Help Me Settle a Debate

A bit of background here... My wife just wrapped up law school and is intensely preparing for the bar. Part of her studying methods include me thinking of hypothetical situations that she would have to explain the law and outcome for. Well, last night, on the way home from Independence Day festivities, I came up with a situation that just stumped her... because it is simply ridiculous. Now, I'm asking for YOUR help to help us settle a rather lengthy and spirited debate!

Here's the scenario:

If you were driving solo in your car/truck and rammed into the back of another car that also had a single driver with such force that the vehicles fuse together, would you be allowed to use the carpool lane?

Would love to hear all the various (absurd and reasonable) pros and cons.

 

Aside from being dead? I seem to recall the Mythbusters addressing whether two cars could actually "fuse" in a crash, but assuming you don't simply mean bumpers being tangled, "fusing" would imply such force that I'd guess the cars would no longer be drivable, physically or legally, anyway.

 

Maybe she thinks your scenario is so absurd she's not even gonna entertain it

 

Not even gonna try to deny that one. It is beyond insane

 

Well, ask your wife this question... If conjoined twins are driving a car, can they use the carpool lane?

This is an actual situation that you can google. They were licensed to drive, but I don’t remember the carpool aspect.

I would think that fused cars would be similar.

 

Are both vehicles registered? Two vehicles, no car pool lane.

 

I hope your wife isn't too worried whether questions such as these will appear on the Bar Exam; they typically ask general questions that do not require that the test-taker memorize each and every state statute of the thousands that exist. But... I hear California's test is different.

To answer the question you posed, knowing the statute in question and any related subsequent court rulings would be key (and hopefully the relevant text would be provided if on the test).

Any law that creates and regulates car-pooling should also contain definitions for, or specifically define "what a vehicle is" for the purposes of the law, in addition to listing the requirements that need to be met for such a vehicle to use those lanes.

For example: If the statute defines an eligible vehicle as "A vehicle capable of carrying passengers, with no more than two axles", then a fused assembly of two vehicles would not meet the obvious standard. If the statute was simply worded as "A vehicle carrying more than one passenger is eligible to car pool" then you have a better argument that the fused vehicle is "A vehicle" and is carrying more than one passenger. Then she would look at any court cases that reference this law and that have any circumstances that resemble this case: Maybe a previous court ruled that "one solo passenger in a tow vehicle, and another solo passenger in a towed camper" do not meet the requirement of being "A vehicle" under this law because it contains two separate frames and each has a separate registration.

In that case, your wife could argue both sides (getting extra points for doing so) in an attempt to persuade the current "court" that either (a) this fused vehicle is one single vehicle under the law because if the vehicles fused so perfectly, including the frames, the result is one frame carrying two passengers and thus eligible for carpool. Or on the other hand, (b) each vehicle is still registered independently and thus the combined vehicle does not meet the second part of the courts test in determining what is defined as a vehicle.

And most importantly, (c) If the current court follows precedent, because the fused vehicle does not meet the two part test laid out by the previous court, which defines what vehicles are eligible to carpool, this fused vehicle will LIKELY not be found eligible to carpool and they drivers will owe the fines issued.

 

Not to mention you both are fleeing the scene of the accident.

 

What is the required number of people to be legally permitted to drive on the carpool/high occupancy lane?

What is the legal definition of a vehicle?

What, if any, case law applies?

 

No because having 2 vehicles fused together wouldn't meet federal/state vehicle safety standards. You couldn't legally license such a pile of iron and therefore would not be allowed on the road - let alone the carpool lane.

(Everyone's entitled to my opinion)

Edited to include "state" standards.

 

Which are what?

(Don't forget about state safety standards as well as what legally constitutes a vehicle in the state.)

 

If you both flee the scene of the accident and no one reports it, did an accident even happen?

 

Illegal vehicle modifications.

 

4 axle passenger vehicles aren't california legal?

 

Again, which means what?

What is federally mandated and what isn't?

At what point are the two vehicles fused together? Is the new vehicle now an ugly abortion of a limousine?

@Ossaris

If you could provide a picture, preferably via MS Paint for clarity, it would be of great benefit to this debate.

 

Sorry, you all need evidence to work with! Assume this as the situation

 

That is not the point here

 

Has she consluted a divorce attorney yet?

 

It's definitely going to have different front and rear plates.

 

Okay. I give up. You win. The imaginary vehicle was already crash tested per federal requirements. I'm sure it complied and has a 12 star rating. ;-)