather than to road-warrior ideologues.

All, we should start to talk to these people before we embarras ourselves, eh? 🙂

[thoreau]

M1EK-

How to measure "success" is a valid point. If HOV vehicles fail to increase traffic speeds by any significant amount in the SOV lanes, but significantly increase the number of people getting from point A to point B, that's certainly a measure of success.

But success usually needs to be compared with other approaches. What would happen if the HOV lane was opened to all vehicles? Would that speed up traffic in the other lanes enough to increase overall flow through the system even more?

I don't claim to know the answer to this question, but it seems relevant to me.

[thoreau]

BTW, I don't assume any particular answer to my question. I've heard some criticisms of HOV lanes, but I've also heard that widening freeways fails to improve matters significantly.

I've heard lots of assertions but little evidence for any of them. If somebody has evidence, please do tell.

[Serafina]

The Supreme Court's Casey decision defined pretty clearly who is considered a person under the constitution:

"The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no Member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." 2 This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy. "

[Serafina]

Some of the HOV lanes here recently converted to toll lanes. Drivers had to buy some kind of meter for their dashboard and pay a fee, which changed with traffic volume, to drive in the formerly HOV lanes. It ended up having weird effects that unexpectedly increased driving times for many, but not being a commuter I haven't paid much attention.

[Hakluyt]

The HOV lane causes problems if it doesn't have dedicated off and on-ramps, since having to move over so many lanes at rush hour tends to clog up the system.

If it does have its own dedicated on and off ramps, well, you're spending a bunch of money for such a small portion of the population that carpools. You are also using a lot of potential roadway space too for a small portion of the actual number people using it. Something like 1/3rd of the space is used for less than 5% of the people on the road.

[Timothy]

And, to elaborate, if the HOV lane actually incented carpooling, it would slow down and clog up just like the rest of traffic does.

Around Vancouver and Seattle the HOV lanes I remember had designated hours rather than being HOV all the time. Is this pretty typical?

[clarityiniowa]

Soon we'll have to report to government-approved hospitals to get a "conception certificate" and a Social Security number for our bouncing 100-cell blastocysts.

[Viking Moose]

just get the SUV drivin, "kerry edwards" bumper sticker totin', cell phone yappin', 45 mph drivin assholes out of the left lane.

that'll be a good start.

when i used to commute to work (37 miles up the Eden's to waukegan), a big bottle neck was caused by slow drivers in the left lane. you see people getting on the highway and merging left as quickly and as dangerously as possible. then they'd drive slow.

the worse one was a guy in a minivan with "dave matthews" and "phish" stickers on the back. it was ?ber-full, the passenger side mirror was torn off, so any vision he had behind him was out of his driver side mirror, but he was in the left lane. he was driving 48 in a 70. and he was talking on his phone while smoking.

at some point the song "if i had a rocket launcher" entered my brain.

clairty: we couldn't do that. catholics would have to admit to their kids that they actually were fucking. that would be embarassing for them.

[Hakluyt]

Timothy,

Yes. During off peak hours many HOV lanes are available for general use in many urban areas.

[T Bone]

Per that analogy, causing a woman to miscarry should be considered assault against her and/or vandalism against her property but not murder against the unborn fetus.

Yes, but what is the value of the fetus? It's unique and irreplaceable; there is the argument that another fetus by the same father's sperm would be comperable - but would it?

The woman (assuming she's a decent mother) was willing to pay in time and $ not only what is required during the pregnancy, but also for the next however many years (21 by law, right?) of the child's life. A conservative estimate of spending 20 hours per week keeping the fetus / then child alive for 22 years comes to over $135,000, assuming her time is valued at the minimum wage.

Clearly, that's not the market price for the fetus, though. Assuming you buy the "destruciton of property" reasoning on this, what price (ignoring here the assault - a seperate offense - and the $ for pain, and suffering), would people here be willing to give to her as compensation?

[Ethan]

Should conjoined twins count for HOV-lane purposes?

If pregnant women are allowed, shouldn't a person transporting embryos be allowed as well? Especially if the embryos are in a cooler on the passenger seat?

[thoreau]

Especially if the embryos are in a cooler on the passenger seat?

So, if the car crashes, and you're a firefighter, and you can save the driver or the cooler but not both.... 🙂

[clarityiniowa]

"This just in - The driver of a white Dodge Caravan jumped the median and smashed headlong into a bridge abutment. Killed in the collision were Mrs. Vera Prolife and her three children, Justin, age 8, Jennifer,6 and identical twin embryos, Chad and Jeremy, conception plus four days."

[MikeP]

you see people getting on the highway and merging left as quickly and as dangerously as possible. then they'd drive slow.

Yep. There's a pretty clean rule I've noticed: the slower a driver merges, the more likely he or she crosses all the lanes to reside in the leftmost one.

This correlation is probably not causation. Both behaviors likely stem from the "merging is scary" meme.

[Stevo Darkly]

OT, but since the previous Plan B thread is dead, this seems the most appropriate place to point out that I was wrong about how Plan B works. I had outdated or just plain incorrect information.

Thanks to Serafina for posting the correct information.

If I may post an excerpt from my retraction below:

Because Plan B can be taken up to 72 hours after intercourse, I was under the mistaken impression that it had to work by preventing fertilized eggs from being implanted. In fact, I think I looked this up and read that this was the case [somewhere on the Web]. Surely any "damage" (fertilization) that's going to take place, will have taken place sooner than 72 hours -- I thought.

I was so very wrong! I followed up [Serafina's] explanation by looking further and read more at http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,67432,00.html (warning: the 2nd page of the article won't open for me for some reason, but I think I've read enough on the 1st page).

It turns out that after intercourse, the little sperm bastard swimmers can live for up to five days. And Plan B works by blocking the release of eggs, so they can't get fertilized by any persistent spermatozoa that are still hanging around. That's what Plan B does.

However, if a woman has already released an egg prior to taking Plan B, it can still get fertilized and the woman can still get pregnant -- because Plan be does not prevent implantation [of an already fertilized egg].

If all this is true [and I have been convinced it is], then Plan B can not be considered an abortaficient, even by hardline life-begins-at-conception [fertilization] folks...

...I apologize for doing my part to further the confusion.
----------------------------

We now return to the thread already in progress...

[Timothy]

Stevo: That is the medical truth, and there's no evidence that Plan B can cause non-implantation of a fertilized egg, but we all know that the folks against it are driven not only by a desire to prevent abortion, but also by a desire to feel morally superior to and/or control the lives of others.

Every gamete is sacred. Remember that.

[Stevo Darkly]

Actually, I was wondering why, if the truth was so well-known, why no one brought it up earlier in the thread instead of going into the "fertilized eggs do/don't matter anyway" diversion. I saw both sides prolonging the confusion because each was intent on making its own tangential point. I actually think most of the Plan B controversy would evaporate if it was better understood. There are plenty of other areas for feeling morally superior and controlling.

[Brian Courts]

Actually, I was wondering why, if the truth was so well-known, why no one brought it up earlier

I don't think it is that well known. As recently as last year when this topic came up I was reading the literature from one of the drug companies (obviously pro-plan B) which stated that it wasn't completely known how it worked but that it might sometimes prevent implantation. At any rate at that point I was willing to assume, arguendo, that it did prevent implantation. The reason for this is that if your argument is hanging on Plan B not preventing implantation and it turns out that it does, then the other side is left with a victory. If, on the other hand, you assume the opponents strongest case and still find that plan B should be OTC, then how it works becomes irrelevant

[Hakluyt]

Stevo Darkly,

So, will this keep brine shrimp from combining with semen thus hindering the creation of sea people?

[M1EK]

"And, to elaborate, if the HOV lane actually incented carpooling, it would slow down and clog up just like the rest of traffic does."

It 'incents' enough to move more people per hour than does a general-purpose lane, in the cities where they 'work'. Again, YOUR definition of 'works' is not one which the transportation professional share, because it's simply impractical.

[Hakluyt]

HOV lanes reduce congestion nor do they increase throughput. What they do is service that small portion of the population tha carpools anyway, while hogging up roadspace that could be more effeciently used if they didn't exist. Planners have a lot of silly pipe dreams and this is one of them.

[Stevo Darkly]

So, will this keep brine shrimp from combining with semen thus hindering the creation of sea people?

That's not where sea people come from. Sea people evolve from sea monkeys.

[Hakluyt]

Stevo Darkly,

Nah. Nah. Nah. Cartman says its the brine shrimp plus the semen that creates the "sea ciety" [sic].

[Stevo Darkly]

Oops, sorry, I missed your reference.

To miss even a few episodes of South Park is to miss much of life.

[Hakluyt]

Stevo Darkly,

Its the episode where where "Ms. Chokes on Dick" dies. The combination of the two creates a real "sea people" who build a statue to Cartman and one to "Tweek." The opposing sides eventually go to war and kill themselves. Thus demonstrating that religion is bullshit. 🙂

[tomhynes]

How do you prove pregnancy, especially if you are not 9 months? Pee on a little strip for the officer? Can you drive the HOV lane if you are just a week late? If you suddenly get your period, do you have to immediately exit the lane?

[clarityiniowa]

The McCaughy Septuplets live a li'l ways down the road from me. When the Mrs. was pregnant, would she have needed her CDL (commercial driver's license) to drive her unborn brood around this stretch of Arizona interstate?

[Stevo Darkly]

How do you prove pregnancy, especially if you are not 9 months? Pee on a little strip for the officer?

"Step our of the car, please, ma'am. And chug these forties until your bladder is full."

[Anthony]

In the San Francisco Bay Area, most of the carpool lanes are a joke. However, the lane on I-80 West through Richmond and Berkeley (south in the morning towards the Bay Bridge) apparently carries well over twice the number of people per hour as the regular lanes during morning commute hours (It's designated from 0500 to 1000). I think the lanes on I-880 South in the morning and I-880 North in the evening carry at least as many people per hour as the regular lanes, also.

There are, however, some rather ridiculous carpool lanes. The one in Marin County on US 101 is down to one hour a day, and even then doesn't reach anywhere near capacity, and the one on I-580 between Richmond and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge was actually converted to a standard lane for lack of use.

We have additional incentives, as bridge tolls, normally $3, are waived for carpools during carpool hours. Because of this, and the time savings, I fairly regularly pick up passengers at the nearby casual carpool pickup to drive into work in the morning.

I've noticed that a large number of the vehicles using carpool lanes in the morning are occupied by hispanic men in company vehicles.

[Anthony]

California has done something silly with HOV lanes, though - they've permitted electric cars and some hybrids to use them. The theory is that it will ultimately reduce pollution. Personally, if they really want to reduce pollution, I think they should open the carpool lanes to gross polluters - the smoother flow and smaller time on the road that the gross polluters will experience by using the carpool lane will more than make up for the smaller number of drivers switching from new, very-low-pollution gasoline cars to new, even-lower-pollution hybrids.

[Ether Itch]

Breeders use all the gas anyway.

That's okay, it's their kids that will perish from global warming.