Anyone else catch the Mythbusters cell phone driving episode?

Don't want to spoil the rerun for anybody. (so stop reading now, if you
want)

But the short version is, the Mythbusters concluded that talking on a cell
phone while driving is just as dangerous as driving DRUNK. Never mind that
the drivers tested were never legally drunk during testing. (closest was
..075)

What I'm wondering is, for this test on a privately owned, closed test
track, why were the drivers (Adam and Kari?) not allowed to be drunk during
the test? Even if California law is so restrictive that you can't be IN a
car while drunk on private property, do the local LEOs not have any
discretion at all? This was a controlled test on private property!

There were a few local police on hand for the test. They seemed to be there
for the purpose of administering the breathalyzer to determine level of
intoxication of the drivers. But the drivers were careful to deliberately
stay BELOW .08, or the test would be cancelled. I am not a cop. But in a
similar circumstance . . .

I (as a cop) would have told the drivers that they were only allowed to
drive ON private property, during the controlled driving test. And I would
have offered them a very stern warning that any attempt to drive OFF of
private property would lead to immediate arrest for DUI. I would also not
allow the test to proceed unless the (drunk drivers) had pre-arranged for
alternate transportation AFTER the test. That is, sober licensed driver(s)
would have to be on-hand to drive the (drunk driving test) drivers back to
the "office" or "home" after the test. Oh, and there would need to be more
sober licensed drivers on hand than vehicles to be driven off the property,
obviously. I might have even gone as far as to run license checks on the
designated drivers, to make sure that all the licenses were current. (not
suspended or anything)

But why go so far as to cancel the drunk driving test if the drivers (on
private property, remember) were drunk? Isn't that defeating the purpose of
the test? After all, the only "danger" from driving drunk under those
circumstances is that some traffic cones might be flattened. So shouldn't
it have been up to the owners of the test track to make the decision whether
the test would proceed or not? (that is, whether they gave a damn that a
few traffic cones might be flattened) -Dave

> But why go so far as to cancel the drunk driving test if the drivers
> (on private property, remember) were drunk?

Liability.

"JohnH" > wrote in message
...
>> But why go so far as to cancel the drunk driving test if the drivers
>> (on private property, remember) were drunk?
>
> Liability.

That's a civil matter. So why was it not left up to the owners of the
private test track to determine if the test would proceed or not? The
decision was clearly a legal one, as it was based on the .08 BAC level. I
don't think "liability" was a factor, at all. But if it was, we are back to
why would the owners of the test track object, when the ONLY danger was that
a few traffic cones might be flattened. After all, I would assume that the
Mythbusters would be happy to reimburse the owner(s) of the track for a few
new traffic cones, if necessary. -Dave

Ted B. wrote:
> "JohnH" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> But why go so far as to cancel the drunk driving test if the drivers
> >> (on private property, remember) were drunk?
> >
> > Liability.
>
> That's a civil matter. So why was it not left up to the owners of the
> private test track to determine if the test would proceed or not? The
> decision was clearly a legal one, as it was based on the .08 BAC level. I
> don't think "liability" was a factor, at all. But if it was, we are back to
> why would the owners of the test track object, when the ONLY danger was that
> a few traffic cones might be flattened. After all, I would assume that the
> Mythbusters would be happy to reimburse the owner(s) of the track for a few
> new traffic cones, if necessary. -Dave

My guess would be those insuring the course might not be so nice about
it. The owners of the track probably didn't want to lose their
insurance, so if they have CHP onhand to monitor the test, the track
probably was totally in the clear.

Dave

"Ted B." wrote:

> Don't want to spoil the rerun for anybody. (so stop reading now, if you
> want)
>
> But the short version is, the Mythbusters concluded that talking on a cell
> phone while driving is just as dangerous as driving DRUNK.

No surprise really.

Anything that distracts attention from driving is a potential hazard.

It would be far more dangerous to talk on the phone whilst negotiating a busy
city street than on an open freeway though I'm sure ( even though the speed
would surely be slower ).

Graham

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Ted B. wrote:

> the Mythbusters concluded that talking on a cell
> phone while driving is just as dangerous as driving DRUNK.

Big deal. Real researchers determined that a long time ago.

> But why go so far as to cancel the drunk driving test if the drivers (on
> private property, remember) were drunk?

Liability trumps all.

> My guess would be those insuring the course might not be so nice about
> it. The owners of the track probably didn't want to lose their
> insurance, so if they have CHP onhand to monitor the test, the track
> probably was totally in the clear.
>
> Dave
>

OK, I can accept that explanation. But it still wouldn't explain why the
test was limited to BELOW .08. Overall, I have to say I'm really
disappointed with the way the Mythbusters ran that particular test. If they
couldn't do it at all in the U.S., why didn't they fly somewhere else to do
the test? It's not like they didn't have the money to do it. Despite being
based near the Pacific Ocean, they flew all the way to the Bahamas to study
sharks. (!) So there was obviously no monetary reason to keep the drunk
driving test in California. I'm sure they could have found somewhere to
conduct the driving test at (for example) .1, if there was no way to do it
at all in California. So what was the point of keeping it below .08 and
calling it driving while intoxicated? They weren't legally intoxicated, so
the test really meant nothing. At best, you could conclude that cell phone
usage impairs your driving as much as two beers does. But you could NOT
conclude that cell phone use impairs your driving as much as driving drunk
does. The drivers weren't drunk. By California law, they could legally
drive home after the test. -Dave

Ted B. wrote:
> Don't want to spoil the rerun for anybody. (so stop reading now, if you
> want)
>
> But the short version is, the Mythbusters concluded that talking on a cell
> phone while driving is just as dangerous as driving DRUNK. Never mind that
> the drivers tested were never legally drunk during testing. (closest was
> .075)
>

I never cease to be amazed at the number if times an expensive test is
required to prove what should be obvious. If you are carrying on a
phone conversation you will be focused on the person you are talking
with and not the road ahead.

For my information what is Mythbusters anyway.

"John S." > wrote in
oups.com:

>
>
> Ted B. wrote:
>> Don't want to spoil the rerun for anybody. (so stop reading now, if
>> you want)
>>
>> But the short version is, the Mythbusters concluded that talking on a
>> cell phone while driving is just as dangerous as driving DRUNK.
>> Never mind that the drivers tested were never legally drunk during
>> testing. (closest was .075)
>>
>
> I never cease to be amazed at the number if times an expensive test is
> required to prove what should be obvious. If you are carrying on a
> phone conversation you will be focused on the person you are talking
> with and not the road ahead.
>
> For my information what is Mythbusters anyway.
>
>

TV show

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/my...out/about.html

>
> I never cease to be amazed at the number if times an expensive test is
> required to prove what should be obvious. If you are carrying on a
> phone conversation you will be focused on the person you are talking
> with and not the road ahead.
>
> For my information what is Mythbusters anyway.
>

One of the best shows on Television, IMHO.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/my...thbusters.html

The premise of the show is that they put urban legends and "myths" to the
test. There are no actors. It's more like a reality show than anything
else. For each hour-long episode, they choose a few "myths" to test. The
last episode I watched (I think it was a re-run), they were testing a myth
that one of them heard on the airplane. Basically, the myth was that when
you are in an airplane that is making an emergency landing (controlled or
otherwise), the "brace" position is designed to break your neck so that the
airlines won't have to pay for years of medical care. (it's cheaper to pay
a wrongful death settlement than pay for years of medical care) To test it,
they built a kind of airplane passenger compartment and DROPPED IT
repeatedly from a crane to simulate airline crashes. Then they had dummies
positioned in various seats/crash postures rigged up with sensors to see how
much damage (injuries) they sustained in various positions. The conclusion
was that the "brace" position that the air crews suggest is actually
somewhat effective at preventing death if you are on an airliner that
crashes. So as they say on the show, the "myth" was "busted".

Many of their episodes are hilariously funny, and all of them are
entertaining. Some of the myths they test are outrageous. Like one of them
was a legend where a worker was supposedly thrown (catapulted) by a
hydraulic lift. The myth was "busted" in the sense that they learned there
was no way a hydraulic lift could act as a catapult under anything close to
normal operating circumstances. But then, they set about finding what it
would take to MAKE THAT HAPPEN, under ANY circumstance. They had a whole
boom lift positioned on a pivot point setting on a couple stacks of shipping
containers, so that it acted somewhat like a catapult, throwing a dummy
"Buster" into the ground. Great fun!

The best part of the show is not what they prove or disprove, but how they
go about doing it. I mean, who else would think to make a catapult out of a
boom lift and put it on television? Or who else would attach a bunch of
rockets to a throne and try to send a "king" into space that way? Or shoot
chickens out of a cannon through an airplane windshield to see if there was
a difference between "frozen" and "thawed"? Or attach a jet engine to the
top of a classic car to make it "fly"? Or build a flying machine out of
vacuum cleaners? The stuff they come up with is crazy, as it's all based on
urban legends. But they recreate it all, no matter what it takes to do it.


However, I think they dropped the ball while they were trying to test
whether a cell phone conversation while driving was as dangerous as driving
drunk. Their conclusion is that it was "confirmed". That is, they
concluded that talking on a cell phone is indeed just as dangerous as
driving drunk. It MIGHT have been a good test, if they were actually
drunk. -Dave