Obama Administration In Search Of New, Permanent NHTSA Boss

"Would I get to reinstate the 55 limit?!" Only if you want to get fired, or shot

@Lie2me No price too high to rescue tall & boxy vehicles from the putrid jaws of CAFE. "Ask not what your country may do to you...."

Great. Now I have "Convoy" and Sammy Hagar both stuck in my head, which is a double shot of not-so-goodness.

After we reinstate the 55 mph speed limit, we can move on to reinstating Prohibition. Because one dumb, ineffective, widely ignored law deserves another.

@Pch101 I just watched the Hagar video because of you. How can you live with yourself?

@geeber Oh, but there are sooo many

@geeber "dumb, ineffective, widely ignored law" Ya gotta stand for *something*.

That's a MINIMUM speed limit, right?

@OneAlpha No, minimum would be..ummm.. think, think... 40? Yeah, 40. Otherwise you couldn't keep the mopeds out.

@geeber Actually Prohibition was highly effective, alcohol consumption went down more than 90% in the US. The rise in crime was measurable and relatively violent but most Americans simply abide by the law and didn't drink. What made Prohibition unpopular and thus saw its repeal was that the dry people were a minority that used poor election attendance to get it passed in the first place. Rock-ribbed conservatives wanted to appease a dry religious base and successfully got it through on largely moral arguments. The fact that most of society had preferred to be wet was of no consequence. But again, comparing things to the mythological 'Prohibition' is easier than acknowledging the reality of the law itself.

@Xeranar You're wrong. The decline in the nation's per-capita consumption of alcohol began in 1910, or before Prohibition was enacted. Per-capita consumption of alcohol continued to decline through 1921, and then began rising after that year. By 1929, per-capital consumption of alcohol was ahead of 1918 levels. By 1929, virtually all of it was from technically illegal sources. Even worse, Prohibition encouraged people to consume more lethal substitutes, or more dangerous types of alcohols. And then there is the fact that Prohibition fueled the rise of the Mafia and lead to increased violence in the cities. It also was a major cause of corruption. Prohibition wasn't just supported by conservatives; plenty of progressives (particularly women) supported it, too. They linked alcohol consumption to things like domestic violence and prostitution. As you said, it's best not to follow the mythological version of Prohibition, which is the one that it worked by reducing consumption of alcohol and was only supported by conservatives. I can't wait to read the revised history that paints the national 55 mph speed limit as a roaring success.

Geeber, go ahead and cite your source. I'll wait. I'm not going to bother responding any further until you can validate the claims being made because all of the historical evidence actually seriously undercuts what you just said. The rest can be dealt with after you bring out serious evidence. Also, Progressive prior to 1932 doesn't necessarily mean they supported liberal economic policies or modern progressive attitudes. Progressives that were tied to were generally socially conservative as well as mixed on wet/dry ideology. The dry movement came from both the Temperance societies that were Progressive in that era and strong religious conservatives. EDIT: Here goes a scholarly paper to further my point. Consumption rebounds but it was effective at restricting consumption regardless of how you want to spin it. Their paper is short and ignores some of the further context that by the mid-20s local law enforcement was growing lax on the matter since people weren't actually supporting it as a social decision which makes enforcing the law ineffective. But to claim it increased is imbecilic. http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf

@geeber The data points to lower consumption during Prohibition, and improved health as a result. That doesn't meant that it was good social policy or that it didn't have any negative effects. (On the contrary, I would argue that it was very bad policy.) But it did contribute to reduced alcohol consumption.

@geeber I made no argument on whether prohibition was a good policy, I merely pointed out using it as a catch all for 'bad policies' is a bit of a misnomer because there were better measures to curtailed alcohol abuse (namely state-controlled liquor boards and stores) that made a markable difference. The issue is that we tend to get this attitude that any change in social policy is inherently bad if sufficiently strict. It's just a matter of your practical perception on the position of the policy and not the policy itself. In other words: The NHTSA isn't going out of their way to make bad policy, they're actually stuck in a complex situation where one political party is so aggressively against any form of regulation that nominal and helpful regulation gets painted with an aggressive brush to dissuade any actual movement on it. However you feel about 55 MPH speed limits, when they were introduced cars were modestly capable and fuel savings were realized. As time goes by that could be changed to higher speeds with improvement to engines and cars. But when we want to have a discussion on who should head a regulatory commission and people scream about regulation as a tool you have to wonder what is wrong with society.

@geeber "However you feel about 55 MPH speed limits, when they were introduced cars were modestly capable and fuel savings were realized." That's false. Oil consumption wasn't really impacted by the lower limits. For one thing, many roads in the US already had limits of 55 mph or less, and were therefore not affected. Your average city street doesn't have a limit anywhere close to 55 mph. For another, the lower speed limits were largely ignored. Compliance rates were low. And of course, many commuters travel in slow traffic, which renders the speed limit irrelevant. Travel speeds are necessarily low when the roads are gridlocked. Research on speed limits is pretty consistent: most people drive at speeds at which they are comfortable and largely ignore the limits. A 10 mph change in a limit often results in a change in average speed of 1-2 mph. With low speed limits, enforcement becomes a random game of cat and mouse, which deters few people as drivers realize that the odds of being caught are low. What helped to reduce consumption were smaller cars and reduced driving. The stagflationary economy contributed to this; driving decreases during economic downturns. With prohibition, it was hard to obtain alcohol. But speed choices are quite immediate and democratic: people vote with their right feet, in real time. Low limits just breed disrespect for the law, with punishment handed out through a lottery system.

@geeber You might read your own source more carefully. It "estimated" the consumption of alcohol using "mortality, mental health and crime statistics." The paper you linked to claims that the nation's consumption of alcohol initially dropped during the beginning of Prohibition (which is what I said, so your source agrees with mine), and then "increased sharply" during Prohibition. Which, amazingly enough, is what I said, too, in my earlier post: "Per-capita consumption of alcohol continued to decline through 1921, and then began rising after that year. By 1929, per-capital consumption of alcohol was ahead of 1918 levels." Nowhere does your paper prove incorrect that per-capita consumption of alcohol was dropping BEFORE Prohibition was enacted. (The Temperance Movement predated Prohibition, and was having an effect on alcohol consumption prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution.) Of course consumption dropped more drastically immediately after Prohibition was enacted. All of the legal sources of alcohol were quickly closed. People were deprived of virtually all legal sources of alcohol. But the illicit sources soon kicked into gear, and alcohol consumption immediately began rising. Incidentally, since your own source claims that consumption was increasing during Prohibition, so is it "imbecilic," too? Here's the source: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf Xeranar: The dry movement came from both the Temperance societies that were Progressive in that era and strong religious conservatives. In which case, don't suggest that Prohibition was enacted because of support from conservatives, as you originally did.

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. 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. 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. So take your pick, either an idiot or an intentional deceiver. 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? Anyways, Temperance movements are actually Conservative by default of their social position, Progressive in their approach, but are not liberal in either the Classical or Modern sense of the word. 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.

@geeber I would no sooner cite a Cato paper on the subject of regulations than I would cite a UAW study to prove the value of unions. Cato is only good for knowing what libertarians want to believe. It is not an objective source of research. I would take the NBER over Cato any day of the week.

Radical Leftists? Sheesh... You guys don't know what a radical leftist is. Some perspective would help. A milquetoast neoliberal is not a leftist, nor particularly radical.

Radical leftists? Good lord, you are watching too much Fox News. Anyways, January 2017 will be Hillary's swearing in ceremony and most of the 2010 Tea Party Senators being shown the door. It's not looking good for the right at all in the coming election...or decades... But if you're upset by Obama's Carter-level of Liberalism you're really in for a bad time after Clinton.

@Xeranar Already bracing yourself for Tuesday, I see.

@darkwing When the Republicans squeeze out 51 seats in the senate and all of Obama's appointments get trashed? Meh, it's life. Republicans do well when Democrats don't show up to the polls. 2016 will be a banner year because once again a Presidential candidate will be up and Republicans have nobody that isn't remotely toxic. I really don't mind the realities of the situation, Gen Y & their younger counterparts are more liberal than Gen X and Boomers. The demographics that made Republican strongholds are dying faster than they be replaced. Georgia is a tight race that just a few years ago would have been a lock. 2016 will put most of the tea party senate on the block in most cases will be ousted, this is a short-term issue, if the Democrats get 50 seats it sets them up for a bigger win in 2016. They get less it's 2 more years of endless gridlock with no legislation getting through either way and maybe even a farce of an impeachment that will fail miserably. Of course impeaching Obama would probably steel his supporters more than anything so it would be a thrill to watch them do such a hackneyed action to further their inevitable loss.

@darkwing When the Republicans squeeze out 51 seats in the senate and all of Obama's appointments get trashed? Meh, it's life. Republicans do well when Democrats don't show up to the polls. 2016 will be a banner year because once again a Presidential candidate will be up and Republicans have nobody that isn't remotely toxic. I really don't mind the realities of the situation, Gen Y & their younger counterparts are more liberal than Gen X and Boomers. The demographics that made Republican strongholds are dying faster than they be replaced. Non-whites are only going to increase the disparity as time wears on. So enjoy the mid-term boon, it is the only glory days of conservatives have left. Georgia is a tight race that just a few years ago would have been a lock. 2016 will put most of the tea party senate on the block in most cases will be ousted, this is a short-term issue, if the Democrats get 50 seats it sets them up for a bigger win in 2016. They get less it's 2 more years of endless gridlock with no legislation getting through either way and maybe even a farce of an impeachment that will fail miserably. Of course impeaching Obama would probably steel his supporters more than anything so it would be a thrill to watch them do such a hackneyed action to further their inevitable loss.

@darkwing Quite interesting to have a comment eaten 3 separate times... When the Republicans squeeze out 51 seats in the senate and all of Obama's appointments get trashed? Meh, it's life. Republicans do well when Democrats don't show up to the polls. 2016 will be a banner year because once again a Presidential candidate will be up and Republicans have nobody that isn't remotely toxic. I really don't mind the realities of the situation, Gen Y & their younger counterparts are more liberal than Gen X and Boomers. The demographics that made Republican strongholds are dying faster than they be replaced. Georgia is a tight race that just a few years ago would have been a lock. 2016 will put most of the tea party senate on the block in most cases will be ousted, this is a short-term issue, if the Democrats get 50 seats it sets them up for a bigger win in 2016. They get less it's 2 more years of endless gridlock with no legislation getting through either way and maybe even a farce of an impeachment that will fail miserably. Of course impeaching Obama would probably steel his supporters more than anything so it would be a thrill to watch them do such a hackneyed action to further their inevitable loss.