Mythbusters - mobile phone and car use

Euan said:

Mythbusters tonight is testing the `myth' that talking on the mobile
'phone while driving is as bad as drink driving.

24 Oct 2005 SBS 19:30

I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science. Wonder how they are
going to find an average driver tho.

Yeah but you still see idiots break this law, mainly beema drivers, who
think their [censored] don't stink.
If I had a dollar for every idiot I see breaking this law, I would be very
rich, I could give up work.
"dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Euan said:

Mythbusters tonight is testing the `myth' that talking on the mobile
'phone while driving is as bad as drink driving.

24 Oct 2005 SBS 19:30

I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science. Wonder how they are
going to find an average driver tho.

Orlando said:

Yeah but you still see idiots break this law, mainly beema drivers, who
think their [censored] don't stink.
If I had a dollar for every idiot I see breaking this law, I would be very
rich, I could give up work.
"dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Euan said:

Mythbusters tonight is testing the `myth' that talking on the mobile
'phone while driving is as bad as drink driving.

24 Oct 2005 SBS 19:30

I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science. Wonder how they are
going to find an average driver tho.

I think I mentioned on this forum. I was stopped at the auburn and
Burwood lights in Hawthorn. A woman in a gold 350 SLC mercedes turned
right across the nose of a roady going straight thru the intersection ..
He swerved and yelled.. She stopped over the ped crossing on the road
she was turning into.. and he rode pointedly around the front.. telling
her to get of the phone. SHe had a phone in one hand and the other hand
on the wheel.. STILL and hadnt stopped talking.

Yeah in some cases it should be a death penalty offence.

Dave

Euan said:

Mythbusters tonight is testing the `myth' that talking on the mobile
'phone while driving is as bad as drink driving.

24 Oct 2005 SBS 19:30
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Not sure why they are bothering as there have been a number of studies in different countries that have indicated that both using a hand held and hands free was dangerously distracting.

Anecdotal evidence I know but dinner conversation came around to this subject the other and a number of people admitted to missing a turn off or similar occurence while using a hands free.

God help us soft targets.

CC

cogcontrol said:

Not sure why they are bothering as there have been a number of studies in different countries that have indicated that both using a hand held and hands free was dangerously distracting.

as a public service? The scientific studies have had no effect, but maybe Mythbusters can make a difference. Will the commercial 'science' show pickup this segment?

"dave" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science.

A good TV representation of science - maybe, good science - no.

Parbs

Parbs said:

"dave" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science.

A good TV representation of science - maybe, good science - no.

Parbs

A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
involved. What prey tell is yours?

On 2005-10-24, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Parbs said:

"dave" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science.

A good TV representation of science - maybe, good science - no.

A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
involved. What prey tell is yours?

Not having to perform an experiment over 5 separate episodes before
they finally got the result that basic physics implies they ought to
have gotten first time if they did their calculations half decently?

Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.

Or tonight's -- should crash test dummies be reused? Are their joints
the same strength each time they put it back together again?

A lot of their show seems to be focussed on blowing things up. Very
pretty, but not very scientific.

--
TimC
You cannot kill Tim without fracturing eternity. -- sjc on AFDA

TimC said:

Or tonight's -- should crash test dummies be reused? Are their joints
the same strength each time they put it back together again?

A lot of their show seems to be focussed on blowing things up. Very
pretty, but not very scientific.

--
TimC
You cannot kill Tim without fracturing eternity. -- sjc on AFDA

Buster's leg did seem to keep coming off in the same spot didn't it!

What's wrong with blownin' stuff up!!!! 😄

TimC said:

On 2005-10-24, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Parbs said:

"dave" wrote in message ...

>I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science.

A good TV representation of science - maybe, good science - no.

A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
involved. What prey tell is yours?

Not having to perform an experiment over 5 separate episodes before
they finally got the result that basic physics implies they ought to
have gotten first time if they did their calculations half decently?

Na... experiments evolve, thats fair enough. And unlike many a ´real´
scientist they seem to be able to tell that it needs work

Quoted message said:

Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.

But were they not trying to disprove the oscillation hypothesis? And so
trying to say if it ever happened it was going to happen with this
bridge.. seems fair.

Quoted message said:

Or tonight's -- should crash test dummies be reused? Are their joints
the same strength each time they put it back together again?

Well they got the bones into a possible range for human bones. That
seemed reasonable. bones vary in strength at least as much as bianchi
frames. And why not reuse crash test dummmys? They figured a cheap
way to measure brain injury and deacelleration G´s and the method
stands up. In a lovely russian solution to building a test track they
just turned the whole thing through 90 degrees and let gravity do the
job for them Where is the issue? If you want to argue with the
methodology.. trot out your arguament.

Quoted message said:

A lot of their show seems to be focussed on blowing things up. Very
pretty, but not very scientific.

Ohhhh but. Tim you are allowed to have fun 🙂

Quoted message said:

dave said:

Parbs said:

"dave" wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science.

A good TV representation of science - maybe, good science - no.

Parbs

A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
involved. What prey tell is yours?

It's not good science, it's good showbusiness. Their experiments
are neither thorough or rigourous. Enjoy the show, for that's
what it is. Don't mix it up with science, that's like calling
ACA or TT journalism.

dave said:

TimC said:

Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.

But were they not trying to disprove the oscillation hypothesis? And so
trying to say if it ever happened it was going to happen with this
bridge.. seems fair.

Disprove it? It's a bit hard to disprove the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ...

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

dave said:

A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
involved. What prey tell is yours?

Well, for a start, something which doesn't use ridiculously small sample
sizes (it's happened/not happened once or twice when we tried it, so we've
proved/disproved the myth). Actually testing the correct items (e.g.
testing bird strikes using aircraft windows that weren't rated to protect
from bird strikes). Or just generally getting it right the first time (they
seem to go back to repeat previous experiments using "corrected" procedures
fairly regularly).

That said, it's still a great programme (one of my favourites), but it is
only meant to be entertaining. If you want good science, then I can only
think of one or two things I've seen on Australian TV in the last couple of
years that match that description even vaguely. I'd gladly be corrected on
that though as I don't spend much time glued to the TV.

Graeme

Bleve said:

dave said:

Parbs said:

"dave" wrote in message ...

>I,ll make sure I catch that. THey do good science.

A good TV representation of science - maybe, good science - no.

Parbs

A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
involved. What prey tell is yours?

It's not good science, it's good showbusiness. Their experiments
are neither thorough or rigourous. Enjoy the show, for that's
what it is. Don't mix it up with science, that's like calling
ACA or TT journalism.

Ummm if it tests something in a repeatable way and supports or disproves
a hypothesis its science.

To think of science as anything more is ivory tower building

Stuart Lamble said:

dave said:

TimC said:

Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.

But were they not trying to disprove the oscillation hypothesis? And so
trying to say if it ever happened it was going to happen with this
bridge.. seems fair.

Disprove it? It's a bit hard to disprove the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ...

Thats not actually an episode I saw.. perfectly willing to say that
eposide was a dud.. since I didnt see it. But the Jaws one was genius.
And yeah we could have made a guess as to most of the results but it
was pretty convincing none the less.

And "DO scuba bottles go bang when shot? Lets shoot one and see" is
not only a perfectly valid experiment but the result was not at all what
I expected. Obvious in hindsight but isnt everything?

Graeme Dods said:

dave said:

A experiment that is well designed to test a hypothesis and does so.
Hmmmmm thats my definition of good science whether or not cameras are
involved. What prey tell is yours?

Well, for a start, something which doesn't use ridiculously small sample
sizes (it's happened/not happened once or twice when we tried it, so we've
proved/disproved the myth)

But doesnt it. If you can disprove a myth once in a very rare case
its disproved

.. Actually testing the correct items (e.g.

Quoted message said:

testing bird strikes using aircraft windows that weren't rated to protect
from bird strikes).

Hmmmm what actually is rated for bird strikes? Didnt see it anyway

Or just generally getting it right the first time (they

Quoted message said:

seem to go back to repeat previous experiments using "corrected" procedures
fairly regularly).

Sheesh. Science screws it up all the time. And even Henry Ford didnt
get everything tight the first time. However I can think of lots of
instances where real scienists wouldnt accept that the experiment could
be improved

Quoted message said:

That said, it's still a great programme (one of my favourites), but it is
only meant to be entertaining. If you want good science, then I can only
think of one or two things I've seen on Australian TV in the last couple of
years that match that description even vaguely. I'd gladly be corrected on
that though as I don't spend much time glued to the TV.

Graeme

Well we shall have to disagree.

dave said:

. Actually testing the correct items (e.g.

Quoted message said:

testing bird strikes using aircraft windows that weren't rated to protect
from bird strikes).

Hmmmm what actually is rated for bird strikes? Didnt see it anyway

In this case they used the windscreen from a light aircraft (Cessna
something or other I think) which wasn't bird strike rated and fired
frozen/thawed chickens at it from a compressed air gun. Other aircraft (I
assume most larger passenger aircraft) and some high speed trains do have
bird strike rated windscreens.

Quoted message said:

Or just generally getting it right the first time (they

Quoted message said:

seem to go back to repeat previous experiments using "corrected" procedures
fairly regularly).

Sheesh. Science screws it up all the time.

It sounds like you're agreeing with me there, i.e. "screwed up" = "not good
science"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That said, it's still a great programme (one of my favourites), but it is
only meant to be entertaining. If you want good science, then I can only
think of one or two things I've seen on Australian TV in the last couple of
years that match that description even vaguely. I'd gladly be corrected on
that though as I don't spend much time glued to the TV.

Well we shall have to disagree.

On which bit, Mythbusters is entertaining, or their being little "good
science" on TV? The first is clearly just a personal preference and the
second, as I've said, I'd gladly be corrected on as I get little chance to
watch TV so may miss out on many good programmes.

"dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Stuart Lamble said:

dave said:

TimC wrote:

>Or weakening a bridge so substantially, that the result they tried to
>show of an oscillation in a bridge was so unconvincing that it was not
>possible to say it was oscillations that killed it.

But were they not trying to disprove the oscillation hypothesis? And so
trying to say if it ever happened it was going to happen with this
bridge.. seems fair.

Disprove it? It's a bit hard to disprove the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ...

Thats not actually an episode I saw.. perfectly willing to say that
eposide was a dud.. since I didnt see it. But the Jaws one was genius.
And yeah we could have made a guess as to most of the results but it was
pretty convincing none the less.

And "DO scuba bottles go bang when shot? Lets shoot one and see" is not
only a perfectly valid experiment but the result was not at all what I
expected. Obvious in hindsight but isnt everything?

So what DO scuba bottles do when shot? I would have expected a loud, short
lived hissing noise. Possibly a bit of a bang if it split.

dave said:

And "DO scuba bottles go bang when shot? Lets shoot one and see" is
not only a perfectly valid experiment but the result was not at all what
I expected. Obvious in hindsight but isnt everything?

I didn't see that one, but I wouldn't have thought they did. Maybe go
pffffftt with big jet(s) of condensation, but not bang. What was the
result?

As one of the presenters (the one without the dodgy 'tache) says on his web
site "It's Jackass meets Mr. Science"

Graeme