Comments on: Episode 33: Killer Brace Position

By: MSpears

MSpears — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:05:10 +0000

So basically they shouldn’t have tested it at all is what you are saying. Because the test would not have been allowed at all if they actually WERE above the legal limit.

By: Caitlin

Caitlin — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:52:12 +0000

Legally Kari and Adam can’t drive (even in a parking lot test course) if their BAC is above .08, in the test they drank until their BAC was as close to .08 as possible without going over.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:58:37 +0000

Actually,yes.I have seen a similar experiment with a hands free device and it seems that the brain cant do both tasks:driving and paying attention during the phone conversation.The experiment was made in the science show Brainiac:Science abuse from Brittain

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:58:27 +0000

like Marie i would also like to see a Hand Held vs Hands Free test.

that said ive noiced that every time ive seen someone driving (very) badly they always seem to be holding a cell phone to thier head. at least Drunks are trying to concentrate on thier driving.

i think we need to put aside the mandatory seat belt laws and be more concerned on baning talking on cell phones while driving (without a hands free system anyways) after all theres no ‘second hand’ effect for seatbelts.

By: Marie

Marie — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:42:25 +0000

On cellphone use, Mythbusters confirmed what I already know. My husband was killed by someone who was texting while driving. Since there is no law against it in my state, the texter did not even get a traffic ticket. I too would like to see Mythbusters look at hands-free vs. hand-held use of phones. I’d wager both are just as distracting.

By: wiscfan

wiscfan — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:57:13 +0000

I would like to see them test the difference between talking on a cell phone with and without blutooth to see how much the results were due to physical matters

By: Dragonfyre

Dragonfyre — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:25:29 +0000

For going over the legal limit, it’s illegal to drive at any blood-alcohol level above .08…so the police would have stopped them from driving had it been any higher.
I’m not old enough to drink yet, but I have seen the effects of alcohol on people. Depending on the person, a blood-alcohol level of .04 could be considered wasted, acting the same as a person with a level above the legal limit. It just varies.
As for the cellphones, not many people do complicated problems while talking. A normal conversation would be fine, but it is now considered to be illegal in some areas to use a cellphone while driving. Hands free devices are a step above, and is similar to talking to a person in the passenger seat…much safer. I’ve actually found that having a conversation helps me focus while driving…then again, that could possibly be just me. I once got a call on my cellphone, and I pulled off the road to answer it…it was deep in my pocket, and I would have caused an accident trying to reach it.
Anyway, everything here depends on the person…if they had tested a large sample of the populous, some people would have passed, while drunk and while talking on a phone.

By: Glendower

Glendower — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:15:34 +0000

MVG: Legal limits are compromises, not scientific facts. Drivers don’t go suddenly from unimpaired to impaired when they cross a magical threshold of .08 or .1 or whatever. In fact, I don’t remember which limit they were shooting for. Truckers have even lower legal limits than non-commercially licensed vehicles. Is there something about the metabolism of a trucker that makes him or her more susceptible to the effects of alcohol? No, it’s just that people compromised to a different point.
Or we could just say that they were testing for teen drivers (who are the most dangerous class) whose legal limit is 0.

By: Glendower

Glendower — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:11:05 +0000

I have talked about this cell phone issue in my classes quite often when we get to sections on attention and cognitive load. Many people will claim that they don’t make mistakes or drive less well while on the phone (or while drinking, but that’s not what I’m talking about here). My response, colloquially, has been, “Of course you don’t think you make mistakes– if you could see that you were making them, you’d be paying attention and not making mistakes.”

By: MVG

MVG — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:38:19 +0000

“Both Kari and Adam were periodically breathalysed until they were as close as made no difference to the legal limit. Had they gone over it, the police would have stopped the experiment. Had they driven while over the limit, their poor performance would most likely have been worse not better.”

The entire point of the test is to see weather or not talking on a cell phone is AS BAD as driving drunk. Being UNDER the legal limit means you are NOT LEGALLY DRUNK. Therefor by definition of the term, the test is invalid and cannot be counted as confirmed. I understand they are not allowed to actually be drunk but the entire nature of the test revolves around being drunk. Even if you are .0000001 under the legal limit there is a reason its called the “legal limit” you are not drunk until over it.