Corporation not person in carpool lanes

I think the wiki article on corporate personhood should be read by everyone who is bothered by the "corporations are misnomer" meme.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood</a><p>--<p>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.

Unsurprising verdict.<p>However the judge's reasoning is very weak.<p>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.<p>If this was indeed the reasoning, I hope that this argument is made in the appeal.

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

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

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.<p>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.

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.<p>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.

What about pregnant moms?