[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

So, you took numbers from a study that you state was not viable, and you want us to tell you want is wrong with your analysis?

Yes, I believe that the speed study was flawed in how it was done, so I don’t believe that the data produced is at all accurate. But that is a separate issue, from the methodology of doing statistical analysis. Many of the speed limit opponents use the data from the speed study like it is gospel – so they obviously believe that it is viable.

So you have two choices (and only 2):

1.) The study was not done correctly – so the data is meaningless, or
2.) The study was done correctly, in which case the raw data needs to be statistically analyzed by inserting back into the environment - this is done by multiplying the data by a time factor and by the percentage factor of how much of the lake was covered by the study.

You can’t argue that the study was done correctly and then say that my statistical analysis is incorrect merely because it used the data from that study.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

*SIGH* Here we go, Evanstar lashing out again with personal attacks, but we all have to sit here and take it, whatever.

I did not “lash out.” Please explain how asking for you colleague’s qualifications is a personal attack on you or on anyone.

But having a PHD in mathematics does not make you colleague more qualified than my professors who happen to be very qualified in their knowledge of statistical analysis.

If I actually have to explain this out to you even though you make all these claims about your education I am beginning to have doubts about all your claims, but here goes.

I don’t lie. My GPA was published in both the Concord Monitor and in the Manchester Union leader when my speech at my graduation from NHTI was covered last May. Goggle Arwen RWU and you’ll see that I really and a student there and really am a member of the sailing team.

The fact that the study was done on a recreational activity does not change the way that the data is analyzed. The purpose of the speed study was to the record speeds of boats on a lake over 11 weeks of summer boating. If the speed study was done correctly, the study areas should have been selected to accurately represent boat traffic on the lake (that is the goal of study areas), and the time periods in which they took the readings should have been selected to accurately represent the average activity that is going on during the day.

For the record I am not debating the validity of the study, I am debating your interpretation or should I say statistical analysis of the data. Which is completely and utterly rubbish.

If you accept that the study is valid – you have to accept that the data collected represents the average conditions on the lake on the average day. If this is not true, then the data and the study are invalid. You can’t have it both ways, not matter how much you try to spin this.

There is nothing complicated about what I did. And it is as accurate as the data collected (other than the fact that I had to guess at how much of the lake that study areas represent – which makes the number of speeding boats actually lower than it should be.)