Waaaah! The Carpool Party is Over: Hybrid Yellow Stickers Lose Their Magic

The "licensed driver only" argument makes sense on the surface, but is impractical from an enforcement point of view.  How is an officer supposed to tell at a glance if a passenger is a) old enough to drive and b) actually licensed to drive?  Short of pulling every questionable car over to check, I'd say counting bodies is the only realistic way to make a violation judgment. 

As far as what the carpool lanes are intended to do, I think proponents have always intended to get as many cars off the road as possible in order to reduce congestion, with reduction of pollution and fuel consumption being positive side benefits. 

"Maximizing the movement of people", as the North Carolina DOT puts it, theoretically helps to defer the construction of astronomically expensive new highways.  If one HOV lane allows you to get more cars off the road than you could by adding one general lane, you get more bang for the construction buck (maybe 30-50%?).  Trouble is, the cost to build HOV lanes is seemingly becoming much higher than general lanes; in Southern California, several elaborate HOV-only flyover bridges have been built at a number of freeway interchanges, with more of them on the way.  Seems like the original concept has sort of lost its way. 

My 2004 Honda Insight hybrid doesn't just save on gas (I spent $153 for gas last year -- ALL last year); it's a SULEV: a Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle. 

When I first got to LA in the 90s, I drove cheap-to-buy old polluters, and as soon as I could afford to buy a new car, getting one that put as little crap as possible in everybody's lungs seemed the right thing to do.

You might want to mention that dedicated CNG vehicles are NOT losing their carpool privileges... and they don't have lead or benzene coming out of their tailpipes, either. A hybrid, at the end of the day, is just a vehicle with increased gas mileage unless you can plug it in. 

Carpool lanes aren't about saving gas, they're about reducing smog.  That's why the stickers say "Clean Air Vehicle".   They're part of a package of measures implemented to meet AQMD-mandated targets for reducing smog-forming emissions by reducing the number of cars on the freeway.  (And thus the exemption for single-driver vehicles with reduced emissions.)

Doran's argument still holds, though: if you're just carrying your kids, you're not reducing the number of cars on the freeway (unless the kids are licensed drivers).

I'm late to this reply, but yea you are correct. It's about smog, not fuel. That's what I meant, but not what I said. My bad. Thanks for catching it.

While theoretically Doran's argument makes sense, it's impossible to enforce. There are plenty of jackasses on the freeway that CHP can (and should) ticket in order to gain revenue without having to create new rules about the carpool lane. 

Personally, I'm beyond thrilled that this has expired. If I'm in the carpool lane going 55 mph and stuck behind 10 cars, then nine times out of ten the jackass at the front is in a prius. F them.

I think gas guzzlers should have a higher carpool number, or not even be allowed in there period, a Hummer with a driver and passenger is a waste, and completely against the whole carpool idea, it fits many more people!

It should be Engine cylinders divided by two. Inline 4s can carpool with 2, V6 needs three, V8 needs 4, etc.

that actually makes a lot of sense.  enforcement would require a little assistance, though.  you'd need to sticker all cars by cylinder # so police could easily tell which category the vehicle belonged to.

I agree about true zero emission (non-hybrid) vehicles. I also think "car pool" should mean two or more licensed drivers in the vehicle. A mom isn't saving any gas by having her rug rats in the car.

They do (Zero-Emissions Vehicles), they have the white stickers, which are still in effect...

Kids are still people. 

Should we enforce the rule for non-licensed adults? the handicapped?

It seems to me like a carpool lane is better utilized by car full of kids than one smug asshole in an electric car.

The purpose of the car pool lane is to encourage the saving of fuel reduction of smog*. Hauling kids around doesn't do this. Actually, leaving them home would save fuel. Same for non-licensed adults. Handicapped folks can drive, so if they're licensed, yup, they're car-pool-ok.

As for smug, why do parents think they deserve the car pool lane when they aren't saving any more fuel than other drivers? Just because they have kids? I hope the argument isn't that giving parents-with-kids an ability to get to their destination faster is better for society as a whole.

Finally, while it doesn't preclude it, having an electric vehicle doesn't automatically make one a smug asshole, so I'm not sure if you are talking about these drivers generally, or someone specifically.

*Thanks to LAMapNerd for catching this.

When I was little my Dad used to make me go with him when he had to go drop off client paperwork in Costa Mesa (we were in Riverside)... so he could use the carpool lane.  

Whether it was right or wrong, I know I'll be doing the same thing when the time comes if it saves me 2 hours of sitting in traffic. If you've ever experienced the 91 freeway during rush hour you'll understand. (It's a parking lot from 3pm - 7pm)

I think zero emission vehicles should still get the sticker...

just sayin