HOV Enforcement

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   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

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
mycroftt Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 11 Feb 2002 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote mycroftt Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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

Cas Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 01 May 2002 Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote Cas Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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!

viper Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 21 Jun 2002 Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote viper Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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?

Eric Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 01 Mar 2002 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote Eric Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 21 Jun 2002 at 3:02pm
	quote: 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. 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: 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. 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: 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. 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.

rale Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 06 May 2002 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote rale Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 24 Jun 2002 at 8:06am
	quote: 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 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.

Eric Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 01 Mar 2002 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote Eric Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 24 Jun 2002 at 2:03pm
	quote: Believe me, Eric. The time those law enforcement personnel spend in traffic would not be used for work. They have shifts and start times like everyone else. If their commute time was shortened, their time would not be spent on work and like everyone else they have to factor in travel time. Give me a break. 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.

Eric Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 01 Mar 2002 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote Eric Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 24 Jun 2002 at 2:35pm
	quote: 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. 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.

mycroftt Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 11 Feb 2002 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote mycroftt Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 25 Jun 2002 at 7:54am
	quote: 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. 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

Ran Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 27 Jun 2002 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote Ran Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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...

Carla Members Profile Find Members Posts New Slug Joined: 11 Jun 2002 Location: VA Status: Offline Points: 0	Post Options Post Reply Quote Carla Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply 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