Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AC2717
"...Take the results for what they were facts...,"
|
As factual scientific studies go,
this file of the MPs is a nice color.
Quote:
|
"There were times when the surface of the water was so irregular because of high volume of boat traffic that it was extremely difficult to aim the radar unit"—NHMP
|
The moment the MPs found that their platform couldn't produce consistent or reliable data,
they erred in not moving the test zones.
Next time, the MPs must clock from a stable platform or island to produce dependable readings in heavily trafficked areas. Under any conditions, the presence of a marked patrol boat affects sampling—even with no speeding laws to enforce. When "irregular water" is present, the
average speed of your study group will
decrease—
three errors.
When this happens, discontinue monitoring—and move the site.
Quote:
|
"The total number of boats clocked was 3852. This number includes both speedboats and PWCs, data collected during the day and the night."—NHMP
|
PWCs were included in the database?
The MPs could have been clocking the very same PWC ten times an hour!
Just a handful of PWCs can skew the basis for "number of boats studied" during the day,
and are completely missing from the MP database at night!
Absent or "cooked" sampling—even if unintentional—
is an error.
Quote:
|
"A total of 13 boats were traveling over 25-MPH after 8:00 PM which represents 20.96%."—NHMP
|
That's nice...
how fast, and why is that mystery speed—so easily added to the graph—missing from the graph?
What happens late at night, when offenders would be expected to be
really tanked?
Quote:
|
"Statistical results of sampling".—NHMP
|
Poker Runs produce the highest average speeds on the lake. Why are they so clearly absent from "the sampling"? Was it a considered a "race"—and is somehow exempt from sampling?
Whatever—to overlook them is still
an error.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin
"...as I said in my original post the way that this sampling was conducted there are holes for the speed limit advocates to continue to pick at. (which is all I was trying to point out)...
|
1) The above observations represent just half of what I found this morning. Topics like "samplings from both directions", "PWCs", "slow boats", "averaging", "unmarked patrol boats" and "cosines" have been saved for later.
2) Remember which NHMP official rejected speed limits—and then flip-flopped like a fresh-caught bluegill?
The data collection and funding should have gone to a group accustomed to a worthwhile, independent, unbiased and
scientific study—like UNH.
Was it wrong to have NHMP conduct a study that they had previously indicated an unwillingness to support?
Of course: that's why this very first oversight—a self-administered study—was really the most serious error.