• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

carpool question

Starshooter10

Starshooter10

Bane of your Existence!
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Location
Vallejo
Moto(s)
current ride: 2002 ZX-7R
Name
~Vince
kinda not bike related but...

in MY area carpool is 2 persons...

and thats fine

in some other area it's 3 persons..

but what if my car only has 2 seats?

im looking at a pickup but it only has 2 seatbelts.....

is that truck legal in a 3 persons carpool lane?

(or if i ever get my MR2/fiero)
 
if the area requires 3 people, it requires 3 people. If you had a single seater car, it doesn't give you the right to drive in a 2 person required HOV lane
 
My understanding of this was that if the vehicle is at it's design capacity (ie fiero, MR2, whatever) that you're legal even in a 3 person HOV. Off to wander the cvc

Edit: I seem to be wrong. See following post.
 
Last edited:
hitman5532 said:
if the area requires 3 people, it requires 3 people. If you had a single seater car, it doesn't give you the right to drive in a 2 person required HOV lane
Click to expand...
actually, all of them that I've seen have said that 2 persons in a 2 seater is ok.

of course, if it has those tiny seats with seatbelts it doesn't count as a 2 seater.
 
Hmmm, CVC seems to disagree with the 2 seater car in a 3 person HOV lane:

21655.5. (b) The Department of Transportation and local authorities, with respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, shall place and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, signs and other official traffic control devices to designate the exclusive or preferential lanes, to advise motorists of the applicable vehicle occupancy levels, and, except where ramp metering and bypass lanes are regulated with the activation of traffic signals, to advise motorists of the hours of high-occupancy vehicle usage. No person shall drive a vehicle upon those lanes except in conformity with the instructions imparted by the official traffic control devices. A motorcycle, a mass transit vehicle, or a paratransit vehicle that is clearly and identifiably marked on all sides of the vehicle with the name of the paratransit provider may be operated upon those exclusive or preferential use lanes unless specifically prohibited by a traffic control device.
Click to expand...

I see no exception for cars that can't hold enough people :thumbdown
 
I've seen plenty of 2 seater cars in the commuter lanes on 80 going to SF passing CHP and not getting pulled over. 'Vettes, Miatas, trucks with only 2 seats. You name it, I've seen it. Not saying it's legal though. Just saying I've seen it.
 
I can't believe some responses. If you are not sure then don't spread BS on this forum.
If you have a two seater car and you are in a car pool that requires three people or more. You are full to capacity and are legal to be in the car pool lane. There was a news cast about this years ago.
 
Noid said:
I can't believe some responses. If you are not sure then don't spread BS on this forum.
If you have a two seater car and you are in a car pool that requires three people or more. You are full to capacity and are legal to be in the car pool lane. There was a news cast about this years ago.
Click to expand...

There's always signs below the carpool lane sign explaining it. It says something to the effect of "Autos with 2 seats and pickups with 2 passengers okay."
 
hrm


seems to be getting some mixed results..

i'll have to stop by the donut shop in the morning =-P

okay maybe not...

the leo's like to camp out starbucks =-P
 
Starshooter10 said:
hrm
seems to be getting some mixed results..
i'll have to stop by the donut shop in the morning =-P
okay maybe not...
the leo's like to camp out starbucks =-P
Click to expand...
Yes, you have to sift through the BS a bit. It didn't used to be so bad here.. but it seems so many people that don't know.. like to chime in and act as if they do. As NOID said.. if you don't know.. then STFU. Well, he said it nicer than that, but that is what he meant.

The correct answer is in post #7. Refer to the link there for the offical answer: HOV lanes on Hwy 80 in Alameda County approaching the SF Bay Bridge are: "Three or more persons per vehicle, motorcycles, two-seat vehicles with two persons."

Also, from the FAQ at the Bay Area Toll Authority website: http://bata.mtc.ca.gov/faq.htm

"18. What are the HOV/carpool-lane restrictions at the bridges?
HOV/carpool hours and occupancy requirements vary by bridge. Signs at each toll plaza and on the bridge approaches designate the carpool-lanes and any bridge-specific restrictions on use, including hours and occupancy requirements. For more bridge-specific information [CLICK HERE] "

That link takes you to their schedule which states: "Note: Any motorcycle, bus, inherently-low-emission vehicle (ILEV) with DMV-issued decals, or 2-axle vehicle, without trailer(s), designed by the manufacturer to be occupied by no more than two persons, carrying two persons, may also cross toll-free in designated lane(s) consistent with the above referenced hours of operation."

FWIW, BARFers that back up their answers with actual CVC sections (that apply) and links to official/credible websites or previous threads where the answer has been given get "extra points" and should be the ones you heed. All others are suspect.
 
motorman4life said:
Yes, you have to sift through the BS a bit. It didn't used to be so bad here.. but it seems so many people that don't know.. like to chime in and act as if they do. As NOID said.. if you don't know.. then STFU. Well, he said it nicer than that, but that is what he meant.

The correct answer is in post #7. Refer to the link there for the offical answer: HOV lanes on Hwy 80 in Alameda County approaching the SF Bay Bridge are: "Three or more persons per vehicle, motorcycles, two-seat vehicles with two persons."

Also, from the FAQ at the Bay Area Toll Authority website: http://bata.mtc.ca.gov/faq.htm

"18. What are the HOV/carpool-lane restrictions at the bridges?
HOV/carpool hours and occupancy requirements vary by bridge. Signs at each toll plaza and on the bridge approaches designate the carpool-lanes and any bridge-specific restrictions on use, including hours and occupancy requirements. For more bridge-specific information [CLICK HERE] "

That link takes you to their schedule which states: "Note: Any motorcycle, bus, inherently-low-emission vehicle (ILEV) with DMV-issued decals, or 2-axle vehicle, without trailer(s), designed by the manufacturer to be occupied by no more than two persons, carrying two persons, may also cross toll-free in designated lane(s) consistent with the above referenced hours of operation."

FWIW, BARFers that back up their answers with actual CVC sections (that apply) and links to official/credible websites or previous threads where the answer has been given get "extra points" and should be the ones you heed. All others are suspect.
Click to expand...

that being said...i got screwed on a ticket a while back, and even when fighting it in court, the commisioner said to me, what i said earlier
 
hitman5532 said:
that being said...i got screwed on a ticket a while back, and even when fighting it in court, the commisioner said to me, what i said earlier
Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough, let's review what you said earlier:
hitman5532 said:
if the area requires 3 people, it requires 3 people. If you had a single seater car, it doesn't give you the right to drive in a 2 person required HOV lane.
Click to expand...
As we have already established, there are signs posted at the Bay Bridge approach on W/B I-80 allowing for motorcycles and other vehicles, including vehicles designed for 2 passengers, that are permitted with fewer than 3.

Where, when or what you are cited for, you have not mentioned. You got screwed on a ticket? Really? A ticket for what? Whether you were in complaince or not has not been mentioned either. If you have a 3 or 4-seater and modify it into a 2-seater, it does not meet the criteria. There are only 2 models of manufactured street-legal 1-seater cars (by design) that I am aware of and I believe both are legal for an HOV lane. One is the Corbin Swallow EV series. The other is a similar vehicle that is made down in LA. At one time, both were making roughly 2000 units per year and I believe both have ceased production.

Regardless, if you read the signs that are posted and follow the information posted at the above links, you can see what the official policy is pertaining to the OP’s original question. I know there was some confusion about this in the past and the laws were not applied or interpreted consistently for a short period. I believe this was addressed by the CHP and the applicable courts many years ago. I don't know if you fell into that period of confusion or maybe it is you that are/were confused.

Regardless.. expect to get called on BS in this forum and be prepared to back up your statements as to the law with some citable source (this would be a code section or link). Your initial post was incorrect and has been addressed. In the future, it may be helpful if you either wait for a LEO (someone that writes tickets) to answer a question and if you disagree, you can simply challenge them on their interpretation (maybe ask for the applicable code section, a link to official information or case law) or do the research yourself. A simple search of "San Francisco Bay Bridge HOV" will put you onto the links above.

Class dismissed. :nerd
 
MM4L, thanks for posting that it requires to be designed to only hold 2 passengers. In a previous thread there had been some debate over definition of a 2 seater, and I don't recall seeing that posted. I guess my Integra (5 seats in a 2 door) doesn't qualify even if I remove the rear seats and seatbelts, as is currently true. Good to know.
 
motorman4life said:
Okay, fair enough, let's review what you said earlier:
As we have already established, there are signs posted at the Bay Bridge approach on W/B I-80 allowing for motorcycles and other vehicles, including vehicles designed for 2 passengers, that are permitted with fewer than 3.

Where, when or what you are cited for, you have not mentioned. You got screwed on a ticket? Really? A ticket for what? Whether you were in complaince or not has not been mentioned either. If you have a 3 or 4-seater and modify it into a 2-seater, it does not meet the criteria. There are only 2 models of manufactured street-legal 1-seater cars (by design) that I am aware of and I believe both are legal for an HOV lane. One is the Corbin Swallow EV series. The other is a similar vehicle that is made down in LA. At one time, both were making roughly 2000 units per year and I believe both have ceased production.

Regardless, if you read the signs that are posted and follow the information posted at the above links, you can see what the official policy is pertaining to the OP’s original question. I know there was some confusion about this in the past and the laws were not applied or interpreted consistently for a short period. I believe this was addressed by the CHP and the applicable courts many years ago. I don't know if you fell into that period of confusion or maybe it is you that are/were confused.

Regardless.. expect to get called on BS in this forum and be prepared to back up your statements as to the law with some citable source (this would be a code section or link). Your initial post was incorrect and has been addressed. In the future, it may be helpful if you either wait for a LEO (someone that writes tickets) to answer a question and if you disagree, you can simply challenge them on their interpretation (maybe ask for the applicable code section, a link to official information or case law) or do the research yourself. A simple search of "San Francisco Bay Bridge HOV" will put you onto the links above.

Class dismissed. :nerd
Click to expand...

It was about 6 years ago, and while i dont have the cvc in front of me (or even know where the ticket is now) it was a carpool violation. It was on hwy 91 down south, not the bay bridge (as the OP didnt specify the bridge in his post) The express lane is a 3+ person carpool lane, and I used the logic that I was able to drive two people in a two person car on the bridge, so I could there. Wrong.

Since the OP didnt state the bridge specifically, I answered as I was told for the commisioner. It seems to me that the extra notation on the bridge is an exception, not the rule. So while this may be true on the bridge, it is not true as a rule of 3+ lanes.

Now being that an impartial judge is to determine the interpertation of the law, and that she said that to me, I considered it to be the reasoning of the law. So, if what your saying is correct everywhere- I got screwed and upset about that nothingmore

Finally, I wasn't "challenging you" as you like to put it, I was saying I got screwed... which would imply I was taking your word as good:teeth
 
motorman4life said:
FWIW, BARFers that back up their answers with actual CVC sections (that apply) and links to official/credible websites or previous threads where the answer has been given get "extra points" and should be the ones you heed. All others are suspect.
Click to expand...

Do I get half credit for a conservative wrong answer with a supporting CVC quote and link? :teeth
 
motorman4life said:
FWIW, BARFers that back up their answers with actual CVC sections (that apply) and links to official/credible websites or previous threads where the answer has been given get "extra points" and should be the ones you heed. All others are suspect.
Click to expand...

If this applies to all the other threads, then thanks! :D :thumbup
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top