Death Rays, Tasers and Cell Phones

I am always looking for a good laugh. Hilariousness. Robert Kirby is one of those people who invoke fits of gut busting laughs from me. I have a weird sense of humor. Sometimes he is irreverent, which is needed, and sometimes he hits the nail on the head. For instance, the following was posted sometime in the last month:


Kirby: Cell phone is not the problem, it's the idiot holding it

By Robert Kirby

Tribune Columnist
Posted: 01/27/2009 06:00:00 PM MST

I wish there was a death ray in my truck. I'd use it on people who drive while talking on their cell phones. I'm just not patient enough to wait for them to get brain cancer.

Some goof in front of me would be blathering away to his girlfriend or stock broker while using two lanes to drive and -- ZAP! -- a smoking hole would suddenly appear where his head used to be.

I know what you're thinking -- with advanced death ray technology, couldn't I just shoot the cell phone out of the offender's hand?

You're a child. The phone isn't the problem. It's the guy's head. If he can't figure out that he shouldn't be driving while talking, he doesn't deserve to have one. If he still had a head, he'd just buy another phone.

I realize this isn't entirely safe. Not only would the driverless vehicle suddenly wander out of control (which it was doing anyway), but lining up the shot would also briefly distract me from my own driving.

I don't have a death ray yet, but if I did, it would be exempt under House Bill 95, sponsored by Rep. Phil Riesen, D-Hollady. Although it does send a message, a death ray is not a form of wireless communication.

I haven't read Phil's bill in its entirety (nor do I plan to) but I've heard it's very comprehensive, outlawing all forms of wireless communication while driving including mental telepathy, wishful thinking and even promptings from the Holy Ghost.

Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman doesn't care for HB95, saying it's too restrictive. Theoretically it would target people who drive just fine while trying to refinance their mortgages by phone.

According to Carl, "Instead of banning bad behavior, we're banning what could possibly lead to bad behavior."

I like this logic and plan on using it the next time the UHP stops me for driving 400 mph.

Hey, speeding isn't bad behavior if I'm doing it successfully.

Trooper » "License and registration, sir."

Me » "Absolutely not. I haven't killed anyone yet. In fact, this stop is illegal and I'm leaving."

After the Taser probes are removed from my forehead and neck, I'll use my cell phone to arrange for bail.

The problem with making it illegal to use a cell phone while driving is the enforcement. How do you prove that someone was actually communicating? You can't tell just by looking at them. What if they just like holding a phone against their head even if no one is on the other end?

All hope is not lost. My Taser incident gives me an idea. What if all drivers were required to wear cell phone-activated shock collars in addition to seat belts? It's pretty hard to talk on a cell phone with your tongue stuck to the windshield.

It's not a death ray, but we'll all be much safer drivers until the technology comes along.

Back to me: I just started a job in Provo (oh the words I would use on myself here I HATE HATE HATE Provo (there is no words to explain this hatred, it's there and deep)) and my commute some days is horrible. With grandma in front of me and the dude next to me who won't turn off his blinker, which means I have no clue when or if I can expect him to move over, I want to SCREAM. And cell phones just make the commute worse. People who don't realize that their exit is in 400 feet (400 feet is a long way to walk but when traveling at 85 MPH, which is common in Utah as we all have to be in front of the guy in front of us, it can be quite a short amount of space) a screech to the right lane and cutting off seven people in the meantime makes for a lovely drive.

Mercy where is my death ray?