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
