Re: WHO'S LIABLE IF I DO GET HIT?

KingOfTheApes <comandante.ban...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 re****ted 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 re****ted 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 re****ted
> 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