Nice try Evanstar but NO. It absolutely changes the way the data is analyzed. Even a moderate scholar would understand this concept. Please stop arguing that point it's just a fact not an opinion no matter how many times you say it it is not going to make it true. I don't care what your GPA is. I agree there is nothing complicated with what you did. It was a fun math problem and you get good marks for completion. However when applied to the real world it does not hold even an ounce of water. If you can't see this you never will. Often times the problems with being a student is putting the book down and seeing the forest for the trees.

I have made no personal claims about the validity of the study. I find it one of many interesting points of reference.

So you have two choices (and only 2):

1) If you disagree with it, then do not attempt to use it in some manner to support your position, as this just makes you look silly and irrational.

2) If you agree with it, and choose to apply some method to extrapolate data from it, be prepared for other people to point out why your conclusions, and therefore your overall position, are incorrect.

I have used power, sail and human powered boats on Winnipesaukee often for 30+ years. I have boated on the lake in ALL kinds of conditions. I have no stake in this game since my boat will barely exceed the speed limit and I will never own a GFBL boat.

I am certain that the speed data collected by the marine patrol last year is accurate. It mirrors my own speed observations perfectly. Boats going over 50 MPH really are few and far between.

You can argue about the legitimacy of the study, and manipulate the data all you want, but the fact that it accurately portrays boat speeds on the lake makes all the arguments and manipulation moot.

I have been staying out of this....
 

But the whole, survey, and polls thing brought this to mind. My father once told me "Figures don't lie, But LIARS, figure!" Now I understand what he meant, the MP survey figures, don't lie, they show there is no speed issue. But the LIARS keep trying to confuse the general public with Figures, to make their point sound legit! :laugh:

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!

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

You have repeatedly dismissed this study as inaccurate. I dont 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!

It was an UNFUNDED survey conducted by the NHMP designed soley to take a snapshot of the lake focusing mostly on weekends. Most reasonable people would agree that most of the issues occur on busy summer weekends, friday afternoon to sunday afternoon! The study was conducted during regular NHMP patrols with the help of NHMP Auxillary volunteers! Because it was conducted as part of a regular patrol schedule, it is actually a VERY ACCURATE snapshot as to what the NHMP would encounter if there was a speed limit enacted this year. Assuming of course that the NHMP are level funded and patrols are not reduced due to budgetary constraints.

There were 9 sampling areas, only two of which were known to the General Public. The selection of areas was based on TOPOGRAPHY, BOAT VOLUME, SAFETY CONCERNS and TRAFFIC PATTERNS. All of these areas were chosen to MAXIMIZE the radar units effectiveness! To simplify for you, they chose areas in which the radar unit would work the best!

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!

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!

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?

The boat volume of Lake Winnipesaukee is not a linear equation as you would apply to, say a roadway in a town or a highway! There are way too many variables, and very few predictable traffic/usage patterns. The NHMP picked the busiest areas of the lake during the busiest times (emphasis on weekends) to conduct the survey sample. If they picked the busiest areas for the sample, at the busiest times it would stand to reason that the other areas of the lake had less/slower boat traffic! In fact a greater sampling of the lake would have yielded slower average speeds!

Ultimately your positon is untenable! You have only emotion, not facts to bolster your position. 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! Perhaps if American Research Group had conducted the study the results would have been more to your liking!


Woodsy

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.

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.

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."<O:p</O:p

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.

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.

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?

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.

That's not the most ridiculous use of forecasting I've seen, hey, the Guvmint pretty much has that tied up. Obviously, parts of the lake are far less traveled than others. Perhaps you should stake out some territory not covered by the MP in the study, and get a hint as to what's wrong with your attempts to extrapolate the data.

Woodsy, I have it on good athority that radar just doesn't work well on the water. Plus any speed reading will be lower the the actual speed of the boat.



"You need to understand how police radar works, to understand why it is not useful for speed limit enforcement on Lake Winnipesaukee or any other body of water.

Radar (either Electronic or Laser) in the simplest of terms, works on the principle of shooting an electron beam in a straight line (straight line being very important) against a target and measuring the time it takes to reflect back. The time it takes the electron beam to reflect back is processed with an equation to give the police officer the target vehicle speed in MPH. It’s a pretty simple process when used on roadways against speeding automobiles traveling in fixed lanes relative to the position of the radar emitter. It becomes a lot more difficult when used on the water… let me explain.

You are traveling in your car down the highway, traveling at 65mph (or whatever speed you choose) and you happen across your friendly neighborhood State Trooper sitting on the side of the road with his handy dandy ACME Mark XXIV Radar Emitter. In this situation, as with most situations involving cars and radar, you are traveling along in the road in fixed bearing relative to the radar emitter. Fixed bearing means that your direction of travel relative to the radar emitter is known and cannot be deviated from. Think triangle. I have attached a simple diagram to explain. The direction you are traveling is known, and the distance from the radar unit to the centerline of your path of travel is also known and is extremely short relative to the range at which the radar emitter can “see” your car (usually ¼ mile or so approx 1420’ although radar emitters in the right conditions can accurately detect speeds up to 1+ mile away and are accurate at distances less than ¼ mile as well) Because two out of the three legs of the triangle are known, and one of those legs is extremely short in length relative to the other known leg, the accuracy of the radar emitter is within one or two mph of the actual vehicle speed. Assuming of course the radar emitter is properly calibrated.

Out on the water things become far more difficult to measure speed accurately with a radar emitter. There are too many variables. The primary issue with using radar as a tool to enforce a speed limit is that distance and bearing of the target vessel is not fixed relative to the radar emitter. Boats do not travel in straight lines or in fixed lanes like cars do. I have attached another diagram to help explain. Although the radar emitter will give the MP Officer a speed readout, it will not be accurate because distance and bearing (direction of travel) relative to the radar emitter are unknown. It will actually give a slower readout than the actual speed of the target vessel. If the radar readout is not accurate, you will not be able to use it in court of law. It’s a simple geometry problem and you cannot accurately solve the equation with those two unknown variables.
There are many other variables to consider as well, here are a few of the more obvious.

1. The overwhelming majority of boats on Lake Winnipesaukee are made of fiberglass and short of the engine and sterndrive contain very little metal. Fiberglass is a very poor reflector of radar energy.

2. Water has a very dense molecular structure, very similar in density to concrete. This dense molecular structure can reflect radar energy, causing false readings especially when you consider that waves are in a constant state of motion and change. This is usually called backscatter.

3. Radar cannot discern one boat from another. As the radar energy leaves the emitter it forms essentially an ever expanding cone of energy waiting to be reflected back to the emitter. Because you do not know distance and bearing of the target boat relative to the position of the radar emitter, you cannot with any degree of certainty declare that the readout on the radar emitter was from energy reflected by the target boat. Indeed the radar emitter will give a reading from the first reflection it gets, rendering it useless on a busy holiday weekend in any congested area.

The only type of radar that would be of use for enforcing speed limits on the lake would be military style naval radar with target designation and tracking capabilities. However, these radars are extremely expensive to purchase and maintain, and require a dedicated highly trained officer to operate. This is an EXTREMELY cost prohibitive system, with very little benefit in cost or enforcement.

The Marine Patrol is understaffed and under funded as it is. It is primarily a seasonal agency tasked with keeping the waters of the state safe. It would be an undue burden on the Marine Patrol and the Judicial system to enact legislation that will do nothing but clog the courts with winnable appeals, thus rendering the speed limit moot.

The biggest issue with the lake is the large amount of people who enjoy the lake on any given weekend in the summer. There are more boats of all types on the water, so there is a perception that the lake is overcrowded. The speed limit does nothing to ease this situation and essentially singles out one type of boater, the go-fast boater, who is a member of an extremely small percentage of boats using the lake.

The reality is, If you stay away from the busier parts of the lake, Meredith, Weirs, Wolferboro & Alton the lake can be extremely enjoyable and alot less crowded."

[SARCASM] I think I now understand about the angles, [/SARCASM] and the speeds reading lower. So that explains why the speeds in the study results were so low? Now we have proof the study in wrong.

You're like the little dog that comes along behind all of BI's posts and adds a "yip yip yip" to the conversation. Try contributing something unique and valuable once in a while.

Did they really do that?
 

I heard a rumor that a few PRO SPEED LIMIT people got together to call the Senators to urge them to vote NO SPEED LIMITS. Did they come to their senses at the last minute?

I can't believe that they conspired to call them with an ANTI-speed limit message on their HOME phones - at 3:00 in the morning.

They didn't do that, did they?

There is no speed problem on the Lake. We need more enforcement of the current rules!

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que The only way my boat can approach 40mph is downhill.

Kayakers love water --- Boaters love people

.

You obviously don't understand, this argument has been disproven previously....

I quote myself, from a previous thread on this subject.....

"Now the SL crowd is crying about readings being slower if the boat is travelling at an angle to the radar. Well let's see, if the angle is 10 degrees the error would be about 1.5% if the angle is 30 degrees the error would be about 13%. The MP said that they only included measurements that were straight on, I believe them. Let's say for arguments sake that all the readings were taken at 30 degrees, that would skew the data to 13% faster. Even at that 97% of the boats would be travelling less than 45 mph. LEGISLATORS THERE IS NO SPEED PROBLEM ON THE LAKE."

BI...

Thanks for cutting and pasting one of my older posts!!! I should have done that as it would save me ALOT of time typing!!! :D:D

The MP chose the test zones as places where they thought the radar units worked best! In fact the NHMP testimony at the House Transportation Committe meeting in Franklin completely corroborated what I posted way back when!!

Woodsy

Islander...

Thats funny that if BI posts it... it must be true! LOL!!

Its a cut and paste of one of my old posts way back on HB-162! You look like a fool!

THE NHMP testified in Franklin that the radar worked best when the targeted boat traveled on a direct bearing either towards or away from the NHMP boat... perhaps you werent there to witness this testimony? In any case the NHMP testimony completely corroborated what I posted so long ago!

Woodsy

BEAR ISLANDER? Does this represent a change of heart on your part?

The quote was written by Woodsy way back BEFORE the speed limit study. At that time it was to the opponents advantage to argue that RADAR doesn't work on the water, and that the speed would read considerably LOWER than reality.

But when the speed study seemed to favor the oppositions position (IT DOESN'T), suddenly RADAR became incredibly reliable and accurate. And the lower speed reading, caused by the angle, became unimportant.

I posted Woodsy's pre-study, and post-study opinions on RADAR so we can compare. The highlighted sections show clearly the change in position.

Then boats that went PAST the Marine Patrol at 90mph, 100mph, or 160mph etc.. did NOT have their speeds included in the study.

RADAR has a limited distance, as Woodsy has pointed out. A boat going 130mph would have to go directly AT a MARKED Marine Patrol boat to a close distance before turning. :laugh::laugh::laugh: Ya Right!

So are you surprised when reported speeds were low? The study was DESIGNED to fail. If you didn't think it favored your position you would agree.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but you're living in a fantasy world if you actually think there were boats traveling at 160MPH on the lake. Even 90 or 100MPH seems highly doubtful, but we'll share your lunacy for a moment and allow the assumption that it is possible, although not probable.

Everything you post seems to be this Chicken Little fantasy mis-interpreted hype-drivel. If you're a proponent of the speed limit law, that's fine, but support your position with something that is factual and possible. The stuff you're spewing out here makes me wonder if you make your own tinfoil hats, or get them custom made at a haberdashery.

Evenstar...

OH MY HEAD! Where do I begin???

So where on the ocean have you paddled? Where else other than NH Inland waterways?

If you read and UNDERSTOOD the NHMP Speed Survey Report you would have know that the Broads was included in the survey. Just about every place a boat had the room to go fast was included in the survey.....

Light #50 to the Weirs Channel is the Upper 2/3 of Paugus Bay and it is quite the speed zone... and arguably one of the BUSIEST areas of the lake! There are two big yacht clubs, a huge development and 3 of the lakes biggest marinas are at the end of Paugus Bay.... Irwin Marine, Lakeport Landing Marina, and Paugus Bay Marina!

The NHMP conducted a Speed Survey, intended to take a SNAPSHOT of what was actually going on Lake Winnipesaukee! It was not a detailed study on the number of boats on the lake at any given time, nor was it intended to be! This survey was UNFUNDED and conducted during regularly scheduled patrols on the busiest sections of the lake! It is a very accurate measure of what a NHMP officer might encounter on any given day during a regular patrol shift!

However, I am going to show you the absolute FLAW in your logic equation! At the risk of making you look foolish, I am going to beat you over the head with your own math! I am going to use your equation and plug in the numbers for boats traveling under 50 MPH!

Your saying that over an 11 week span (770 Daylight Hours) there were approx 2,200 boats traveling greater than 50 MPH. 11 boats clocked over 50 MPH divided by 2% = 550 boats. (11/.02 = 550). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and YOUR being generous @ 25%) 550/.25 = 2200 boats going faster than 50MPH over that 11 week span.

Assuming your formula is correct... Lets plug in the numbers for the boats going less than 50 MPH....

3841 boats clocked UNDER 50 MPH divided by 2% = 192,050 boats. (3841/.02 = 192,050). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and again YOUR being generous @ 25%) 192,050/.25 = 768,200 boats going LESS than 50MPH over that 11 week span.

11 weeks = 77 days (770 daylight hours)
768,200 boats going less than 50 MPH
2,200 boats going greater than 50 MPH
768,200 + 2,200 = 770400 boats total during the survey
770,400/77 = 10,006 boats daily using Lake Winnipesaukee
768,200/77 = 9977 boats daily traveling less than 50 MPH
2,200/77 = 29 boats daily traveling greater than 50 MPH

29/9977 = .003% of the boating population travels over 50 MPH any given day of the survey!

You can apply YOUR Research Methodology ANYWAY you so choose. the problem with your math is.... THE PERCENTAGES DON"T CHANGE!!!

Do you seriously think that there were 770,400 BOATS on Lake Winnipesaukee during those 11 weeks?? I dont think anyone is going to believe those numbers! I think you might want to ask the University for a refund! :laugh::laugh:

Woodsy

Long time reader, first time poster.

I have been actively reading this debate for over six months now. I have seen arguements both logical and illogical, factual and opinionated being tossed around by both sides of the speed limit debate. I have seen facts and numbers being manipulated to support each side of the arguement.

I have wanted to chime in many times when I read opinions, lies, and
arguements that do not hold water.

As this debate comes to an end, I just want to say Bravo to Woodsy's last post. It clearly outlines the "fuzzy math" the proponents have been using on this forum, op ed pieces in the local papers and before the house committees.

- No matter how you spin the numbers, at any point in time, there are WAY less than 1% of the boats on the lake exceeding the 'proposed' speed limit (it is not speeding yet)
-Education not regulation
-I love my 150 ft rule - please enforce it!!!!

RJ

Change in WHAT?
 

BI...

Clearly the change in what position?

My post study comments in no way contradict my pre-study comments! I have never argued that marine radar is reliable or accurate... I pointed out the flaws of marine radar prior to the Speed Survey, and the Speed Survey Report and the Testimony of the NHMP @ the House Transp. Committe hearing in Franklin confirm my statements! If you were there, you would have known this! I also point out that the NHMP was/is concerned with meeting the burden of proof required of HB-847 in the NH Courts!

Perhaps you dont quite understand it... at least you posted the whole post and didn't take the highlighted sentences out of context!

Woodsy

Bravo!!!
 

Thank you for taking the time needed to show people how "scare tactics" work.
You did a great service.

Speaking of scare tactics!!

...but according to those that say the study was flawed, the general boating public knew the MP was out casting radar for the study AND slowed to the speed limit when they noticed an MP present.

This brings up another question I've had for a while. If there is currently no speed limit, how did ALL of these (2000+) speeding boats know to slow to a speed under 45MPH when an MP was present to invalidate the speed study? If 60mph is not an infraction of boating regulations, why slow down?

(pre spin assumptions - there were no other boats within 150ft of the 'speeding' vessel, they were not 150ft from the shoreline, they were not operating in a NWZ)

Exactly Ryan.But not according to the highly educated proponents.There just has to be something wrong with that study doesn't there?

HURRAY HURRAY BRAVO WOODSY!:cheers:
I'm thinking that should be the end of this debate about the "extrapolation" of data on the speed survey.

Good luck with the ending of the debate. :rolleye1:

I'm not surprised that the reported speeds are low. Especially when you consider the boats that can go 130 mph probably cost $500,000. Not many of those around, never mind on the lake. That's the problem when you exaggerate, it's so easy to point out how ludicrous your views are.

Islander, you are so far out in left field it's not even funny. If I follow your logic, then a speed limit cannot be enforced. That's just what we need, a law that can't be enforced. Fits right in with the rest of your logic, or lack thereof.

I thought this was supposed to a discussion on a NH speed limit – but I have paddled in Rhode Island, since my university is located right on the coast – on Mount Hope Bay and Narragansett Bay – this is also whereI have sailed the most, but I've also sailed in Boston, in races. And I only live 3 miles from Vermont – so I have kayaked there as well.

Why do you feel this constant need to insult me, just because you disagree with me? I stated that I read the report and that I understood it – and I don’t lie. One of the most congested and “busiest areas of the lake” is not going to be where boats are going to be found traveling the fastest. 29% of the boat speeds in the survey were recorded in this area, which represents a tiny percentage of the lake, with conditions that at not the average lake conditions. This throws the averages way off by adding such a large number of boats that are traveling at slower speeds than they would be in a less congested area.

I know that. But it was a snapshot of only a percentage of the lake (less than 25%) and it was a snapshot of what was happening during a tiny percentage of the time in those 11 weeks (1.9%).

Again you throw insults at me.

What I stated was: “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.” I never once stated that these were all different boats!!! And I never stated that the percentages would change. So don’t accuse me of stating something that I didn’t!

If the study was done correctly and the “snapshot” was an accurate representation of the speeds of boats on the lake, than my statistical analysis is just as accurate. Boats were not recorded over the entire lake, so the raw data needs to be adjusted to cover the entire lake, and the data was collected during less than 2% of the total daylight hours of these 11 weeks last summer – so this needs to be factored in as well.

The results (which you seem to have so much trouble accepting) gives that if the MP was recording speeds of boats on the entire lake, and were doing so over all 770 daylight hours of these 11 weeks, that they would have recorded approximately 2,200 boats traveling over 50 mph. This is NOT the number of boats – this is the number of OCCURRENCES!!! I thought that was obvious to everyone – but apparently it wasn’t.

But this is a significant number, because it represents an average of 28 boats (occurrences) per day (during this 11 week period) where boats are traveling at speeds above 50mph. The chances of me encountering a high-speed boat is directly connected to how much time I spend out on the water. If I’m out on the lake in my kayak for 8 hours (which is typical for me), I’m going to encounter a number of these 28 high-speed boats. And this just represents an average day. On nice days and on weekends this number of high-speed boats (and high-speed occurrences) will increase. Most high-speed boats do not violate my 150 foot zone, but some do – so this is a problem for me.

There is nothing wrong with my statistical analysis. The problem is that you don’t understand my analysis – and this seems to be true of several other forum members.

Whenever I post something that is not in line with the views of powerboat owners, you guys are like a bunch of sharks having a feeding frenzy – which really isn’t a very nice way to treat another member – even if you happened to disagree with her. Give a girl a break! I’m not your enemy – I just have a different point of view, which is base on my own personal experiences – which happen to be different from yours.

I really don’t deserve this treatment, nor do I deserve the insults. There is nothing “fuzzy” about my math; I’m not “spinning” numbers; I’m not trying to use “scare tactics”; or do anything else that I’ve been accused of. I am a very honest person and am not trying to distort the truth in any way.

You guys insist on using the speed study report to “prove” your points. I’m just trying to explain that you can’t just use the raw data without including any statistical analysis – and I’m trying to show what the study actually shows. (Although I still think that the number of high-speed occurrences or artificially low, because of the way that the data was collected).

You don’t have to like my conclusions – and I’m totally willing to discuss anything that you believe I made an error with. But you and others here do not have the right to insult me, just because you don’t agree with me or because you don’t understand what I posted.

Oh, and Skipper of the Sea: I don't apprectiate you using a distorted verison of my signature as another way to insult me. That is wrong. I haven't done anything to you.

Evenstar...

It is truly amazing to me how you just do not get the math... I have quite the grasp on your analysis! In fact I understand it completely and quite possibly better than you do. You used a relatively standard formula to extrapolate data! Not really a big deal, but the formula is flawed in this application and that is shown by the extraordinarily LARGE number of boats. To be clear, when I say boat I meant singular instance as I assumed did you. In no way did I mean to infer that there were somehow 770,400 boats floating on Lake Winnipesaukee!

REMEMBER THIS IS THE FORMULA YOU USED!

Using YOUR formula YOU extrapolated 2200 boats going over 50 MPH or approximately 28.5 per day over the 77 day period!

Using YOUR formula I extrapolated 768,200 boats going under 50 MPH or approximately 9976.6 per day over the 77 day period!

28.5/9976 = .0028

Essentially you have less than 1/3 of 1% chance of coming into contact with a boat traveling over 50! What part of this math dont you understand? I am using YOUR formula! No matter how you extrapolate & multiply the numbers, the ratio/percentage doesnt change.

If YOUR formula is being applied correctly (and I do not think it is.. But I will get to that) your chances of running across a boat doing over 50MPH are essentially nil... .0028! If I were to extrapolate further, your chances of encountering a boat going over 60 MPH are for all intents and purposes non-existant!

But lets go one step further and say that of the boaters 2% are Capt. Boneheads who have a complete disregard of the rules & regs!

9976*.02 = 199.5 Capt. Boneheads!
28.5*.02 = .6 Capt Boneheads!

So every other day, 1 of the 28.5 boats going over 50 MPH is being driven by a Capt. Bonehead! While everyday 200 boats going under 50 MPH are being driven by a Capt. Bonehead!

Who do you think your going to have an encounter with? Need I calculate that for you too?

Now... on to the flaws with your formula!

By using YOUR formula we can extrapolate that the NHMP would have clocked 770,400 boats over the 11 week survey.

Good luck trying to get ANYONE to believe that number!!! There is no way that number could be remotely accurate and here is why...

The reason your formula/logic is flawed is because you are taking a blanket approach. If you knew the lake better, perhaps you would understand the flaws in your formula.

1. Lake Winnipesaukee has very little boating activity between Ice Out and Memorial Day and between Labor Day and Ice In.

2. The lake is really only "busy" boatwise (only in certain areas) during the nice (weatherwise) summer WEEKENDS between June 20th (roughly when the kids get out of school) and Labor Day (roughly when the kids go back to school). The NHMP speed survey was conducted during this time, only missing 1 or 2 weeks. When the weather is bad boat traffic decreases signifigantly!

3. Weekends are measured from Friday 2pm to Sunday 2pm, unless its a Holiday weekend such as July 4th & Labor Day. Before Friday 2pm the lake is relatively quiet, although usually a little busier than a thursday. Boat traffic picks up noticeably friday afternoon. Sunday afternoon sees sharp drop off in boat traffic as people are packing up to head home!

4. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday are EXTREMELY low traffic boat days, unless the monday is a holiday, then the sunday boat traffic is busier and monday tapers off after noon.

5. All boat traffic on the lake is not equal... so your blanket approach of multiplying to cover the entire area of the lake is inherently flawed. For example areas such as the Weirs and Meredith see alot of boat traffic, while areas off the beaten path such as Moultonborough Bay and all of the little coves see very little boat traffic.

6. There is no reason to adjust the raw data at all. It was taken by NHMP Officers & volunteers during REGULAR PATROL SHIFTS in the areas of the lake where the boat trafiic is higher. They are obviously not going to waste thier time & effort trying to clock boats in the smaller coves & bays! You need to remember, this was an UNFUNDED study!

Hope this helps you to better understand why your formula is flawed in this instance!

Woodsy

Evanstar,

The big problem here is YOUR analysis. You are NOT WRONG. I repeat NOT WRONG in your math. Once again stated another way you are 100% CORRECT. But this is where it ends. You are doing a MATH PROBLEM. It looks great on paper I applaud your efforts. However, the reality is there are not 775,000 incidents to track on Lake winnipesaukee in an 11 week period. And by incidents I mean boats traveling at ANY speed. The shear volume of craft that you suggest are using the waters during this period to create the supposed 2,200 "speeders" or does not exist. I explained in it a literal manner and I believe Woodsy has explained it in a finite matter extremely well. It seems that you can't comprehend this because you disagree with the numbers. For a moment forget the debate and just pretend we are debating the volume of traffic on the lake. Now do you really think that your numbers represent an accurate example of the volume of craft on the lake in a 10 week period?

Extrapolation can, and usually is, the absolute killer in analysis. Especially true for non linear data. Take this in a real world example.

One of the most congested and “busiest areas of the lake” is not going to be where boats are going to be found traveling the fastest. 29% of the boat speeds in the survey were recorded in this area, which represents a tiny percentage of the lake, with conditions that at not the average lake conditions. This throws the averages way off by adding such a large number of boats that are traveling at slower speeds than they would be in a less congested area.

Of course it throws off the averages. When dealing with Winni, it should be rather obvious that congested areas would result in lower speed, that's what the skippers Are Supposed To Be Doing!

I would expect that at random, conditions aside, boats would be clocked at a higher average speed out in the Broads than around the Weirs. I would also expect boaters to be going slow in a NWZ. So you argue that by having a larger percentage clocked in congested areas throws off the averages? The look at the raw numbers of boats. I'd expect the number of boats in the Broads to be less than Paugus Bay on the weekends, that might just be why those areas are called congested in the first place.

I also think the subsequent extrapolations you did prove out this point. If you did a study of boats randomly out on the "less congested" area, I'd think you'd find out what's really going on. Not that many boats, and yes, a higher percentage going faster, depending on conditions, than they are in the busy areas. That would not shock most people, as it didn't shock anyone that's been out on the lake that speed generally goes down given the amount of boats in the area. For those that are running to close to others, well, there are rules about this are there not?

If your intent was to show that the average speed increases somewhat by throwing a larger percentage of boats from say, the Broads, into the mix, well I'd have to say how many D's in Duh?

Would you guys stop picking on me?Anytime you disagree with me you have to attack me even though I know I'm wrong.I can call you guys out and sling dirt around but that doesn't count cuz I said it.I am never wrong,I am very smart,probably smarter than most of you.I am highly skilled in paddling crafts so you can not question my point of view even if you have the same interest.You opponents are always attacking me and I don't deserve it.Wa Wa Wa.

768,200 + 2,200 = 770,400 boats in 77 days

or...

770,400 / 77 days = 10,005.2 boats per day

Phew, so many boats, little wonder the Senate voted to pass HB847... :D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Now, if only the House and Senate would pass a Bill requiring all vessels, be they wind, power, or paddle, to pay a registration fee to help fund the NHMP.

Remember: Civil Liberties and Equitable treatment for all... ;)

I'm still in shock that by using 'Kayak math' there is the potential for more than 700,000 boats to be cruising the lake over the July 4th weekend!!!!! YIKES!

I sure hope that the folks moving into the old Waldo-Peppers offering seafood with dock service did not calculate the boat traffic using 'kayak math' in their business model. If they did, they will be wondering where all the boats went.:)

R2B

I “get the math” just fine – and I seriously doubt that you understand this better than I do.

Have you recently (or ever) taken a college level course in Research Methodology? Have you ever done statistical analysis on the data from a municipal survey (that you helped design, and spent time collecting the data on), to aid a town in putting together their comprehensive plan? So don’t be so quick to dismiss me as someone who does not know what she is doing. The problem is that you are still looking at the data wrong – and you are still not getting my conclusions.

And you did post:
Which is inferring “that there were somehow 770,400 boats floating on Lake Winnipesaukee.”

My chance of encountering a high-speed boat is way higher than what the static snapshot and you calculations suggest – because all the boats are moving – and what I didn’t factor in (and could have) were the boat speeds.

For instance, a boat traveling at 50 mph uses (or covers) 10 times more of the lake than I do in my kayak at 5 mph – during the same time period that we are both on the lake. So the faster that a boat is traveling, the more likely it is that I will encounter that boat on the lake – the percentages increase directly as the speed increases. The lake is roughly 20 miles long, so if I paddle from one end to the other it will take me about 4 hours. In that 4 hours a boat that is covering the same 20 mile stretch of lake at 50 mph will pass me 10 times.

This represents 10 high-speed encounters in just a 4-hour period of time, with just 2 boats on the lake (who happen to be using the same 20 mile stretch of the lake). Those 11 weeks equal 770 daylight hours. Therefore my chances of encounter a high-speed boat are considerable – which is what my actual experience paddling on the lake has been.

As far as your points 1 through 4: I clearly stated that my analysis only covers the 11 weeks of the study – that’s what the 770 hours represent.
I also clearly stated: “If the study was done correctly and the “snapshot” was an accurate representation of the speeds of boats on the lake, than my statistical analysis is just as accurate.” My conclusion is and has always been that this study was not done correctly – and that data which was collected is flawed. And once anyone takes the data and tries to do statistical analysis on it they get some really strange results.

The problem is that the data collected does not accurately represent the average boat traffic on the entire lake over the entire 11 week period. The MP purposely used areas of the lake where boat traffic was high in order to record a large number of readings over a relatively short period of time. In 135 hours, they RECORDED the speeds of 3852 power boats – that’s more than 28 boats per hour or 1 every 2 minutes! And this is just the boats that they were able to record, not the total number of boats that went by them.

My contention is that, by using the busiest areas of the lake for the study, the study did not represent the average condition on the entire lake. Boats are going to travel at slower speeds in areas where the boat traffic is high.

There is nothing wrong with my approach – that is exactly how statistical analysis is done. But (and this is a really important but) any statistical analysis is only as good as the data that was collected.

The speed study is being used as “proof” that few boats on the lake are traveling at speeds over 45 mph – so there’s no reason to enact a speed limit. What it actually shows is that on areas of the lake where boat traffic is the highest, there are only a small percentage of boats that are traveling over 50 mph on the busiest times of the highest boat traffic days.

Had the study areas actually represented the average conditions on the lake, on an average day during these 11 weeks, the data collected would have been totally different. And statistical analysis of that data would have given very different results. But then the data may have supported the need for a speed limit - which is why the study was not done correctly.

Yes there is. Even the report is called “RECREATIONAL BOAT SPEED SAMPLING.” A sampling results in raw data that is supposed to accurately represent the overall population/area/time period/condition. Since boats were not recorded over the entire lake, but only in sample areas, the raw data needs to be adjusted to cover the entire lake. And since the data was collected only during less than 2% of the total daylight hours of these 11 weeks last summer – the total hours need to be factored in as well. This is what statistical analysis does.

I see the forum sharks are still circling. I'm sooo impressed . . . it takes . . . let's see . . . 5 of you guys (at this point) to debate (or to try to intimidate) just one college girl.

It's all good. They did a test market during Bike Week, whereby they made a $8900 profit for the week. Therefore, their overall annual profit should extrapolate out to $56,098,211.18.

Great news!

Thank God someone will be making money.

Love the math!!:)

R2B

I was coming over for a rally this July. But once I heard that the number of boats had exceeded 643,668, I canceled my plans. That's just way to dangerous for me. I like to go out in the middle, jump off the boat, then cleand the bottom off with a mop. With boats traveling around at 130mph, I just couldn't deal with it.