Long Lake night navigation accident

[Paugus Bay Resident]

I don't see how you can include "unknown" in the calculation? Do you feel it is fair to assume that unknown speeds can be equally distributed over the known speeds? Otherwise you are skewing things. Only what is known is known. Again, if you look at known speeds, 95% happened at speeds below 40 mph. Are you disputing that?

Do you disagree with horsepower and education stats as well?

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Bear Islander, where did your post go? The one I just responded too claiming that my stats were wrong?

[Bear Islander]

Nobody follows these statistic fights.

You want to assume that all unknown speeds are slow speeds. I could assume that the reason the speeds are unknown is because they are to hight to measure.

The real question to ask is why the CG has no idea of the speeds involved in more than 50% of fatal accidents?

[Paugus Bay Resident]

I didn't say I wanted all unknown speeds to be slow speeds, I said (twice) that they could be equally distributed (proportionally) to all known speeds. Seems like a reasonable method.

I think all the statistics, when combined; education, horsepower, speed, boat size, alcohol, etc. are consistent. If one were out of skew with the rest, it would be one thing, but they aren't. I honestly have to ask that if they pointed in a different direction, would you be championing them? Would that be a

statistic fight

you would follow?

I'm not sure about the speed unknown thing either. What I really don't understand is the horsepower unknown. Seems like that should be pretty straight forward to determine.

Time to go boating!