5 ms·

Here in Florida we have the Bithlo drag race track. They have events where locals can race their own cars, and sometimes ones where you can compete against a so

Here in Florida we have the Bithlo drag race track. They have events where locals can race their own cars, and sometimes ones where you can compete against a souped up police car that the local department races. I think this goes a long way towards reducing illegal street races by providing a legal outlet. I wonder if something similar would help here? There’s a car culture of meeting at an empty paved area and gathering around and doing donuts, perhaps there could be a designated “public park” for this?

ryaneager 2y ago
Sonoma Raceway is about an hour north of the city and has similar drag racing events.
eleveriven 2y ago
Maybe it can potentially reduce illegal activities
HaZeust 2y ago
These people aren't the most intelligent or participatory in civilization; they like doing it at 4-way intersection BECAUSE it disrupts. At a morning/afternoon car show (generally the only kinds you should go to, evening ones are bad news) where I brought my v8 camaro, I was invited to my first sideshow and to drive in the convoy. Went, saw the malarkey, left.
- mrandish 2y ago
  > they like doing it at 4-way intersection BECAUSE it disrupts. I agree there are (at least) two large segments of the attending crowds, those looking for auto-sport type activities and those you describe who are basically looking for large-crowd street events in their urban area and view an event being unofficial, illegal and/or disruptive as making it even more appealing and 'authentic'. I'm more in the first group and having the kind of street racing-centric and adjacent events GP describes available locally would appeal to me and be a real alternative. Conversely, I think the second segment of the crowd are pretty much going to "do spontaneous large-crowd things" in these areas even if authorities intentionally degrade urban intersections to be so annoying that "sideshows" (as currently practiced) cease. The second type of crowd will just morph what they do in that area into something else that's suitably unofficial, illegal and/or disruptive. Probably nothing short of much wider-scale urban reform than just impeding some intersections, is going to meaningfully change that. To be clear, my point is only that something like GP's proposed alternative might actually meet an unmet need for one segment of the participants with a workable substitute, while for the other segment, what the authorities are currently doing has little chance of really solving anything other than pushing today's specific disruptive activity into a different disruptive activity tomorrow (while further degrading urban intersections all the time). I take no position on what (if any) viable solutions might exist to really address the problem with the second segment because it's a symptom of much larger systemic issues. However, I'm fairly confident what authorities are doing now does nothing to address the autosport need AND does nothing to fundamentally address the root causes of illegal underground urban street rally/protests.
  - even_639765 2y ago
    >Probably nothing short of much wider-scale urban reform than just impeding some intersections, is going to meaningfully change that. Interesting. What did you have in mind?
    - mrandish 2y ago
      Well, I said elsewhere in my post > "I take no position on what (if any) viable solutions might exist to really address the problem with the second segment because it's a symptom of much larger systemic issues." So I don't know of anything in particular which might, A) address the underlying causes of urban youth being disaffected or engaging in disruptive behavior, and B) Fit within the ability and political will of urban cities to implement and afford. As far as I can tell it's a largely intractable problem which has existed to some extent for as long as there have been large, dense, urban inner cities. Historically, different cities seem to have gone through periods where it was worse (Chicago in the 60s, NYC in the 70s, Detroit in the 80s) but it's never been completely "fixed" in any of these cities. While today's manifestations of urban youth disaffection, such as sideshows, are different on the surface, I suspect the underlying root causes are much broader and not much different than they've always been. It's entirely possible that some of these root causes are baked into the structure of large, dense, urban inner cities and fully addressing the root causes isn't possible without essentially banning the existence of large urban centers beyond some arbitrary population density. Lee Kuan Yew seems to have found a different urban equilibrium in metro Singapore - but only by being a totalitarian and limiting individual rights in ways the U.S. constitution could (thankfully) never allow. Apparently, the best that can be done in the context of modern U.S. urban inner cities being allowed to exist, is to somewhat reduce the fundamental issues through some balanced combination of social programs, schooling, community engagement, policing and local political participation. And the optimal "harm minimization" balance for a given city seems to change over time based on evolving macro conditions (economics, demographics, etc). There are only two things I'm fairly confident in, and they are A) Over the past decade the S.F. Bay Area has devolved into a shit show for a wide variety of complex reasons (which reasonable people can (and do) disagree about) B) Trying to solve the "sideshow problem" by further degrading some urban intersections is the most temporary of surface fixes, which addresses a 1 hr/week symptom by making already-failing infrastructure even worse 24/7. And it'll only cause expressions of the root cause issues to morph into other forms - ultimately not solving the existing problem while creating new problems. The only sort-of positive is that it is "something", thus allowing local government to claim they "Did Something."

ryaneager 2y ago

Sonoma Raceway is about an hour north of the city and has similar drag racing events.

eleveriven 2y ago

Maybe it can potentially reduce illegal activities

HaZeust 2y ago

These people aren't the most intelligent or participatory in civilization; they like doing it at 4-way intersection BECAUSE it disrupts. At a morning/afternoon car show (generally the only kinds you should go to, evening ones are bad news) where I brought my v8 camaro, I was invited to my first sideshow and to drive in the convoy. Went, saw the malarkey, left.

mrandish 2y ago
> they like doing it at 4-way intersection BECAUSE it disrupts. I agree there are (at least) two large segments of the attending crowds, those looking for auto-sport type activities and those you describe who are basically looking for large-crowd street events in their urban area and view an event being unofficial, illegal and/or disruptive as making it even more appealing and 'authentic'. I'm more in the first group and having the kind of street racing-centric and adjacent events GP describes available locally would appeal to me and be a real alternative. Conversely, I think the second segment of the crowd are pretty much going to "do spontaneous large-crowd things" in these areas even if authorities intentionally degrade urban intersections to be so annoying that "sideshows" (as currently practiced) cease. The second type of crowd will just morph what they do in that area into something else that's suitably unofficial, illegal and/or disruptive. Probably nothing short of much wider-scale urban reform than just impeding some intersections, is going to meaningfully change that. To be clear, my point is only that something like GP's proposed alternative might actually meet an unmet need for one segment of the participants with a workable substitute, while for the other segment, what the authorities are currently doing has little chance of really solving anything other than pushing today's specific disruptive activity into a different disruptive activity tomorrow (while further degrading urban intersections all the time). I take no position on what (if any) viable solutions might exist to really address the problem with the second segment because it's a symptom of much larger systemic issues. However, I'm fairly confident what authorities are doing now does nothing to address the autosport need AND does nothing to fundamentally address the root causes of illegal underground urban street rally/protests.
- even_639765 2y ago
  >Probably nothing short of much wider-scale urban reform than just impeding some intersections, is going to meaningfully change that. Interesting. What did you have in mind?
  - mrandish 2y ago
    Well, I said elsewhere in my post > "I take no position on what (if any) viable solutions might exist to really address the problem with the second segment because it's a symptom of much larger systemic issues." So I don't know of anything in particular which might, A) address the underlying causes of urban youth being disaffected or engaging in disruptive behavior, and B) Fit within the ability and political will of urban cities to implement and afford. As far as I can tell it's a largely intractable problem which has existed to some extent for as long as there have been large, dense, urban inner cities. Historically, different cities seem to have gone through periods where it was worse (Chicago in the 60s, NYC in the 70s, Detroit in the 80s) but it's never been completely "fixed" in any of these cities. While today's manifestations of urban youth disaffection, such as sideshows, are different on the surface, I suspect the underlying root causes are much broader and not much different than they've always been. It's entirely possible that some of these root causes are baked into the structure of large, dense, urban inner cities and fully addressing the root causes isn't possible without essentially banning the existence of large urban centers beyond some arbitrary population density. Lee Kuan Yew seems to have found a different urban equilibrium in metro Singapore - but only by being a totalitarian and limiting individual rights in ways the U.S. constitution could (thankfully) never allow. Apparently, the best that can be done in the context of modern U.S. urban inner cities being allowed to exist, is to somewhat reduce the fundamental issues through some balanced combination of social programs, schooling, community engagement, policing and local political participation. And the optimal "harm minimization" balance for a given city seems to change over time based on evolving macro conditions (economics, demographics, etc). There are only two things I'm fairly confident in, and they are A) Over the past decade the S.F. Bay Area has devolved into a shit show for a wide variety of complex reasons (which reasonable people can (and do) disagree about) B) Trying to solve the "sideshow problem" by further degrading some urban intersections is the most temporary of surface fixes, which addresses a 1 hr/week symptom by making already-failing infrastructure even worse 24/7. And it'll only cause expressions of the root cause issues to morph into other forms - ultimately not solving the existing problem while creating new problems. The only sort-of positive is that it is "something", thus allowing local government to claim they "Did Something."