

Corporation not person in carpool lanes - nighthawk
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Corporations-aren-t-people-in-carpool-lanes-4173366.php

======
NoPiece
I think the wiki article on corporate personhood should be read by everyone
who is bothered by the "corporations are misnomer" meme.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood>

\--

The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S.
Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should
not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5]
In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction
that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for
easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would
otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and
that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right
of association.

~~~
bluedanieru
Yes this is great, but it ignores the fact that a corporation is more than a
group of people. It enjoys considerable legal benefits in the form of
protection of its owners from various liabilities. In the US they also tend to
enjoy considerable tax and other legal benefits.

These are all benefits provided by the US government, and by extension every
American.

The beef is:

>people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act
collectively

A corporation is more than a group of people acting collectively. A
corporation is also a group of people who get together _and petition their
government for special treatment_. This is not a bad thing as it is basically
what allows any company of more than a handful of people to even exist. But,
if that special treatment comes with strings attached (i.e. restricting what
that group of people are allowed to do with their collective resources and in
the name of that corporation), I personally do not take issue with that.

I have no problem with a group of people freely getting together and wreaking
havoc on the American political system. In fact, I encourage it. But I don't
think everyone else must subsidize their activity.

~~~
forgingahead
> I have no problem with a group of people freely getting together and
> wreaking havoc on the American political system. In fact, I encourage it.
> But I don't think everyone else must subsidize their activity

So, what are your opinions on mandatory union dues, and on whether recipients
of government assistance should be allowed to vote?

~~~
bluedanieru
How are the union dues made mandatory? That's important. And, if there is
government involvement in that, is there also some regulation involving how
unions are expected to behave? Also important.

I don't have a problem with recipients of government assistance giving up
their right to vote _in principal_ , although America would cease to be a
democracy at that point. However I don't think the likely outcome
(disenfranchisement of the poor, eventual oppression without any means of
placation of said poor, probable rebellion) would be good for society, so I
don't think we should do it.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying "corporations receive special treatment and so
shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns". I'm saying
"corporations receive special treatment, and I have no problem with putting
stipulations on that". All I'm arguing against here is the meme that a
corporation is "just a group of people". It is not.

~~~
littlegiantcap
If you've ever worked in a union shop in a state that isn't right to work, you
have no say in the matter of union dues. If 50% + 1 vote to enact a union
you're required to pay the dues.This is of course different in right to work
states where you can have so called split shops.

------
btilly
Unsurprising verdict.

However the judge's reasoning is very weak.

I frequently drive in the carpool with one or more children who cannot drive
in the car. By the judge's reasoning, this should not be allowed because our
driving together does nothing to relieve congestion. Why not? Because I'm the
only person present who is legally allowed to drive, so we'd be in one car
regardless of the availability of the carpool lane.

If this was indeed the reasoning, I hope that this argument is made in the
appeal.

~~~
pinko
Actually, insofar as the goal is to reduce cars on the road, it seems entirely
sensible to me to exclude children -- or anyone without a drivers license --
from counting towards the passenger threshold.

I'd be all for having to produce N valid licenses in the car to avoid the
ticket, rather than N human bodies. (That also neatly sidesteps the issue of
corporate personhood.)

~~~
ghshephard
Should Taxi's be allowed to drive in the Carpool lane with a single passenger?
Here, we have a situation in which the _driver_ wouldn't normally be on the
road.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Relying on a taxi DOES reduce congestion: think about it, I could have chosen
to rent a car at the airport and drive for my entire trip, but instead, I took
a taxi to my hotel and walked/used transit a lot. Or...I could have bought a
car, use that a lot, but instead I decide I only need such a luxury
infrequently, and decide to rely on taxis occasionally.

Regardless, I live in a heavy taxi city and there is no such thing as a
carpool lane (nor would it be very useful since most cars would have at least
2 passengers).

------
otterley
The law has distinguished between Persons (which can include corporations) and
Natural Persons (which does not) since corporations were invented. The latter
is even a term of art in the law. Though I haven't researched it, it's
probably even mentioned specifically in the California Vehicle Code.

The judge was probably just too busy and irritated by this complete waste of
his time to even remember.

~~~
dman
Wonder where autonomous cars will fit in.

~~~
ghshephard
DIVISION 16.6. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES ...

38750\. (a) (4) An “operator” of an autonomous vehicle is the person who is
seated in the driver’s seat, or if there is no person in the driver’s seat,
causes the autonomous technology to engage.

...

38750 (c) (1) (G) The autonomous vehicle has a separate mechanism, in addition
to, and separate from, any other mechanism required by law, to capture and
store the autonomous technology sensor data for at least 30 seconds before a
collision occurs between the autonomous vehicle and another vehicle, object,
or _natural person_ while the vehicle is operating in autonomous mode.

~~~
jfoutz
So if I remotely summon an autonomous car to pick up a kid from school, the
carpool lane is legal while the car has only the kid?

~~~
ghshephard
Note that the above defines an _operator_ , and regardless, in your scenario,
you aren't in the vehicle.

------
monochromatic
A corporation is not a physical thing embodied in a stack of papers. This guy
is an uninformed crank.

------
borlak
How does the carpool lane relieve traffic congestion? If people could actually
use that lane instead of it being some kind of elitist lane (which is what it
feels like, I drive it in all the time (family)), traffic would be better.

The times traffic IS bad the damn carpool lane is just as backed up as the
other lanes. And then there's the whole problem of needing to get off the
lane, which you can't always do (you can only get off at specific spots), and
then you're swerving across 4+ lanes of traffic causing a classic 'shockwave'
problem.

~~~
gnud
It tries to relieve congestion by reducing the number of cars on the road, not
by improving road capacity.

------
DigitalSea
This whole case has been ridiculous from the start. It was pretty obvious from
the start that this case wasn't going to end in the defendants favour, I
honestly don't know why this guy has decided to waste the courts time with
this. A stack of papers is not a corporation, the corporation itself might own
the papers but paper does not encompass an entity. It's a carpool lane
violation, not murder why can't this guy just cop it on the chin and pay the
fine? It's going to cost him a lot of money in legal fees if he appeals this.

If this guy wants to waste money so easily, the least he could do is perhaps
consider donating some money to a charity. If he wants to throw his money
away, at least he'd be helping people.

~~~
jrockway
Huh? He did it intentionally to waste time and apparently has money to spare
on the fight. Either way, there is now legal precedent at odds with the
concept of corporate personhood. Presumably he wants this concept to go away
and is now one step closer.

~~~
DigitalSea
Such a shame when people don't put their time and effort towards things that
matter. Like you know, helping people and making a difference. I am doubtful
he'll achieve anything, but I guess that remains to be seen. He's so far
failed once, I guess he can keep appealing and hope something happens.

~~~
gyardley
You're misunderstanding both the issue and the motivations of the person.

This person is not trying to avoid a ticket for riding alone in the carpool
lane. He does _not_ want to avoid that ticket. If he avoids the ticket because
a judge accepts his logic and agrees that corporations are people, he has
failed.

This person is trying to demonstrate that corporations are not in fact people
by use of an absurdity, and probably intends to take the case as high in the
judicial system as he can. He wants to get the judiciary to rule that no,
corporations aren't people because he disagrees with the recent Citizens
United ruling, which found that corporations _were_ people, and therefore had
free speech rights and therefore could make practically unlimited
contributions to PACs.

It's not my personal politics, but some people believe trying to reduce the
influence of corporate money in politics would help a lot of people and make a
huge difference. This guy is not at all the time-wasting weasel you think he
is.

------
malkia
What about pregnant moms?

~~~
btilly
According to the California Highway Patrol, they cannot use the carpool:
<http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html>

Arizona precedent follows the exact same lines as that FAQ answer:
<http://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/01/woman_womans_fe.html>

I therefore expected the same reasoning to apply here. But the article doesn't
say that the judge followed that line of reasoning. Which surprised me.

~~~
malkia
From this I learned that a corporation, in US, is "capable of riding in his or
her own seat" :)

