>

It's a thinly veiled attempt to increase laws stipulating that a fetus is an individual. They don't care about the particular law in this case, only that it can be used deceptively in future legislation. (Edit: Oops. Already mentioned just below. Glad it's so transparent.)
Have to give that fetus a seatbelt violation though. >

The fetus to prison pipeline >

A nurse whose job it is to stand by during delivery and immediately slap on tiny handcuffs >

STOP RESISTING! >

Teeny nightsticks are produced >

So, how does this work? Single woman driving in the HOV lane.  Pulled over by cop.  Roadside pregnancy test? >

Given the police desire to search things, I suspect: transvaginal-ultrasound, >

Spread your cheeks we need to check. >

Dave Chappelle?  Why didn’t you just say so? >

This system would require pregnant women to notify the state so they can get special permission to drive. Not only does it advance fetal personhood laws but also creates a database of women who open themselves up to legal liability. >

Next step:  Pregnant women shouldn't drive.
Later:  Women shouldn't drive, as they may not know right away if they are pregnant.
Later:  Women shouldn't be allowed independent movement in public without a male guardian.
Much later:  Handmaid's Tale. >

I see Virginia is trying to model Saudi Arabia >

Well fuck. Virginia's trying to be worse than Saudi Arabia >

Putting the idea of fetus rights and abortion politics aside for a moment, this bill misses the point of the purpose of HOV lanes, which is to encourage carpooling to reduce the number of vehicles on the highway.
A mother and a fetus (again, ignoring for a moment the question of personhood of the fetus) has no choice but to be in a car together, so this provision would do nothing to encourage or advance the cause of carpooling.
If the provisions of the bill serve no relation to the purpose of HOV lanes, then it shouldn't be part of the HOV lane laws. >

I've never understood this. If i was wealthy enough to have a driver, I'd always be carpooling. It really fucks the average workingman in the ass to have a lane dedicated to 'carpooling' 
What does carpooling even really do?  Reduce traffic congestion?  To what end?  Why not just improve infrastructure so mostly-empty cars wouldn't take up the roads? >


What does carpooling even really do?

Reduce commute time, reduce congestion, reduce air pollution, reduce fuel consumption, potentially reduce stress of occupants.
It's not really that hard to think of the benefits it provides. >

Boy, it's almost like we invented something that does all these things before we invented cars. Can't remember what those things are called to save my life. . . . >

Travelling in a car with someone you know at the start/end of the day is gonna be way more pleasant than a bike/bus/whatever you were suggesting with that ambiguous nothingburger comment.
You're just being deliberately obtuse and contrarian, with no counter argument besides "rebuild everything" or "use outdated/inconvenient/uncomfortable alternatives" because the idea that having a comparatively cheap to implement and easily sold to the masses method of reducing all the things I've mentioned offends you for some reason. >

The carpool lane is a feel-good band-aid that does very little to tackle the problems you suggest it helps to solve. >

I dunno about that, gonna have to show some data to back up that claim.
In any case, it might be less effective than your more drastic and expensive "solutions" like restructuring an entire city (or convincing an entire city to ditch their comfortable cars and put up with shitty public transit), but that doesn't mean it's not worth implementing to aid in achieving the same end goals. >

I think the burden is on the folks promoting carpool lanes. 
It's like suggesting there would be less traffic if we expand lanes. Yeah, the assumption seems right, but in reality more people are more likely to use their private cars because they assume there will be less traffic. >


I think the burden is on the folks promoting carpool lanes.

Their fairly widespread existence and the fact that people consistently use them to the point that it's being leveraged by pro-life whackos to further their agenda, as seen by this post we are having a discussion in, seems like pretty good proof of my point.
Now prove me as wrong as you claim I am with something more concrete than just "I think they're stupid".