Picking the head of MADD for the NHTSA?
The position of NHTSA chief requires an administrator of sound judgment, not a zealot beholden to special interests. Mr. Hurley’s associations and background raise the specter that he could use NHTSA regulations and safety grants to benefit his friends and coerce states into adopting his overbearing pet policies.
And the idiot wants to bring back the double nickel, too.
Years ago, I was in the local courthouse and saw a disheveled young man waiting in a security line before entering a DUI courtroom.
I was kinda tempted to be late for my other court appearance and go watch the proceedings, because of his shirt which had the giant letters “DAMM” and an explanation that “DAMM” stood for:
Drunks
Against
Mad
Mothers
Wearing that into a DUI courtroom is almost worthy of a Darwin Award honorable mention.
Sounds like MADD is another non-profit that lingers on after it has accomplished its main purpose. Sure there’s still drunk driving, but it’s much less common than it used to be, is much more harshly punished than it used to be, and there are social adaptations (if you will) like the designated driver and (as far as I can tell) greatly reduced peer pressure that help reduce the occurrence of drunk driving.
In other words, MADD won as much as it could. Yet it still pushes on to measures that will undermine the freedom of the US. That’s a greed of a sort.
Its about power. Always will be with special interests. They start with good intentions and realize that being in power feels much better than being powerless.
When an organization succeeds, the folks that remain within it are ideologues, and will find some other issue into which to shoehorn their totalitarian impulses.
The problem with successful activism is the fear that the success will be lost. Speaking as a Reagan Republican in the era of Obama, I can sympathize, a little.
Drunk driving doesn’t rise to the level, though, of demanding eternal vigilance.
Someone told me that the speed limit in India was 45 mph. We could go one better–make the speed limit here 35 mph. That way we could save money on road repair as well–a pothole at 35 mph isn’t nearly as nasty as the same pothole at 70 mph. I’m sure driving at night is less safe than driving in the daytime (even if it isn’t, it sounds like it should be, which is good enough)–he could make it illegal to drive at night (maybe the night should be reserved for Teamsters only). After a few years of this it should be possible to lower the speed limit to 20 mph–by then, nobody would notice.
Anyway, with a little creativity he could drive the number of traffic fatalities to 0 by driving the amount of traffic to zero.
David, you may think you’re kidding…
McGehee, government is going to pay for the damage those potholes will do to my car, right? Well, assuming they like me, that is.
Didn’t Obama say something about lobbyist and his administration. Isn’t the head of MADD a lobbyist?