Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 1/12/2006 6:40:46 AM EDT
I think she had a valid point since their state law classifies an unborn child as a person as stated in the article.


Judge: Fetus Not Extra Passenger To Carpool

CBS) PHOENIX, Ariz An Arizona woman has lost her appeal of a ticket she was given for driving alone in a car in a highway HOV lane.

Candace Wilkinson, of Phoenix, claimed her fetus should count as the second "person" in the car with her in the lane reserved for carpoolers.

But, reports Mike Levitt of CBS affiliate KPHO in Phoenix, a judge wasn't buying it.

During a hearing Wilkinson, who represented herself, pointed out that the local criminal code defines person as an unborn child.

But the judge ruled when she drove in the lane in November, she was clearly in violation of the law requiring at least two people in any vehicle in such a lane.

Asked by reporters later if the legislature should clarify the statute, Wilkinson said, "I would hope so, but … I understand the use of the lane. I don't think I was wrong in using the lane, but that's all I have to say."

This isn't the first time the officer who ticketed Wilkinson same police sergeant has had a case like this.

Phoenix Police Sgt. Dave Norton said, "The previous one was a whole lot less pregnant than Miss Wilkinson, and to follow her philosophy would require officers to carry guns, radios and pregnancy testers, and I don't think we want to go there."

The judge fined Wilkinson $360, plus court costs.

When asked if she'd appeal, she said, 'No comment," but admitted she wouldn't drive alone in a car in an HOV lane again.




http://kutv.com/topstories/topstories_story_012101131.html
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:42:01 AM EDT
The judge's reasoning makes sense. Intent of the law is to reduce the number of unused seats in cars.

If a fetus would qualify as a passenger in an HOV lane, shouldn't a pregnant woman have to pay for two tickets on an airplane, train, or bus?
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:42:57 AM EDT
Now that's unique. I think she had a valid point. Around here you have to have 3 to drive in the carpool lane. MJD
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:43:27 AM EDT
I saw this on the news this morning while at physical therapy. I think the ordinance on the HOV lane states the people must be in seperate seats within the vehicle or something along those lines.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:43:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
The judge's reasoning makes sense. Intent of the law is to reduce the number of unused seats in cars.

If a fetus would qualify as a passenger in an HOV lane, shouldn't a pregnant woman have to pay for two tickets on an airplane, train, or bus?



You pay for a seat on an airplane etc, not per person. They have tried to charge fat people double for occupying two seats
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:44:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2006 6:45:18 AM EDT by California_Kid]

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:
I saw this on the news this morning while at physical therapy. I think the ordinance on the HOV lane states the people must be in seperate seats within the vehicle or something along those lines.



Yes, the INTENT of the law is to reduce the number of cars on the road.


Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
...
You pay for a seat on an airplane etc, not per person. They have tried to charge fat people double for occupying two seats



I think that's reasonable. It would also make sense for airlines to charge passengers by weight.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:45:13 AM EDT
HOV lane is the worst idea ever. Why would you want to artificialy restrict traffic?
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:19:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
HOV lane is the worst idea ever. Why would you want to artificialy restrict traffic?



Apparently you have never been in one. The speed is much faster than the standard traffic.

Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:22:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2006 6:24:34 PM EDT by Gravity_Tester]
It's a 370 dollar ticket too...

It's only restricted for a few hours in the AM and in the afternoon--other than that it's a regular travel lane. It SHOULD be restricted to 2 or more liscensed drivers in the vehicle..
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:07:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
The judge's reasoning makes sense. Intent of the law is to reduce the number of unused seats in cars.




+1
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 8:01:27 PM EDT
The lady ought to be fined for filing a frivolous lawsuit. . . .or whatever., it's still a b.s. test of the law.

M.L.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 8:04:33 PM EDT
I would agree with the judges ruling, except for the part in state law defining an unborn child as a person. I would have ruled not guilty for that reason. The HOV land probably doen not specify how many seats in a vehicle must be occupied, just how many passangers in the vehicle. If a fetus is defined as a person, then I would have found for the defendant.


-K
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 8:06:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2006 8:14:16 PM EDT by FishKepr]
The Police Sgt. has a good point. Can you image the chaos it would make for enforcement? It would mean that just about any woman talk her way out of a ticket just by saying, "I'm pregnant." Or worse, cops might stop pulling women over for driving solo in a carpool lane.


Originally Posted By logem:
The lady ought to be fined for filing a frivolous lawsuit. . . .or whatever., it's still a b.s. test of the law.

M.L.



What lawsuit? She was the defendant.

ETA: OMG, I passed 2K and didn't even notice!
Top Top