HOV Enforcement
Printed From: Slug-Lines.com
Category: General Slugging Questions and Comments
Forum Name: General Slugging Topics
Forum Description: This is the area for all general slugging comments. To add a comment simply create a new topic or see FAQ for detailed information on how to post comments.
URL: http://www.slug-lines.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=138
Printed Date: 26 Sep 2024 at 7:34pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: HOV Enforcement
Posted By: mdamba
Subject: HOV Enforcement
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2002 at 10:12pm
|
Do you get on HOV 95 in the morning and you're driving till you get into PW and then next thing you know,you're surrounded by the Infamous HOV Violators and there's more of them then there are of you. The State says they can't enforce 100%, but that's no excuse for the HOV lanes to be back up in the mornings. The violator say that they get on before 6:00 am so they should be allow to be on it. Wrong!...the law says you can be on it before 6:00 but it doesn't say that if you start at the beginning of the HOV at 5:55 and the closest off ramp is Springfield, you are still a violator!! Please people, It will only get worse, If you like,use,love the HOV lanes, NOW is the time to stand up and demand that there be random checks at 6:00am, let them know what you've seem..Let VDOT know there needs to be an exit ramp sooner than springfield! |
Replies:
Posted By: sher78
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2002 at 1:42pm
|
I've been slugging for 2 yrs. now and just Love it! However, I too am dissapointed in the number of 'cheaters', especially in the morning. I have two suggestions to make: A) Each county could hire extra officers, to patrol the HOV lanes, using the fines to pay the extra officers salaries. I'm sure either the violaters would stop cheating OR the counties would have a nice size additional income. B) Back up the HOV start time in the mornings to 5:30 AM. Sounds like a plan to me! Thx, Sharon |
Posted By: mycroftt
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2002 at 8:26am
|
HOV restrictions should be moved back to 5:00 AM anyway since 6:00AM doesn't cut it anymore. In the afternoon it should be moved back to 3:00 PM. I estimate the percentage of violators during the first half hour of restriction as well over 50% of all vehicles. Another thing I don't like is the immunity to the law that has been conferred, whether officially or unofficially, on law enforcement personnel . What makes them so special? I don't care what anybody says - I have to go to work just like they do and I have to play by the rules, and they should as well. I prefer the egalitarian approach, I don't like privileged classes, I don't need no steenkeeng badgezz, and HOV lanes should be for HOV, period. Naturally I have no objection to emergency vehicles using HOV lanes when necessary, but that's about the only exception I can think of. |
Posted By: Sheepish
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2002 at 10:07am
|
While I am not totally buying into the concept of changing the HOV times, consistent monitoring and stiffer fines might help. I also totally agree with mycroftt's comment: "Another thing I don't like is the immunity to the law that has been conferred, whether officially or unofficially, on law enforcement personnel . " We each have a responsibility to get to work and on a daily basis face the trials and tribulations of the commute, why shouldn't they? (Sorry to my good friend and neighbor if you ever see this posting  .)Unfortunately, though I realize it's unfair to us, I know in my neighbor's case, she is not allowed to carry passengers in her unmarked vehicle, so she never would be able benefit from slugging. Is that totally fair for her? It's a tough issue. Hmmmmm, here's an idea.....maybe as a trade off, some type of program could be established where these drivers from various branches of law enforcement regularly utilizing the lanes would be required (and given the authority) to say, at least once a month, catch violators during the times when HOV lanes are abused the most..... |
Posted By: Eric
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2002 at 12:56pm
|
Well, I see both sides of the whole 'exceptions' issue. It always ticks me off to see anyone driving alone with no obvious indicator as to why. For example, what is some Sheriff's deputy from Maryland doing on HOV? Or, for that matter, some Congress critter?? On the other hand, though, FBI folks going to/from Quantico, and perhaps some others, are reasonable exceptions. What I'd like to see is some readily visible sign that a car has a legitimate exemption, say a sticker on the license or a tag on the mirror. And tighten up the exemptions greatly. - Eric. |
Posted By: Eric
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2002 at 1:00pm
|
Here's another one... Those hybrids that are getting a free pass currently. In order for that to truly make sense, the hybrids must be getting more than 3x the mileage of the average car currently out there, and/or be generating less than 1/3 the emissions. So, is that the case? For the mileage, I doubt it, but I'm not sure on the emissions end of things. - Eric. |
Posted By: thornc
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2002 at 3:53pm
What VDOT needs to do is install "red light" cameras at HOV entrances and exits and ticket the cheaters.  you're on candid camera! CAT |
Posted By: mdamba
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2002 at 9:26am
quote:I was thinking the same thing, If the state can't get the troopers on the HOV, then put a cameras on the enter/Exit ramps of the HOV. |
Posted By: mycroftt
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2002 at 7:44am
quote: What makes them so special? How about an exception for, say, Postal workers on their way to L'Enfant Plaza, or Wal-Mart greeters during December? What they do is important too, right? No, I'm not buying it - it's elitism and flaunting the law. I don't care if J. Edgar is on his way to get his gown re-hemmed, the law should apply to him as well. Emergency vehicles on a call should be the only exceptions. |
Posted By: mol
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2002 at 9:08am
quote: LOVE IT!!!!! |
Posted By: Mit
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2002 at 9:15am
quote: I'm with Mycroftt--Emergency vehicles only. |
Posted By: Eric
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2002 at 11:52pm
MYCROFTT wrote:quote: Because agents going between HQ and Quantico are presumably doing so while on duty. I have absolutely no problem cutting ON DUTY law enforcement some slack. The number of exemptions shouldn't end up being that large. Suppose VDOT issues a very limited number of 'passes' to law enforcement agencies located w/in (say) 30 miles of DC. In order to have a pass the officer must ALREADY BE AT WORK to pick it up. And they must return it to work. That way, if Agent Smith from the FBI labs in Quantico is needed to testify in a Federal trial in Alexandria, some low-life doesn't get off on a technicality because Agent Smith was stuck in traffic. Now, I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be an stop to HOV usage by the Congress-critter, the DC cop living in Dale City and who can't be bothered to pick up slugs, and the Henrico County deputy that's cruising thru. BUT, for example, I think those troopers that are volunteering their time to sit along 110 and help guard the Pentagon really deserve whatever slack they can be given. - Eric. |
Posted By: mycroftt
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2002 at 8:24am
| I still don't think the privileged class should get a free pass for HOV. If Mr. FBI Scientist needs to testify in Arlington, he can darn well get his butt out of bed early enough to get to court before the trial is over -just like I would have to do if I were testifying or on a jury or on trial for being a subversive SOB. A revolution was fought to rid this country of royalty and privileged classes and I don't think we should start building them anew. I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. HOV lanes for HOV only! |
Posted By: Cas
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2002 at 9:42am
|
Ditto mycroftt's statement. |
Posted By: Bob
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2002 at 11:07am
|
The issue of HOV enforcement is linked to allowing a huge number of non-HOV vehicles in the lanes. In the past, the troopers could sit on the side of the road and check cars as they went past. Now, however, enforcement has to be done at the entrance/exits because of all of the non HOV "legals." Move forward in time several years when 50% of the HOV traffic is single occupant cars. How on earth will anyone enforce this? To even enforce at the exits would cause a massive backup. |
Posted By: Eric
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2002 at 10:57pm
quote: A handful of non-emergency ON-DUTY law enforcement hardly constitutes a 'class'. Besides, if you want to talk 'privileged class', there already IS one and you're part of it. That's the class of folks who work in a privileged location that allows them to take advantage of HOV and who don't have two-seater cars!! Now, nobody on this board seems to have any problem with reaping the benefits being in this class, but let's be honest and recognize that we all enjoy a privilege that many in our area can't enjoy. Now, society as a whole derives a benefit from granting this boon to those who are privileged to be able to use it and the point of this topic is that the societal benefit is diluted by having many loopholes in the HOV law. And on this I think we're all in agreement. However, society ALSO derives a benefit from making it easier for on duty law enforcement personnel to do their jobs. That's why I make the distinction of ON-DUTY. If we can get rid of all the other loopholes, this one will be a tiny concession. But, anyway, peace... The most important thing is to look into making a sensible definition of what constitutes a clean-air vehicle. These are the things that really threaten to clog the HOV with single occupant vehicles. And the starting definition I suggest is that, unless a car has at least 3x the mileage and 1/3 the emissions of the average passenger car, it should not qualify for HOV exemption ever. And if you account for the added emissions and gas wastage (and economic wastage) that will come about when HOV gets clogged with these cars, the real criteria ought to be more like 4x and 1/4. - Eric. |
Posted By: mycroftt
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2002 at 7:29am
|
Eric, your argument is a classic example of what we used to call a "cop out" - you evaded the issue and claimed that others are the true privileged class. Tsk, tsk. I guess you concede that there is no justification for the coppers to be above the law. I have an even better solution to reducing the number of people on the highways. I do about 90% of my work on a computer or a telephone so it doesn't really matter where I sit. I could work at home or in the telework center close to home. Unfortunately, my employer has a decidely 1940's view of work responsibility in that where you are sitting is more important than what you are doing. Damn shame really. I think a large portion of the commuting workforce is in the same boat. Most of this travelling up and down the crowded road is completely unnecessary. |
Posted By: Eric
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2002 at 9:59pm
quote: Nah. No cop-out and no evasion of the issue. I've repeatedly made a valid point. (Namely, that society derives sufficient benefit from permitting ON DUTY law enforcement to use HOV that it warrants the exception.) You (and others) obviously disagree with that point. But somehow, because I've not surrendered to your viewpoint, I'm evading the issue?? Further, you mischaracterize the situation by saying that the police are putting themselves above the law, attempting to twist the situation into some sort of class warfare. In order to point out the absurdity of your "above the law" and "privileged class" assertions, I pointed out that those of us who use HOV are, in the same sense and according to your definition, a privileged class. This is not a cop-out; it is directly and logically connected. You were certainly welcome to come up with a counterargument if possible, but instead you made a statement (quoted above) that is intellectually not far from sticking your fingers in your ears and saying loudly "La la la!! I can't hear you!" BTW, those who utilize the present loopholes are NOT acting 'above the law'. The loopholes are in the law itself. And, I'd be willing to bet (given the number of DC tags I see involved in single occupant traffic on HOV), this law was forced on VDOT by some Congress-critter using the big stick of Federal highway dollars. But, regardless, there's no call to insult law enforcement officers by asserting that they're trying to lord it over us somehow. You don't like the law, go through the usual process and get it changed. - Eric. |
Posted By: mycroftt
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2002 at 1:05pm
|
Sorry Eric, but you seem to enjoy an elevated opinion of your argument that is unshared by others. Your claim to have "repeatedly made a valid point. (Namely, that society derives sufficient benefit from permitting ON DUTY law enforcement to use HOV that it warrants the exception.)" mischaracterizes what you have accomplished, which is no more than to have repeatedly uttered the unfounded assertion that there is sufficient benefit derived from the exception to justify its continued existence. A valid opinion no doubt, and one I would not care to argue against, but hardly a valid point since you have not offered any evidence to support it. I am amused by your misreading of my chide about your childish game of "It takes one to know one" when you made the ridiculous claim that the commuter who plays by the rules, is somehow "privileged" when using the taxpayer-capitalized infrastructure provided for that very reason. Alas, there is no topic line for me to have indicated that I was deliberately going off topic, so allow me to set the record straight: I was off topic and not addressing Eric's argument when I chided him. In any case, my real beef is with the off-duty commuting lawmen who roar solo past me as I slug my way to work. I don't think they should be allowed to do so. A rereading of the posts reveals that I never accused them of lording it over anyone, as you claim, so I await your retraction of that false accusation. My belief is that they are just guys taking advantage of having been granted special privileges based on their class who are just going to workand I think it should be stopped. |
Posted By: waterelf
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2002 at 2:19pm
|
Obviously you do not know anyone who works in federal law enforcement, as is evidenced by your comment regarding those "off duty." When you see someone driving in a law enforcement vehicle, they are "on duty" and on their way to/from work. I do not agree that they should not be allowed to drive on the HOV, as they do not have the opportunity to pick up slugs and are required to drive that government vehicle. |
Posted By: mycroftt
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2002 at 8:31pm
|
Actually, waterelf, I grew up in an FBI family and have more intimate knowlege about what that entails than anyone else could imagine who has not had the same experience. That doesn't change my opinion that they can make their way to work while following the rules just like everyone else. You have erred by assuming that I referred only to the feds - the system is being abused by locals as well. My opinion is that this should be stopped, and I understand that you disagree. I'm not sure what you mean when you say they don't have the opportunity to pick up slugs or are not "off duty" before they get to work or after they end their shift. I certainly don't agree that they deserve some special exception that is not available to others who legitimately can not pick up slugs, like a guy driving a telephone company truck or a guy who lives in Stafford and works in Springfield. No one has yet convinced me that this class of people, based solely on their emploment deserves special privileges. Regards, Mike |
Posted By: Cas
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2002 at 7:41am
|
Some great thoughts here, but like Mdamba wrote, we must let the applicable authorities know our concerns. I've never done this before, but I imagine that we should start contacting VDOT, local politicians and attend and voice opinions at any public hearings that may arise. There may be other avenues, if anyone knows. The more people who do this, the more impact we will have on the outcome. Keep in mind, that the single drivers are doing this already and the impact will come from the NUMBER of people voicing a particular concern. Numbers, numbers, numbers! |
Posted By: viper
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2002 at 12:28pm
|
I've heard that there are ZERO POINTS assessed for HOV violations. Can anyone confirm that? If so, don't you think assessing points for HOV violations would cut down on cheaters? |
Posted By: Eric
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2002 at 3:02pm
quote: If you can't see something so self-evident as the benefit to society of law enforcement personnel wasting less time getting from point A to point B, I'm not sure any proof I offer will suffice. And, since you say you wouldn't care to argue against, then either you agree or you have no way of refuting my point. But if you want evidence, just look at the study that was all over the news yesterday -- in the DC area an average person loses 80+ hours/year to excessive traffic. Use of the express lanes likely redeems much of that time. I, for one, would rather our law enforcers spend those two work weeks solving cases than to spend them staring at tail lights. quote: It was impossible to tell that this was somehow 'off topic' from the wording, which was quite similar to your other posts. You have consistently been using phrasing like "elitism", "flaunting the law", and "privileged class". All I did was to point out the absurdity of your use of such inflammatory phrasing by noting that the law already establishes situations that are quite similar. quote: While I've repeatedly agreed that OFF-DUTY lawmen (and congress-critters and whatever other exceptions there are) SHOULD be made to obey HOV, I've made no false accusation against you. Again, I point out your use of loaded terms like "elitism", "flaunting the law", and "privileged class". Yes, you never explicitly used the terminology 'lording it over', but to me, that's not an inaccurate interpretation of the general attitude you've expressed. - Eric. |
Posted By: rale
Date Posted: 24 Jun 2002 at 8:06am
quote: Mycroft's points are well taken. It IS flaunting the law. Most of these people are NOT on duty and do not hold crucial emergency positions and they ARE taking advantage of the system. As far as unmarked cars not being allowed to carry passengers...well, I have worked with some of these folks and they have the choice and most of them have the benefit of driving a government car rather than have wear and tear on their personal vehicles, so as far as someone saying is that fair that they can't pick up riders---tough. They already have a benefit that most of us don't have. With regard to Eric's statement that those of us riding/driving in the HOV lanes are of a privileged class, bit of a misuse of the term, don't you think? We are paying for the use of the lanes by carpooling. Drivers take extra time to pick up folks and riders often go out of their way to a slug line. The creation of the HOV lanes was to cut down on traffic and pollution and drive time. THOSE were the reasons for creating the HOV lanes - if you can meet the rules, you can play. If you can't meet the rules, you can't play. It has NOTHING to do with PRIVILEGE. |
Posted By: Eric
Date Posted: 24 Jun 2002 at 2:03pm
quote: Please re-read what I've said. I'm NOT talking about officers commuting to/from work. I've specifically stated that the exception should be for ON-DUTY law enforcement personnel. I have ALWAYS stated that I also object to those that use HOV simply to show up to their shifts on time. The exception I've put forward is that law enforcers who are ON-DUTY (i.e., have already shown up for work and started their shift) and who need to get from point A to point B as part of their duties should be able to utilize the express lanes if this travel need occurs during morning or evening rush hour. - Eric. |
Posted By: Eric
Date Posted: 24 Jun 2002 at 2:35pm
quote: OK, so you agree with me then! Good!! For those that STILL don't get it... If we're not a privileged class simply because we're exercising a legally granted opportunity that not everyone has available, then it cannot be claimed that law enforcers and others are somehow a privileged class (or "flaunting the law") simply because they, too, are exercising a legally granted opportunity that we are not able to take advantage of. To do so is either illogical or hypocritical. I apologize that some readers may have missed the literary device of using a touch of hyperbole in my counter-example, simply to guide folks into seeing the absurdity of stating that law enforcers were somehow 'flaunting the law' or setting themselves up as a 'privileged class'. - Eric. |
Posted By: mycroftt
Date Posted: 25 Jun 2002 at 7:54am
quote: It's mildly amusing when someone claims familiarity with literary devices while remaining utterly unaware of other's use of same, even to the point of blindly quoting them repeatedly. You're too easy, Eric. Regards, Mike |
Posted By: Ran
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2002 at 7:45am
|
OK, so you agree with me then! Good!! For those that STILL don't get it... If we're not a privileged class simply because we're exercising a legally granted opportunity that not everyone has available, then it cannot be claimed that law enforcers and others are somehow a privileged class (or "flaunting the law") simply because they, too, are exercising a legally granted opportunity that we are not able to take advantage of. To do so is either illogical or hypocritical. I apologize that some readers may have missed the literary device of using a touch of hyperbole in my counter-example, simply to guide folks into seeing the absurdity of stating that law enforcers were somehow 'flaunting the law' or setting themselves up as a 'privileged class'. - Eric. Oh, brother. How old are you Eric? This website is for adults. Pls. spare us any more... |
Posted By: Carla
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2002 at 2:57pm
|
I am with Ran on this one Eric you have picked this top topic to death. We all know it is a hassle but life is too short to sweat about day in and day out. Carla |
Posted By: LJ
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2002 at 3:23pm
|
Thank you, guys (Ran and Carla). There didn't seem to be an end in sight to Eric's pompous and insulting silliness. |
Posted By: Eric
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2002 at 3:37pm
mycrofft said:quote: Ummm.... no. What I was quoting were words that you've repeated as the central theme in most of your posts on this topic. But if you're telling us that your core message was actually just a literary device, then so be it. ran said: quote: Hmmm... implying I'm childish?? Always a productive debating technique... Anyway, whoever wants to go ahead and take the last word on this is welcome to. When the quality of discussion descends to what is essentially name calling, it's time to call it a day. - Eric. |
Posted By: Andy
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2002 at 4:04pm
|
IO'll take the bait if it will stop you, Eric. Cheez, give it a rest! |
Posted By: GalS
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2002 at 4:30pm
|
I am sooo very sorry. I tried, but just could not resist this - Our friend is also pontificating under "Morning Sluglines," topic is Tackett's New Lots. |