Quote:
Originally Posted by GWC...
One might infer from the below post that Evenstar has not...
|
GWC, you know very well that I have read that study, since I have repeatedly posted my views on it - but just in case you don't remember, I'll repeat them:
The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. I know how to do surveys correctly and am currently involved in the final stages of a municipal survey at my university that will be used in a town’s comprehensive plan. Basically, according to research methodology standards, the Marine Patrol did nearly everything wrong, like informing the public that a study was being done.
To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:
Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period. 98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all.
So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling,
these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). BTW: that’s the correct why interpret a segment/population survey.
The raw data means nothing until you expolate it back into the total population/period/area.
And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?
Why wasn’t the Broads included in the study, if they were actually trying to record the fastest boats?
So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. If the study area was equal to 25% of the lake (which I doubt), than
that translates to 2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.
Isn’t it possible that some of those boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?
GWC:why are you still dredging up my posts from over 3 years ago, and taking them completely out of context?