Comments on: Episode 33: Killer Brace Position

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: If you can't talk and drive SELL YOUR CELL! - Page 3 - Droid Forum - Verizon Droid & the Motorola Droid Forum

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:06:09 +0000

[...] did the talking on the phone, and drinking and driving. Right you are. And it was confirmed… MythBusters Episode 33: Killer Brace Position Though I remember they didn't bother with hands-free (i.e. BlueTooth headsets) that would have [...]

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.

By: Ash

Ash — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 02:37:36 +0000

I am writing a speeh about why people shouldn’t drive and talk on their cell phone at the same time. Thanks, this experiment really helps me alot!! :)

By: John Pelegano

John Pelegano — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:05:05 +0000

I just recently saw this episode though it was apparently aired quite awhile ago. I agree with George and Son above. I would be interested in whether it is the conversation or the cell phone that creates the distraction. Would it be possible to repeat the test both with and without the cell phone? Without a cell phone would involve a passenger in the car asking the same sort of complex questions.

Personally I think it is the conversation. Think about this, it could be a real contribution to car safety and marital harmony. You could get a lot of husbands off the hook who are accused of not listening to their wives while their driving. They would be able to legitimately claim that they needed to focus on their driving. Of course proof of this type might result in legislation banning conversation in cars while they’re moving (similar to the ban on cell phones in my home state), though this too might contribute to marital harmony.

I’ve also wondered if it is the dialing of the cell phone that is problematic. When I’ve (rarely) tried to do this it seems to require a longer look away from the road, even to enter just one digit, than I would normally allow. Just a thought.

By: George Hudson 13

George Hudson 13 — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:19:22 +0000

This really Helped me with my Science Fair;0