[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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.

How would it make sense to clock from an island? Boats don't generally drive in a straight course towards an island! Furthermore, this was also a test of the enforceablility of a speed law. Once the law is put into place, how do you propose to stop the boat that you clocked from land?

Also, regarding irregular water. Please, do tell me, where can I find smooth water on a summer weekend at Winni?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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!

First of all, I doubt they clocked the same PWCs 10 times in one hour, I think the MPs are smart enough to recognize the same guy going in circles. Second of all, regardless of how many times you go by a certain point, you are an independent sample each time. If 10 boats go buy point X, and 5 of them are actually the same guy, then he does in fact make up 50% of the traffic, and the results should reflect that.

Also, the PWCs are missing at night? I hope so, they're not allowed at night!

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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.

How do you know that these trials were not done on the day of a poker run? The trials were done pretty much every weekend after all.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Why were average speeds calculated to include boats going less than 10-MPH?

Slow boats are not a group known for collision risk and should have been excluded—an error.

...

10) Results were thrown out by the MPs when a cosine was needed...

You calculate the cosine.

If you can't calculate the cosine, you shut off the radar and select an alternate effective study area in order to permit such calculations.

You never throw out results in a study—an error.

Oh the irony. First you say you should throw out the slow speeds. Why, to skew the averages higher? The average is irrelevant anyways, the relevant number is the number of boats going faster than 45 anyways. The best part though is that you manage to say later in the same post that you should never throw out results!

Also, there is no way that you can calculate the cosine, that requires you know the angle between you and the direction of their travel, which is impossible to figure out on the fly.

EDIT: I should also note, you mention repeatedly reasons why another site should be selected. The boat shouldn't be marked, the water shouldn't be irregular, the platform should be stable, the boats shouldn't be traveling at an angle, etc. These are all things that have been mentioned before as to why a speed limit would not be enforceable. Its impossible to get ideal conditions on Winni, which means that all the issues you bring up would defeat their ability to enforce this law. If the boat is unmarked, how is he going to stop a speeding boat? If I see an unmarked boat chasing me down, I am not stopping.