I think this has been mentioned several times that the purpose of HOV lanes is to relieve traffic congestion by encourage carpooling with the payoff of going a little faster than the rest of the traffic. Being a bottleneck in an HOV is very inconsiderate. It's bad publicity if it's done by a hybrid - we need to play by the rules everybody else does.

Sometimes I'll be out during rush hour. When the situation presents itself, I will take the access road along it going the flow (about 50mph). I'll exit the freeway just long enough to bypass a traffic light, then take the access road again.

 

What about the soccer mom taking her 10 year old to practice. Should she be able to drive in the HOV? How about all the cars I see with baby seats as the second passenger? The whole concept of HOV lanes in this country is flawed. The HOV requirement should be licensed drivers for passenger vehicles. The women taking her kid to soccer practice in the HOV lane is NOT decreasing traffic congestion.

P.S. can someone tell me how to make my mileage show up in my signature and not just the URL?

 

The whole point of giving hybrids access to carpool lanes is to temporarily promote the use of hybrids, not carpooling. That's it. The gravy train ends for California in 2008. In the meantime, all hybrid drivers using the HOV lanes should consider conduct themselves as normal drivers and go with the flow like everyone else. If you're willing to deal with people giving you the one-fingered salute and risking the attending road rage, it's your funeral. I just want to be able to use the lane and promote hybrids over the monstrous SUVs that have become so popular until lately. For this reason, the increase in California gas prices to $3 with the advent of the hybrid is the "perfect storm" (in a good way).

 

From a practical standpoint, that's unenforceable.

 

Not entirely - if the cops can clearly see that it's just a parent and child in the vehicle, that's an easy one to substantiate that it's not two licensed drivers. Also, you can make it like seatbelt laws. In other words, suppose someone is doing 82 mph in the carpool lane and gets pulled over for speeding. The cop asks for all drivers licenses and it turns out the driver has one but the passenger has a suspended license due to DUI, for example. That's not actually carpooling because the guy with the suspended license couldn't drive himself legally anyway.

 

Putting a sign saying the HOV lane is video monitored might deter some drivers into honesty.

 

It does make sense to be reserved for multiple licensed drivers, though only if it's deemed that carpool lanes are becoming too overcrowded. However, there are major flaws in enforcing such a rule:

Does that mean someone pulled over for speeding gets a $375 carpool violation fine if his passenger happens to forget his drivers license for some reason? It's more of a stretch to make the driver responsible for that than, say, a seatbelt law, as the driver can plainly see if the passengers have seatbelts on. (Of course, this should be easily overturnable in court if it can be demonstrated that the other person has a valid license... but this creates a major hassle) Also that might mean that someone with a young-looking but licensed teen driver would get pulled over often. In short, enforcement would be a nightmare.

Also, even though someone driving kids etc. around isn't reducing traffic on the road, those types of trips only account for a very small portion of peak hour traffic, which is almost entirely single-occupant commuter vehicles-- this is the group that the HOV lanes are encouraging to carpool regularly, not people taking children to special events. For most commuters, taking children with them to work would not be a viable option as a way to get carpool access, anyway.

 

The proposal of limiting HOV lanes to licensed drivers wouldn't really work all that well in the "People's Republic of Berkeley". Here's why. In Berkeley potential passengers line up at the North Berkeley Bart (I assume this also happens at other Bart stations in the Berkeley area as well) to be picked up by total strangers and driven to the city of San Francisco as part of an car pool. In some sense it is an efficient market. Drivers need two passengers and passengers need a ride into the city. The imposition of a licensed driver rule would up end the informal nature of the system by 1) inducing drivers to have potential passengers show their driver licenses before getting into the car or 2) in the alternative put drivers at risk for a fine if their passenger happens to be unlicensed.

In addition, I have no problem with the mother driving their child and getting an HOV advantage or driving a bunch of kids around for other parents. I think that such behavior is socially beneficial, in fact more beneficial than providing an HOV lane for hybrid drivers.

On the issue of inducing people to purchase hybrids as a means of encouraging socially beneficial behavior, I can agree. The best way to do this is via some sort of tax credit (which it seems hybrid drivers have). Or if what you really want is to punish gas guzzlers--add a fuel consumption surcharge tax to encourage people to buy fuel efficient automobiles.

Norris

 

I think the fundamental flaw with HOV lanes will always be if the rules are too restrictive they're difficult to enforce (i.e. only licensed drivers allowed as passengers), and if they're too permissive you get people using it that don't belong in the original vision or intent (carting around kids). There's no perfect answer to that one - you have to live with it one way or the other.

I'm with HyMinded - if allowing hybrids in the HOV lane is supposed to be a promotional deal, driving well below the flow and anoying everyone seems somewhat counter to promoting the technology. I'm all for being a law-abiding citizen, just do it in the right-hand lanes and stay out of the line of fire, so to speak.

 

I don't mind a few overusing the intended use of HOVs. At times, it has seemed like "singles" are in the HOVs up to 20% of the time. At one time, I was tempted to pelt them with a paint gun.