Hi 29° | Lo 15°

Letter: 75 mph? Why not 85?

Does anyone else find it, at best, a frivolous initiative to raise the New Hampshire highway speed limits? Why bother?

Sen. Andy Sanborn has said that because people travel 70 mph anyway, the limits should be raised from 65 to 75 mph. I guess he avoids Interstates 93 and 89. Drivers who actually do drive 70 mph are in a minority and often left in the dust by far more drivers going 80-85 mph without getting pulled over. Maybe he should really shoot for an 85 mph limit because so many already drive 80 mph.

Sanborn also claims that vehicles are built safer. They may come with more air bags, but safer?

A vehicle is only as safe as its operator. With cell phone use and texting, I don’t exactly recognize a trend in the overall population of drivers getting any smarter or more responsible. Aren’t the supporters of this bill the teeny-weeniest bit concerned about fossil fuel dependence, or is it just the other 49 states?

If your vehicle doesn’t get good mileage and you’re not willing to keep your speed down closer to where Sanborn claims most people drive, then quit complaining about prices at the pump. If the speed limit for New Hampshire highways is raised, I do have one suggestion. When the old 65 mph signs come down, maybe he can use some to replace the 40 mph signs at the end of I-89. After all, most people drive 65 mph through there anyway.



Legacy Comments13

Hey Earthling. Luckily I did not get caught in a roundabout. Claremont is like a lot of towns that no longer have industry. Poor and dying. When you think about how Claremont has 1,926 students in 2013 at a cost per student of 15,111 and Concord has 4,830 students at a cost of 12,200 that tells you that the costs for educating those students in Claremont is high due to extra costs for programs no doubt. I pay taxes in Concord, high taxes. Do you think it is fair that my taxes should be higher to pay for other towns? I also have no kids in school and will retire in 2 years. I worked hard to get to where I am. That included crappy jobs along the way, living in apts for 13 yrs, student loans, and going without for many years and also moving 13 times. I also saved over the years. So in my well earned retirement I expect to get by okay. Better than most. I made choices. That is why we moved 13 times between military and job searches. That is why I did. In affect I am already paying for Claremont through my tax dollars federally for all those programs the residents are on. So I am expected to pay for Claremont students who need high cost per student now? I just do not see that as fair earthling. The way I see it is I am already paying 1/3 of my income to help folks with the hope they will get out of poverty. And history tells me they will not. The programs will just keep growing needing more revenue. Just my take.

Glad you found your way out of the roundabout the other day. I think every town's education tax rates should be lowered or offset by substantial education funding, maybe by 50%, from a NH Individual income tax that applies to incomes over $50,000 single, and some higher amount married, with $2500 deductions for each dependent.

Or, wealthy land owners could pay their fair share instead of trying to skate and have everyone pay for their expensive properties at the ocean, mountains and on lakes.

Republicans love to go aroung chanting "cut spending". Do they think spending money to change all the speed limit signs will somehow cut spending?

Hammer Down ! Nuff Said !!!!!

Driving through Detroit the speed limit was 75. The traffic was flowing at 90. Driving through Utah the speed limit was 70, and I was pulled over for doing 75. The officer said the limits are absolute in the western states. Absolute speed limits make more sense to me than playing speed limit guessing games. But if I had a stack of issues on my desk, speed limits issues would be down at the bottom of the pile. Can't Andy Sanborn think of anything more important to do than monkeying around with the speed limits? When Andy has a free minute, maybe he could compare local education tax rates by town: Claremont $16.10, Rye $4.27

one might correlate that the kids are smarter in Rye than Claremont and therefore it costs less to educate them

So in other words I guess sail is saying something like this: Rich people with smart phone kids in NH's tax advantage havens like Rye and New Castle should be immune to any of the cost of educating NH's high taxed/low income concentration camps full of dumb phone kids. Smart(?) rich legislators should just ignore the financial struggle in towns like Claremont and spend most of their time doing only dumb things like playing around with the speed limits, guns, etc.?

Where do you draw the line earthling about how much we should pay in taxes to the folks who are low income? We have 180 programs at present. Those that work, pay for those programs. Most of us have no issue with that. But the left wants more. The War on Poverty was put into place to get folks out of poverty. It has not done that. Instead it has created more and more folks who are on govt programs. Even in it's early stages, folks did not take advantage of what those programs offered, like schooling, etc. Are we all responsible for the folks who make bad choices? The left sees folks who are poor as victims. A small % are due to health issues, etc. But the majority are in a sense a group of folks who expect the govt to pay for them. That is the sad truth. And the Left thinks that the folks who pay their own way should also pay the way for the folks who make no effort to get out of poverty. There has to be a way out of poverty with the 180 programs we now have.

Reply to RabbitNH below (no reply button): "Are we all responsible for the folks who make bad choices?" I agree that folks who make bad choices should suffer most of the consequences, with one exception being that in order for their kids to be educated, as required by state law, "we all" should share in that responsibility. Hard working folks in towns like Claremont and Pittsfield, who did not make bad choices, should not be expected to shoulder a disproportionately large portion of that statewide responsibility, as they are forced to do now by wealthy politicians who just don't seem to care - they'd rather waste time dreaming up stupid stuff to do, like messing around with the speed limits. PS: When you disappeared for a while I thought you might still be stuck in the roundabout.

One might, but he'd be wrong--as usual. As for rabbit's claim down below that the War on Poverty was a failure--not so. LBJ's programs cut the poverty rate nearly in half in 5 years. Only those who rewrite history say it failed. Martin Anderson, of the Hoover Institute and one of Bonzo's policy advisors, was one of many honest conservatives who acknowledged the success of the programs. The programs have foundered since from lack of will, and from the huge influx of immigrants since the 70's brought in to do low wage work who've overwhelmed our fragile social safety net. The influx has also had the effect of depressing wages.

Maybe you could enlighten us Bruce with how the War On Poverty has been a success. Has it reduced poverty? Has it helped blacks or made their struggles worse? Has the War on Poverty resulted in more folks getting out of poverty? Has it increased the amount of babies being born to single mothers? Inquiring minds want to know.

I agree 100% Laurie! Proponents of this bill claim "folks now drive 79 anyway, so why not raise the speed limit to 70?" People drive 70 because the speed limit is 65 and we are programmed to "bend" this law according to what we can get away with. I had a state trooper who stopped me once tell me to my face that "as long as you keep it five miles over the speed limit, we won't pull you over." So . . . best predictor of future behavior being past behavior . . . what do you think folks will do if they raise the speed limit to 70?

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.