Recent comments in /f/newhampshire

chain_me_up t1_j5v2m8s wrote

Reply to Drive Free or Die? NH considers restricting pets in cars by DietCokeMachine

Technically speaking it is super unsafe to have them in the front of the car or in your lap. They sell crash-test harnesses that you can buckle into your backseat that have a bit of spring so the dog can still move a bit, but cannot climb into the front. If anything, your pet on your lap could be just as distracting as texting and driving or unsafe if your animal obstructs your view or ability to drive. I really wish more people would invest in safer harnesses and just keep their pets in the back seat.

48

vexingsilence t1_j5v1qn3 wrote

Reply to Drive Free or Die? NH considers restricting pets in cars by DietCokeMachine

Just like the hands free phone issue, I feel like this is already covered under the existing reckless driving law. I understand passing specific laws to rule out any ambiguity, but what is the legislature going to do, theorize about every possible reckless act and pass legislation for each and every one of them?

​

265:79 Reckless Driving; Minimum Penalty. – Whoever upon any way drives a vehicle recklessly, or causes a vehicle to be driven recklessly, as defined in RSA 626:2, II(c), or so that the lives or safety of the public shall be endangered, or upon a bet, wager, or race, or who drives a vehicle for the purpose of making a record, or who drives a vehicle at a speed of 100 miles per hour or greater, and thereby violates any of the provisions of this title or any rules adopted by the director, shall be, notwithstanding the provisions of title LXII, guilty of a violation and fined not less than $500 plus penalty assessment for the first offense and $750 plus penalty assessment for the second offense nor more than $1,000 plus penalty assessment and his or her license or operating privilege shall be revoked for a period of 60 days for the first offense and from 60 days to one year for the second offense.

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxi/265/265-79.htm

626 IIc:

(c) "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the circumstances known to him, its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of having voluntarily engaged in intoxication or hypnosis also acts recklessly with respect thereto.

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/626/626-2.htm

14

ElisabetSobeckPhD t1_j5v175e wrote

Reply to comment by AKBigDaddy in Why does this state seem to lose power so frequently? It’s always related to downed power lines from trees? Or is this a grid issue? by JayBisky

Personally no, but just saying "raise rates $0.01/kwh and bury the lines" is likely a vast oversimplification. Retrofitting buried electric across the state is a monumental task, when you consider the geography combined with a bunch of people who don't want people interfering with their property. Also consider the huge amount of people that were struggling to afford living here, even before the rate hikes.

I read this article from 2009 that makes it seem fairly unpalatable.

>A rough price tag puts the cost at $17 billion or more. To put that in perspective, cleaning up from the ice storm cost the utilities about $80 million, enough to bury about 100 miles of line. It would take the cost of the damage from 90 similar ice storms to pay for burying half of the state's power lines.

>"It does become more economical to hope for the best and clean up the mess," said Seth Wheeler of New Hampshire Electric Co-op.

1