Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
Does that colleague of yours have a PHD in Political Science or in Public Relations? Because those are the qualifications of the professors who taught me to do statistical analysis. Where do you think people learn this stuff - I'm attending one of the best private universities in New England - I really think my professors know about this than you or your colleague. Has your colleague ever taken a course in Research Methodology? Because I have,and this is the correct way to do statistical analysis. BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.
You guys try to use the speed study as proof that we don't need a speed limit, without plugging the raw data back into the environment - which actually needs to happen for it to have any meaning. Then you don't like the result - so you attack me, because you don't know how to attack my analysis.
So far you have criticized my statical analysis without backing up your criticism at all - again, show me what is wrong with my analysis, rather than just being critical because you don't like the results.
My best friend's father is a civil engineer who does traffic studies and uses the exact same kind of statistical analysis as I did. There is nothing wrong with my analysis. They way that I did is is correct - this is how you do statistical analysis.
No, it's not a lab - but when you do research studies on the public, it has to be treated just like a lab to be a viable study.
The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered. I used a very generous percentage - which is way larger than what the actual percentage likely was. Do you contend that the study area covered more than 25% of the lake? The other thing that I don't have is the margin of error - because that want never published in the study (yet all viable statistical studies include a margin of error, to show how accurate the results were). I didn't plug in the margin of error because it is unknown.
|
*SIGH* Here we go, Evanstar lashing out again with personal attacks, but we all have to sit here and take it, whatever.
For the record, my friend has a Ph.D in Mathematics. If I actually have to explain this out to you even though you make all these claims about your education I am beginning to have doubts about all your claims, but here goes.
You are taking a RECREATIONAL activity and trying to extrapolate data based on individual results. I will show you how and why you can not apply the same methodology used in traffic studies to a RECREATIONAL activity. In the interest of time I will try to hold it to just a few examples. Let me first start by simplifying your claim. You claim that over roughly a 10 week period if one boat was traveling 50+MPH then there were other boats at the same time traveling over 50MPH. You also state that we need to multiply that over a set of weeks, lets say 10 weeks. Therefore according to you there were roughly 50 boats elsewhere on the lake doing 50+MPH. That is a loose interpretation of your argument. Your numbers ended up claiming over 2,000 boats in roughly a 10 week period were exceeding 50MPH. Here are just a few reasons why you can not treat this like a typical traffic study.
#1
Unlike a highway people do not boat in the same pattern every day.
This is not I-93 during rush hour where you can make the assumption that the same people are traveling the same route every day. In highway analysis one can reasonably assume within a small margin that the traffic pattern would be similar on any given day within a set number of days, I.E. Monday through Friday. Therefore you could measure speeds in a set test area and then you could extrapolate that data to infer that the same numbers (Speed, Car Counts etc.) would apply to another zone taking into account variables such as road topography and such.
#2
Boating is a leisure activity
Applying finite math to a leisure activity to determine how many boats are in a set area traveling at a set speed is impossible. Boat A never left the dock because they decided to go swimming. Boat B left the dock but decided to slow cruise because they wanted to look at the McMansions. Boat C is setting up to waterski. Boat D is actually prepping for a high speed run across the broads but Boats E,F,G,H,I are waiting in line for a dock space. That is just day one. Day two, it is windy out and Boat A is cruising at 25MPH because Aunt Ann has a bad back and hates the waves. Boat B thinks it is too windy to boat today. Boat C is not about to waterski in this mess. Boat D is not at the lake because he is working. etc. etc. Day 3 is a rainy Monday and the only boats on the water are the Mount, Marine Patrol, the lone fisherman and a few hearty Islanders trying to get the kids off of the island.
Those are two examples for you to chew on as to why it is impossible to apply traffic study methodology to a LEISURE activity. You are also leaving out the human nature aspect of the equation. Commuting by car is an entirely different subject matter with an entirely different set of variables that are much more predictable. You are trying to apply logic to leisure and the best scientists in the world can't come up with a formula for that. Over a 10 week period people will boat thousands of different ways. To try and make a math equation that states One Boat traveling 50MPH in Meredith equates to 4 boats traveling 50MPH one in Alton one in Wolfeboro one in Center Harbor and one in the broads is ludicrous and down right laughable.
For the record I am not debating the validity of the study, I am debating your interpretation or should I say statistical analysis of the data. Which is completely and utterly rubbish.