The simple HOV lane math of two or more 

click to enlarge

In the last edition of City Weekly, I asked the question: "Guns are people too; Are mass shootings covered by the Constitution?" My reasoning was that the "report" of a firearm is obviously some type of communication, and qualifies it as a "person," fully entitled to all the protections of free speech. Of course, that sounds ridiculous, and it is. But, so are many decisions of SCOTUS, and the various proposed bills of both our national and state Legislature.

Wandering off into a dangerous territory of stupidity, Utah's legislators, who seem totally dedicated to wasting the time and money of our citizens, are proceeding in a logical-but-idiotic direction: Pursuant to the move to make pregnant women not one but "two people," these nitwits seem dedicated to allow use of the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane to waste our time and dollars. The next natural move is to consider the argument that it's high-time for our Legislature to consider that the new HOV lane exemptions should also include any solo driver who's packing a gun.

After all, if "guns are people too" is going to be the next important SCOTUS ruling, that means that anyone carrying one in their car should qualify for the HOV lane on busy freeways. My guess is that everyone will go buy a gun in order to zip down the largely faster and unimpeded HOV lane. Gun Manufacturers will be jubilant, and all the perennially-speeding, overgrown teenage speeders will have their heyday, averaging the 85+ mph that's become so common in that protected lane.

And, if the radical Christian Right should have its way, then any man-of-the-cloth should also have legal status for using the HOV lane. After all, every bishop, priest and pastor travels with the understanding that "God is my copilot"—who knows, maybe even the rest of the Trinity. Clearly, there is more than one person, or personage, in their cars, even if the highway patrol can't see them. Safety concerns can never outweigh the freedom of religion (tongue-in-cheek).

So, could such abuse of the HOV lane be fair? Sure. If we are to follow the flawed logic of SCOTUS, and the peculiarities of our legislators, it would make perfect sense.

For that matter, if there's a box in a car, with all the official documents of a corporation, that vehicle should also qualify for the HOV lane. After all, that's all a corporation is—just a bunch of incorporating documents and bylaws, properly signed and notarized. Logic: Corporations are people, so that means that particular car has at least one additional occupant to the driver.

Gosh! That HOV lane is going to become the busiest lane on the road, with thousands of drivers ducking the toll that allows single occupant vehicles that special right.

Stupid? Well, it makes about as much sense as the introduction of Utah HB256 , a way of memorializing, on a local basis, the definition that a fetus, in terms of the HOV lane, is just another human being. That bill has already passed the House and is awaiting a Senate vote.

Really, just how stupid can our legislators get?

While the potential law may provide a provincial understanding and belief that a pregnant woman is not one, but two people, it's a colossal waste of the already over-stretched failure of law enforcement to police the HOV lane. If you haven't noticed, the Utah Highway Patrol is failing miserably to prevent people from using the HOV lane in order to travel at excessive speeds.

One short trip down the freeway is convincing evidence that our traffic enforcement resources are already grossly inadequate to police the HOV lane. It's not a speeding lane; it's not a passing lane; it's not a lane for solo drivers; but you could never tell. Before you know it, they'll be making exceptions for people who suffer from multiple personality disorders.

Sadly, inspired by the clamor over pronouns, law enforcement will have no way to discriminate between the HOV lane's legitimate and illegitimate users. I'm no genius, but the answer seems clear to me. If the presence of a pregnant woman, a clergyman or a gun changes the pronoun of a solo driver to "them," it's going to take more law enforcement and more money to enforce such proposed laws. The answer is so simple, so why can't our legislators see it.

So, here's my proposed rule: If it uses a seatbelt, it qualifies as an additional passenger. A gun doesn't; a fetus doesn't; and members of the Godhead don't either. Let's not get sidetracked and fleeced—and robbed—by legislators creating bills just to suit their own personal agendas.

The author is a retired novelist, columnist, and former Vietnam-era Army assistant public information officer. He resides in Riverton with his wife, Carol, and the beloved ashes of their mongrel dog.