Out of nowhere, it seems, we suddenly have a move to provide federal safety regulation for subway systems (and bus systems too). At first glance, I thought I'd be against this, as not really necessary - can't local systems be left to management by local authorities? Reading on through the news report, though, it seems there may be advantages in providing at least a limited set of federal requirements, especially when some system directors say they would welcome the regulation, even when the details of the proposed rules haven't been developed yet. Besides, other transportation systems (train, ship, and plane) have been regulated for years; subway systems were omitted from legislation back in 1965 only because when regulations were considered, there were only a handful of systems in the country.
As always in the political system, it requires a crisis or a disaster to spur action. It's pretty clear that the serious subway derailment here in the Washington DC system last June was the catalyst for the proposal for federal regulation. It wasn't a disaster on the scale of an airplane crash, but because it was right in their back yard, it's hard for the government or Congress to ignore.
Even if I were inclined to argue against the creation of new federal regulations, realism suggests I should just stand aside before the steamroller crushes me. Like "cash for clunkers" and the extension of the $8,000 new-home-buyer credit, this proposal has the magic ingredient that inevitably will cause lawmakers to line up behind it: an opportunity to look good and get favorable public exposure by pandering to our perceptions of what's good for us. Security is "in," and almost anything can be justified under its broad umbrella.
That general view on security, by the way, gets diluted on the personal level, where we're all for safety that protects us from the actions of others (we think) but don't want to admit we have responsibility for our own safety. So we will readily buy giant trucks and load them with airbags to protect ourselves from harm, but we'll resist simple technology to enforce speed limits and stoplights because those might interfere with our right to drive irresponsibly and endanger others.
Comments