Amen, I so agree

@Atlant, I just called the Guinness World Book of Records to report today as the first time that you and are known to agree completely.

Charlie:

:-) !

Wow. I was about to post the exact same thing as Charlie W. Completely agree...
for once.

Hopefully "Big Gulps" are safe---

Ya never know Hill... Ya never know.

Why?

Because speed kills.

Well sure it does, but using that logic why wouldn't we make the speed limit 1MPH? Then no one gets hurt.

I would put forward that road design and condition play a part also and as such should be taken into consideration for speed limits. In fact I would go so far as to say that those issues are in fact the determining factor not an arbitrary magic number.

Which brings me back to asking why you are saying what you are saying?

Do you have any facts to put forward or just colloquial sayings?

Charlie,
ask a police officer if speed is ever a factor in fatal crashes.

By your logic, there would be no speed limit, one could travel at as fast as the car could go. (See how easy is to exaggerate what people might say, so no, you are wrong about my "logic")

The factors in car crashes could be poor road design, driver failure, or a combination of the two. Sometimes it's one, or the other, or the combination of the two. Sometimes it's weather conditions, but, actually, more people crash under dry, clear lighted conditions. That's when conditions are right for speeding.

New Hampshire has many rural roads that have winding, curved conditions. These conditions are ripe for single car crashes, which are very often fatal. Too much speed for the design.

Presumably, the proposed 75 miles per hour highways would not include these rural roads; however, I would question the design standards even for the limited access highways in New Hampshire for which these 75 MPH speeds are proposed. They just aren't designed safe enough for these speeds. Not enough recovery room on many places along I-93 or the toll roads. Too many obstacles to hit along the side of the highways. Too many curves and grades.

Charlie,
there's plenty of evidence out there that speed kills. Do I really have to draw you a map?

P.S., seems to me that 75 MPH is arbitrary, where did that number come from? Did anyone do any speed studies to find the prevailing speeds?
Charlie,
This isn't a Democtratic versus Republican issue. So don't make it into one. It's a safety issue.

I'm for raising it to 75 in some places. Right now the lower speed limit serves far more as an excuse for a cop to pull someone over rather than for any safety issue.
Ray, if you really want to argue this point you're going to need to very clearly and concisely back up your point with data and links. I doubt it's anything that can be proven though.

Scott,
The design speed for Main I-395 is 70 miles per hour, two lane limited access highway. That's Interstate. That has to be similar to what we have in NH and to the highways these politicians want to raise the speed limit on to 75.

You want me to "clearly concisely back up my point" and yet you throw an off the cuff remark with absolute no connection to reality that lower speeds are just an excuse for police to give tickets?

That's laughable.
You say,
"Nothing can be proven",
That's a convenient way of saying that you don't really want to look at the facts.

Ray, 75MPH on a rural road? Please, that is a comical assertion and I am positive no one is advocating that. I do think that there are large long sections of road that 75MPH is more than reasonable; like say after the liquor store on 93 to the 89 junction comes to mind. The police are one input to consider but all too often when they have too much of a say in speed limit you get speed traps from the almost arbitrary speed changes on some roads; it seems intentional at times to generate revenue through tickets. All I am saying is I think there are reasonable places for 75MPH and your assertion seems to be that go anything over 65MPH is absolutely creates more accidents. I am simply asking you to back that assertion up with something other than innuendo and colloquial statements. That really that hard?

Charlie,
you need to read the posts entirely.

Here it is again for you.

"Presumably, the proposed 75 miles per hour highways would not include these rural roads; however, I would question the design standards even for the limited access highways in New Hampshire for which these 75 MPH speeds are proposed."

Read what I said through before you criticize what I write.

Unfortunately Ray I wish you would read; I'll try again.

I am simply asking you to back that assertion up with something other than innuendo and colloquial statements; and you seem to be unable to do just that.

Charlie,
see below, engineering standards for limited access highways (also called 'freeways") 60 to 70 MPH.
further,
these are facts, not "colloquial" statements.

Speed kills, that's a fact.
More facts.
More crashes occur and more severe crashes occur on roads with rolling terrain, curved roads, in rural areas.

These have been backed up with studies.

What hasn't been backed up with any evidence is the proposed arbitrary 75 MPH.

Please show how raising the limit to 75 will not result in more crashes.

Mr. Guarino,

President Pierce's personal correspondences with Jefferson Davis were due to the fact that President Pierce appointed Jefferson Davis Secretary of War (now is called Secretary of State) duing his Administration

Hilltopper:

The "Secretary of War" is now the "Secretary of Defense" (as the whole thing was renamed from the more-accurate "War Department" to the highly-fig-leafy "Department of Defense").

And you're just as wrong about Franklin Pierce, as the rest of the Wikipedia article makes clear.

Mr. Atlant

In 1853 Jefferson Davis became secretary of war in the cabinet of President Franklin Pierce, where he demonstrated his southern expansionist leanings. With the close of the Pierce administration, he returned to the Senate and became a leader of the southern Democratic defense of slavery and its constitutional right to protection in the territories. More controversially, he advocated the revival of the slave trade.

Mr. Hilltopper,
you are not correct about the correspondence between the two. According to Wiki, they wrote each other after Pirece's administration and possibly during the Civil War in which Pierce sympathizes with the Southern cause.

Mr. Guarino,

President Pierce left office in 1857 when the Democrats failed to endorse him for a second term and as far as his letters to Jefferson Davis, in my opinion, were not as treasonous as what he proclaimed to President Lincoln:

"In the end, Franklin Pierce's belief in a limited role for the federal government, combined with his accommodation of and submission to powerful proslavery interests within the Democratic Party, had made him largely ineffective as a leader.

During the Civil War (1861-1865), Pierce accused Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans of reckless conduct and denounced Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (1863). At a Democratic rally on July 4, 1863, he condemned the war as "fearful, fruitless, and fatal, immediately losing face when news came of the historic Union victory at Gettysburg."

His wife died later in 1863, and Pierce stayed largely out of the public eye from then on; he died in Concord in 1869.

Mr. Hilltopper,
Pierce was not exactly an inspiring man, he believed the Civil War was an excuse for the government to take property. I wonder if he was talking about "human" property?

Nevertheless, his sympathies for the "lost cause" are not enough, in my opinion, to establish "Franklin Pierce Day". Although US Grant did commend him for his contribution in the Mexican-American War when he died.

Mr. Guarino,

President Pierce, like his fellow Democrats and their Party, were southern sympathizers and had powerful proslavery interests. This was revealed during President Pierce's Administration when Sen. Stephen Douglas pressured President Pierce to support the Kansas-Nebraska Act, even though President Pierce weakly objected at first because of the Missouri Compromise.

It was apparent that not only President Pierce and Jefferson Davis were friends, but shared political views, before, during and after the Civil War

Mr. Guarino,

He may of been at the bottom of the list in Presidential Rankings, but bottom line, he was the only President from New Hampshire and no matter what his legacy is, the Office Of President should be respected and acknowledged and I personally don't have a problem with choosing Frankin Pierce Day over voting the Potato as State vegetable and risking war with the State of Maine and Idaho--(Is the Potato really a Vegetable??)

Mr. Hilltopper,
You make a good point about the state making a big deal over a tuber instead of setting aside a day to honor individuals who deserve to be honored, for example, Martin Luther King. In keeping with Pierce's legacy, New Hampshire was the last state in the nation to honor Dr. King's birthday with a set aside day. And if I'm not mistaken, they officially call it something else, such as "Civil Rights Day".

Seems like it's difficult to actually say the name "Dr. Martin Luther King" in New Hampshire. Maybe they should have called it "He-who-shall-not-be-named Day"?

Mr. Guarino,

"He-who-shall-not-be-named Day"? That would be a day for Lord Voldemort.
(Who I think looks like the Gov. of Florida)

Maybe we could name Franklin Pierce Day, "Friends of Jefferson Davis Day" or "Southern Confederate Sympathizer's Day?"

Then we could wave confederate flags at Monument Square, Nahsua, you know the place where we memorialize New Hampshire soldiers for sacrificing their lives for the union.

If you paid them, you'd have to pay them at least the State and Federal Minimum Wages; you don't.

Effectively, your State Legislators and State Senators donate their time to you as volunteers.

I am sure the politician is prepared to make the case. I am interested in hearing both sides. You have stated that speed kills and that raising it would be a mistake. I am trying to hear the argument you keep failing to make.

I am simply asking you to back that assertion up with something other than innuendo and colloquial statements; and you seem to be unable to do just that.

Already done that Charlie, you just won't listen to reason

No you have not Ray; you have made further assertions about the speed for which a road is designed yet do not know what road or roads are being suggested so how exactly do you know what the as of yet unnamed road design speed is. All you have done is continue to be completely one sided refusing to even be rational. Typical from you it seems. Take care.

No Charlie,
I told you what the design speeds are for highways, limited access highways, sometimes called "freeways". Anything over the design speed, which is what the proposed 75 MPH is, will not be safe. That's common sense reasoning, but that ability that most people have somehow eludes you.

You think you want to hear all sides, but there is only one person you are fooling with that line. (it's you).

So because some may exercise bad judgement you want to limit everyone's rights to do as they please? Sounds like we should roll our sleeves up and scrap the 2nd amendment too right? after all some people exercise bad judgement with guns............

Charlie W

"Bad Judgement" led to the prohibition of "Big Gulps"

Hill, we don't ban the Big Gulp here... We let people decide for themselves if they want to pour fake sugar loaded water down their throats, in vast quantities, whenever and wherever they like.

Jan,

Whew thats a relief---I really didn't want the option of buying two of the smaller size cups--and it doesn't matter if its vast quantities of fake sugar water, amber colored adult beverages, state contolled spirits, Morning Joe caffine, energy drinks or herbal weed, I should have that choice free of legislation --- after all this is America and we are free to make these choices right? Still?

Oh yes, we can feel safe and secure in our right to make our own decisions...