Obama Administration In Search Of New, Permanent NHTSA Boss

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon
obama administration in search of new permanent nhtsa boss

Think you could be the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s next top boss? Then you’re in luck: The Obama administration is looking for someone to fill the shoes currently worn by interim chief David Friedman.

Reuters reports Friedman will likely be passed over as far as being promoted to permanently take up where previous chief, David Strickland, left off late last year, due to the handling of both the General Motors February 2014 ignition switch recall, and the ongoing Takata airbag debacle.

As for who U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and White House officials have in mind for the top job at the agency, nothing has been made clear thus far beyond Foxx proclaiming a candidate would be nominated in the near future.

Friedman was named deputy administrator upon Strickland’s departure, having joined the NHTSA in May 2013 after working at the Union of Concerned Scientists for 12 years.

Join the conversation
  • Petezeiss Petezeiss on Oct 30, 2014

    Would I get to reinstate the 55 limit?! I has a CV ready.. where do I go, usajobs? =:-D

    • See 18 previous
    • Geeber Geeber on Nov 03, 2014

      @geeber Xeranar: Geeber, you’re still grasping at air, I read the sources, you made an outrageous claim and the reason why alcohol went down before 1920 was because it was being ratified in 1918 and certified in 1919. Try again, this time using all of the reading comprehension skills that you can muster. Let me help you. I said that alcohol consumption was declining BEFORE the 18th amendment was ratified. It began declining in 1910. The year 1910 was BEFORE 1918, let alone 1920. Consumption then bottomed out in 1921. Xeranar: Alcohol production ceased sometime in late 1918 for most hard spirit producers and in 1919 for shorter-term producers such as Beer. In other words the reduction in 1918 was due to the limitation of availability. Except, of course, that per-capita alcohol consumption was decreasing before 1918. The Temperance Movement was having an effect before Prohibition. Xeranar: It wasn’t going down because of a national habit for less drink which you tried to imply or if you didn’t your argument would have nearly no value. The Temperance Movement was having an effect before the enactment of Prohibition. That is why it was able to have the amendment to the Constitution ratified in the first place. Do you think that the Temperance Movement popped up in 1917, or that it had no effect whatsoever on national drinking habits before then? Logical reasoning tells us that if a movement was strong enough to successfully push the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution, then it was strong enough to have an influence on national life. Xeranar: So take your pick, either an idiot or an intentional deceiver. You'll have more credibility if, a. learn to read arguments and properly respond to them, and. b. refrain from resorting to name-calling as a substitute for knowledge of the subject matter at hand. If anyone is being an "intentional deceiver" it is you, as your own source agrees with what I originally said. Let's recount - Prohibition initially reduced drinking, but, as illegal sources came on line, drinking increased throughout the remainder of the 1920s. Your own source said this. So did I. The main source of disagreement is, a. whether alcohol consumption was declining prior to the enactment or Prohibition, and b. how much drinking increased during Prohibition. Regarding (b), your source says that it didn't reach pre-Prohibition levels until the 1930s; mine says 1929. But both sources say the same thing - drinking increased during Prohibition after illegal sources of alcohol stepped in to fill the breach left by the shutting down of legitimate manufacturers and distributors. Remember, you're the one who claimed that it was "imbecilic" to suggest that drinking increased during Prohibition, and then cited a source that made that very claim! Xeranar: Otherwise the same argument holds, Progressives in 1920 weren’t Liberals by default, how many times do I need to explain this to you or are you just daft? You have to possess superior knowledge of the subject matter at hand to explain anything to someone. You are a long way from that point, trust me. You know about as much about this as you do about American car quality versus Japanese car quality in the 1970s, or how the Toyota Lean Production System works and how it has revolutionized auto manufacturing in this country. Xeranar: Please try again and using CATO? Seriously….They’re the same ones who argued that trickle down economics work. Not exactly a glowing review of the organization. You'll have more credibility if you prove it wrong than criticize the source. You still haven't proven it wrong. As with automotive history, you're not quite the expert that you think you are. Again, Prohibition ultimately failed, and it was a bad policy. For that matter, so was the national 55 mph speed limit. As for your claim that the speed limit was needed because cars were "less capable" then - the interstate highway system was designed to allow a 1956 car to travel safely at 80 mph. By 1964, let alone 1974, cars were more capable than their 1956 counterparts. That is why they were capable of speeds higher than 55 mph. The 55 mph speed limit was a dumb, ineffective law. As the old saying goes, a wise man knows what he knows not.

  • 50merc 50merc on Oct 30, 2014

    If there is a God in heaven, the new NHTSA boss' "permanent" tenure will not exceed 25 months, and in January 2017 the agency will no longer be a fiefdom of the radical leftists of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    • See 6 previous
    • Psarhjinian Psarhjinian on Oct 31, 2014

      @Xeranar "Radical leftists? Good lord, you are watching too much Fox News." I know. It kills me. I know what a radical leftist is **because I was one for a good fifteen years**. Now that I have kids, I'm just a casual pinko. I'd love to see a radical leftist somewhere in US politics, if for no other reason than the country's political spectrum badly needs recalibration. Obama is, economically, right of Reagan and waaaaay right of Nixon.