Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]()
posted to rec.boats.paddle,rec.scuba,uk.rec.boats.paddle,rec.boats.paddle.touring
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
KingOfTheApes wrote:
Many people that are into motorboating are poorly educated and couldn't care less about the consequences of their actions. Kind of an interesting self-contradiction you're making, by first talking about how these boats are huge and expensive, yet now they're owned by uneducated high school dropouts, which is a demographic with very low incomes. With just a McDonald's job, how can they afford the gas to be constantly running their boats? But motorboat pollution contributes to "the soup" out there too. You can even smell the gas, and I doubt it that it would be safe to swim in the intracostal anymore. You sure that you're not smelling naturally occurring organics? Afterall, the ICW runs through a lot of muddy marshes and estuaries. Their main threat though is to life and property... "Here are some startling statistics regarding boating accidents from the United States Coast Guard: In 2005, states and jurisdictions reported a total of 12,942,414 registered recreational boats compared with 12,781,476 in 2004. The 4,969 boating accidents ... 0.04% incidence. Yes, very 'startling'. You would have to boat for over 25 years just to get up to a 1% risk. The most common types of boats involved in reported accidents were open motorboats (45%), personal watercraft (PWC) (26%), and cabin motorboats (14%). And 15% missing. FYI, this data is statistically meaningless without the context of the relevant contributing base population also being provided. Increases were observed in the number of reported fatalities involving PWC, cabin motorboats, inflatables, sailboats, and houseboats from 2004. With 160,938 more registered watercraft, is this really surprising that the observed total also increased? A decrease was observed in the number of fatalities involving canoes/kayaks and rowboats... Was this because they as a group became safer, or because they as a group became fewer? You don't know because that can only be answered if the relevant contributing base population context was included ... which here it is not. As such, you have "true statements" being made that are functionally meaningless because they fail to determine causality. -hh |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why the Law of the Sea has to be the Law of the Jungle? | General | |||
The jungle drums... | General | |||
The jungle drums... | General | |||
Jim in the Jungle | ASA |