[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...

So when you paddle on the ocean, or Lake George or Massachusetts or Maine or Vermont etc... What happens when a powerboat comes within 15' of you? Thats perfectly legal behavior in those places!

I've never paddled on Lake George, in MA or in ME, but no power boat has ever come within 15 feet of me that was going faster than headway speed. But we're talking about NH laws here.

But I need to ask, but did you READ and actually COMPREHEND the 2007 Speed Survey Report?

Yes I did and why is it that so many of you think that is ok to insult me? I don't have any problem comprehending things.

You have repeatedly dismissed this study as inaccurate. I don't quite get your argument. What was so inaccurate? You were obviously not present for the NHMP testimony at the House Transp. Committee meeting in Franklin!

I'm a full-time out of state college student - I would have been there if I could have, but that was not possible. I did testify at the House Transportation Committee Hearing in March of 2007 when the speed study was used to derail the bill last year.

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. 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. And it doesn’t include the margin of error."

If you actually read the report and looked at your chart Evenstar, you would see that a very large portion of the lake was indeed covered. The NHMP chose areas with large expanses of water, little or no obstruction and predictable traffic patterns! Let me simplify this for you... they chose places where they were most likely going to encounter boats travelling at a high rate of speed! Its not like they chose to conduct the study up in Green's basin or next to the Graveyard!

Then why were 29% of the total boats (1,121 out of 3852) recorded in AREA 1 (Light 60 to Weirs Channel)? This is not exactly a high-speed section of the lake.

and BTW... one of the sampling areas was The Broads! Light #76 to Light #20! Don't forget both sides of Light #28 too! If you read the report and knew Lake Winnipesaukee you would have known this!

Look, I haven't kayaked on Winni enough to memorize all the light numbers, and I don't take my map of the lake to my university. I asked if the broads were covered and no one ever stated that they were, so I figured that they were not. My error - but it was an honest one.

Your extrapolation of the survey is definitely flawed... and I find it humorous that such a self admitted brilliant college student like you doesn't see it! By your logic (if you want to call it that) you are saying the actual number of boats clocked should be multiplied to account for all other boats on the lake? at that time? Perhaps the study would have been more accurate if it was conducted from Ice Out to Ice In?

I don't consider myself to be brilliant - all I've done is stood up for myself when people here have insulted my intelligence.
No. That's not what I am saying at all. If the study was as accurate as you and others here are claiming, it would have represented the average condition found on the entire lake over this 11 week time period. If that is not true, then the study is not accurate. So point out what is wrong with my logic and/or math:

Taken directly from page 3 of the report: “This sampling was conducted on Lake Winnipesaukee from the period 07/01/07 through 09/16/07. Sample data was collected on 55 days and nights during the 11 week period.”

11 weeks = ~ 770 day light hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week). So where is my error here?

Taken directly from page 3 of the report: “Marine Patrol officers spent a total of just over 135 hours clocking powered vessels, including PWC’s.” And a bit further down: “A total of 9 sampling areas were selected.”
Since all the study areas are included in the percentage of the lake covered by this study, you have to determine the average amount of time spent at each area (since they weren’t recording the speed of boats at all areas at once).

So you have to divide the 135 total hours by the 9 areas. 135 / 9 = 15 hours. So the average number of hours recording speeds at each site was 15 hours. So where is my error here?

The 15 hours spent recording speeds at each site is less than 2% of the total daylight hours in the 11 week period. (15 / 770 = 0.19, which is 1.95%) So where is my error here?

The chart on page 6 of the report gives that 11 boats were going at speeds over 50 mph, during the time that the MP were recording speeds.
Since they were only recording speeds for ~2% of the total daylight hours in these 11 weeks, you have to divide these 11 boats by 2% (I’m rounding to keep things simple), which gives you that an estimated 550 boats were traveling over 50 mph in the study areas over the entire 770 daylight hours of this 11 week period. So where is my error here?

But the study did not cover the entire lake, but only a percentage of it. The report does not give what percentage of the total lake was covered – so I guessed high and used 25% which I feel is more than fair, as I don’t believe that the actual percentage was nearly this high. So you have to take the estimated number of boats and divide by 25% (which is the same as multiply by 4). 550 / .25 = 2200 boats. So, according to the data from the study approximately 2200 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over this 11 week period.

So where is my error here? Do you believe that the study covered more than 25% of the lake?

You dismiss the NHMP study as flawed because it doesnt support what you believe! Had the NHMP report shown otherwise, no doubt you would be singing its praises!

No, that's not true all. Despite what you and others here may think of me, I am a very honest person. If the study was done correctly than I would have accepted it. And if I was not taking a university course in research methodology when the report was released, then I would not have realized that it was done in a way that would not produce accurate data.