It's snowing, oh no!

[Chris-PA]

How much traffic per day on these passes where chains are required? Do they move 100,000 commuters plus delivery trucks?

Exactly - when phrases like "Nanny State" are used we all know that this is code for a conservative viewpoint. And yet the old conservative mantra of local control would say that those who live in rural areas of the PNW and those who live in heavily populated New England states would have different views, different requirements and would be best able to decide what makes sense for their area. Yeah, it's hard not to try to tell others that they should do what you would do, but that's part of the package.

The difference is you don't have the potential of being fined and you can travel alternate routes as well. It's far different than a statewide defacto travel ban which is asinine.

CT is pretty far from ID, with very different conditions and views, and their government made a different choice than what you think makes sense. If they don't like it it's their problem to deal with, and if they're OK with it why do you care?

 

[Cerran]

Exactly - when phrases like "Nanny State" are used we all know that this is code for a conservative viewpoint. And yet the old conservative mantra of local control would say that those who live in rural areas of the PNW and those who live in heavily populated New England states would have different views, different requirements and would be best able to decide what makes sense for their area. Yeah, it's hard not to try to tell others that they should do what you would do, but that's part of the package.


CT is pretty far from ID, with very different conditions and views, and their government made a different choice than what you think makes sense. If they don't like it it's their problem to deal with, and if they're OK with it why do you care?

I care because it sets a dangerous precedent and I'm exercising my right to criticize the idiotic actions of their state government.

Nanny state is actually nothing to do with a conservative viewpoint. Drug laws are nanny state creations and the majority of conservatives support them.

 

[1project2many]

It's still asinine to ticket people for being on the roads. Issue a travel advisory and ask people to stay off the roads unless travel is absolutely necessary but a ban on travel is stupid.

Note what NH did - They came out and said use common sense and don't travel unless needed. No ban required.

NH isn't as populated as MA and still has plenty of rural areas where common sense is a part of life. Because of that we have fewer rules and laws than some of our neighbors. As more and more move north the state is changing.

I do not agree with the ban. I understand why it was implemented in MA. MA is packed so full of laws, rules, taxes, and other intrusions that are generally incompatible with good living that no one is interested in cooperating with state government. The governor could not ask people to stay off the road... they'd laugh at the request. And the state police could not enforce a request either but they surely can enforce a ban. Which is just fine with the residents because they're still rebelling against colonialism and will ignore this rule like they do any others which seem unpleasant. Which only serves to reinforce the idea that the citizens don't care and so the government needs more laws...

 

[taskswap]

Look, you guys can rationalize all day long. You have a speed limit, too, and I don't see you marching in the streets over that, or stop lights, or anything else. All I ever hear is "Nanny State" whenever somebody doesn't like a law. Hockey players bitched about helmets for DECADES, but you don't hear people bitching about them now. Sooner or later there has to be a set of rules to follow or people take advantage. Just because YOU wouldn't do it doesn't mean somebody else wouldn't. What it really amounts to is a sense of entitlement - "I'm a better driver so I should be allowed to do what I want." Then my taxes go to pay for somebody to pull you out of a ditch, and you're all like "it was a freak accident, nobody could have expected it."

Save your complaints about the Federal government we both share. We don't sit here joking about how silly Idaho seems. It doesn't make anybody feel good but yourself to make fun of a state you don't even live in, but some of us that DO are pretty happy with. You don't have to come here. (But if you do, and you drive during a travel ban, which MIGHT happen again in another decade... be prepared to pony up $500!)

 

[Cerran]

Look, you guys can rationalize all day long. You have a speed limit, too, and I don't see you marching in the streets over that, or stop lights, or anything else. All I ever hear is "Nanny State" whenever somebody doesn't like a law. Hockey players bitched about helmets for DECADES, but you don't hear people bitching about them now. Sooner or later there has to be a set of rules to follow or people take advantage. Just because YOU wouldn't do it doesn't mean somebody else wouldn't. What it really amounts to is a sense of entitlement - "I'm a better driver so I should be allowed to do what I want." Then my taxes go to pay for somebody to pull you out of a ditch, and you're all like "it was a freak accident, nobody could have expected it."

Save your complaints about the Federal government we both share. We don't sit here joking about how silly Idaho seems. It doesn't make anybody feel good but yourself to make fun of a state you don't even live in, but some of us that DO are pretty happy with. You don't have to come here. (But if you do, and you drive during a travel ban, which MIGHT happen again in another decade... be prepared to pony up $500!)

We don't sit here joking about how silly Idaho seems because in general our state doesn't pull nanny state BS.

FYI the hockey players is not the same comparison, NHL is a private organization and has the right to impose whatever rules they see fit.

No, it has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement. Drivers should be able to do what for the most part they want as long as they don't endanger others. I have already stated that if someone travels during a no travel advisory and gets stuck, they should be fined if the road crews have to pull them out. (Just like snow passes). The whole point is to make sure that drivers don't interfere with road crews clearing the roads. The possibility of fines will keep most people off the road.

Don't get me started on speed limits which are arbitrary money grabbing constructs which have nothing to do with safety in most instances.

 

[Chris-PA]

I have already stated that if someone travels during a no travel advisory and gets stuck, they should be fined if the road crews have to pull them out. (Just like snow passes).

But it's not just like the snow passes in ID at all, and they don't just get stuck - the population density is much higher, so they hit things, damage other people's property and hurt people. Emergency personnel have to take risks to help, etc. At intersections there are so many fools piled up the emergency personnel can't get through.

It's more rural here, but even with the most mild of snows I must plan my route to avoid the places I know will become blocked with a festival of asshats who have not cleared their windows, don't know how to turn on the defrosters, have bald tires and no idea what they are doing. A couple of years ago when we had a serious storm my daughter was hit by a falling branch. The ambulance was a bit ahead of me and after 2 detours was able to drive up the wrong side of the main local road for a few miles, as it is a steep hill and the right lane was blocked with unmovable vehicles. I tried to get through for 45min in our F250 with good tires on every road I know, but was unable to find a way through. After I gave up (my wife was with her), I worked really hard to get home. It's not a couple of cars in a ditch, it's mass blockage of every road.

 

[4x4American]

Man that just sounds awful living in such a populated area like that

 

[stihly dan]

Keep in mind Idaho is about as large as all new England. We have the smallest states. 1 of our states may be as large as 1 of your county's.

 

[slowp]

Zogger, Snoqualmie Pass gets a tremendous amount of traffic. It is the major route to Seattle from the rest of the world. That and I-5. And yes, our roads get torn up something fierce. Not necessarily from chains, but from studded tires, which are legal to run on in the winter.

Mountain passes are closed several times a winter while crews do avalanche control or clear avalanches or rocks or slides. The CHAINS REQUIRED sign goes up first for trucks, then, if things worsen, chains will be required for 2 wheel drive cars, then, maybe even on 4x4s. I always figure when chains are required on 4x4s, it is time to stay off that pass.

I-90, Snoqualmie Pass, has the cross state traffic, and then, add to that the ski traffic. All 3 major passes have ski areas on top. Snoqualmie and Stevens are closest to Seattle, so the parking lots are full on weekends. I think I have a toothbrush in my ski bag. Slides can happen and skiers can be stuck on the top of the pass.

Sometimes, the State Patrol will have a checkpoint when chains are required and fines will be handed out. Then, like in Idaho, get in the ditch or an accident and they'll ask to see your chains. Not that they are required to be on, but they are required to be in your vehicle.

You can see the traffic on the passes by going to the WADOT cameras. Snoqualmie and Stevens have quite a few up. Oh, and since Seattle became such a popular place to live for a lot of people, there are long backups on I-90 on Sunday afternoons when they all leave from the drier east side to go over the pass and get home. Look on a map and the backups usually extend to Easton and then on holidays, the parking lot begins at Cle Elum. I haven't driven Snoqualmie Pass for eons because of all the traffic on it since our state became a beacon for immigrants wanting to be "close to the mountains".

Don't move here. Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, California, and New Mexico have much nicer mountains. Move there.

 

[slowp]

Here is a linky to Snoqualmie Pass traffic cams.

http://www.wsdot.com/traffic/passes/snoqualmie/default.aspx

 

[Wayne68]

Zogger, Snoqualmie Pass gets a tremendous amount of traffic. It is the major route to Seattle from the rest of the world. That and I-5. And yes, our roads get torn up something fierce. Not necessarily from chains, but from studded tires, which are legal to run on in the winter.

Mountain passes are closed several times a winter while crews do avalanche control or clear avalanches or rocks or slides. The CHAINS REQUIRED sign goes up first for trucks, then, if things worsen, chains will be required for 2 wheel drive cars, then, maybe even on 4x4s. I always figure when chains are required on 4x4s, it is time to stay off that pass.

I-90, Snoqualmie Pass, has the cross state traffic, and then, add to that the ski traffic. All 3 major passes have ski areas on top. Snoqualmie and Stevens are closest to Seattle, so the parking lots are full on weekends. I think I have a toothbrush in my ski bag. Slides can happen and skiers can be stuck on the top of the pass.

Sometimes, the State Patrol will have a checkpoint when chains are required and fines will be handed out. Then, like in Idaho, get in the ditch or an accident and they'll ask to see your chains. Not that they are required to be on, but they are required to be in your vehicle.

You can see the traffic on the passes by going to the WADOT cameras. Snoqualmie and Stevens have quite a few up. Oh, and since Seattle became such a popular place to live for a lot of people, there are long backups on I-90 on Sunday afternoons when they all leave from the drier east side to go over the pass and get home. Look on a map and the backups usually extend to Easton and then on holidays, the parking lot begins at Cle Elum. I haven't driven Snoqualmie Pass for eons because of all the traffic on it since our state became a beacon for immigrants wanting to be "close to the mountains".

Don't move here. Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, California, and New Mexico have much nicer mountains. Move there.

It must be a beautiful spot there to attract so many (immigrants) because it apparently isn't the warm reception from the locals that draws people in.

 

[slowp]

Oh, and a fatal avalanche in Missoula, MT. There are urban avalanches.
http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/new-details-revealed-in-deadly-missoula-avalanche/24918702

 

[slowp]

It must be a beautiful spot there to attract so many (immigrants) because it apparently isn't the warm reception from the locals that draws people in.

So, do you think we should be welcoming to as many people who want to move here and will wreck/degrade the quality of life if they do?? Where do you draw the line?
Move here, knock over more forest, pave or plant your grass and keep on until it is gone??

I'd rather be unfriendly and discourage people. Besides, I may be saving your life. There's volcanoes to erupt and the big earthquake to look forward to. You could die if you moved here! Stay in the flatlands, please.

 

[4x4American]

Hey you know what I wouldn't be sad if they closed the borders to the USA we've got too many people in the states.

 

[Wayne68]

So, do you think we should be welcoming to as many people who want to move here and will wreck/degrade the quality of life if they do?? Where do you draw the line?
Move here, knock over more forest, pave or plant your grass and keep on until it is gone??

I'd rather be unfriendly and discourage people. Besides, I may be saving your life. There's volcanoes to erupt and the big earthquake to look forward to. You could die if you moved here! Stay in the flatlands, please.

I don't recall saying I was going to move there, I just find it strange that you refer to people that want to move to a region like that as immigrants and assume the rest of the country couldn't possibly survive out there

 

[svk]

Hey you know what I wouldn't be sad if they closed the borders to the USA we've got too many people in the states.

I've got a British friend trying to move to America. It's actually not that easy if you do it legally.

 

[Wayne68]

Ya that's a good point they make it difficult for an honest hard working person to get in, but all wrong ones seem to find their way in no problem. Then a few weeks later they bring over the whole damn family as well !

 

[Whitespider]

People who have entered our country illegally should be treated as felony criminals.
So in that sense, I'm all for immigration reform... I believe the act of illegally entering the US should be elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony. People caught entering illegally should be hung with a felony arrest and conviction... which would automatically make legal immigration extremely difficult (as well as removing certain rights and privileges if they did later get in legally).
I also believe unlawful presence in the US should be elevated from a civil crime to a felony crime... same consequences as above.

It is completely asinine to let someone stay here who's very first act in this country was a crime (illegal entry).

If you invited me to your home, and you asked me to remove my shoes before entering... then I said "screw that" and tracked mud across your carpet... would you allow me to stay?? Would you invite me back??

Asinine‼
*

 

[hupte]

I still buy a weeks worth at a time and have enough on hand for a couple weeks.

a weeks worth?? i usually buy a month+ worth at a time. but then I'm only feeding myself. If i had to buy food every week I'd buy 4x more.

 

[fixit1960]

People who have entered our country illegally should be treated as felony criminals.
So in that sense, I'm all for immigration reform... I believe the act of illegally entering the US should be elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony. People caught entering illegally should be hung with a felony arrest and conviction... which would automatically make legal immigration extremely difficult (as well as removing certain rights and privileges if they did later get in legally).
I also believe unlawful presence in the US should be elevated from a civil crime to a felony crime... same consequences as above.

It is completely asinine to let someone stay here who's very first act in this country was a crime (illegal entry).

If you invited me to your home, and you asked me to remove my shoes before entering... then I said "screw that" and tracked mud across your carpet... would you allow me to stay?? Would you invite me back??

Asinine‼
*

Isn't it amazing how the current administration views what we see as a crime, as just " poor disadvantaged people looking for a better life and to raise their children in a more civilized environment". I say bullsh1t. I agree with you WS. How can you live next to and trust someone, or work with them and trust them knowing the first act upon the soil of "their new country" was to break the law. They (liberal government) treat illegal immigrants better than they treat our poor citizens here. Give them more advantages and help them at every turn. The stories I have read and videos I have seen of how "they " treat our countries flag in California is disgraceful and would earn someone an a$$whooping, I believe, here in the Midwest ....

They do not come here to assimilate and try to blend in to become a part of our society, they come here to earn money, a lot of which is sent back "home". Taking our jobs in the process, and to squelch that BS argument about how we won't do those jobs, I don't agree. It's supply and demand and they know they can do it cheaper than we will. As long as they are here in the numbers they are, the supply will overrun the demand and they will always have work.

I have no sympathy for them and write my legislators regularly stressing the need to close and secure the border before any other immigration reform is done....

Okay, rant over.....sorry...