And I appreciate that folks have gone out and tried to analyze something which has not been really visible before. Let's say it is 3x more likely, that means its 15%.

I think the story is important and meaningful, I feel the narrative it supplies is disingenuous.

A lot of people die on streets due to cars. That we do track, both motor vehicle and pedestrian fatalities. It is a stupidly large number.

The narrative that "we", the community, the society, the people who exist in the same space and time, need to do something about "this" is, for me, a function of impact.

The ability for the community to take action is a limited resource. There is only so much tax money, there are only so many cops, there is only so much technology. And we have to choose where that finite resource is invested in order to maximize the protection, health, and well being of the community from which that resource is drawn. Because I see the problem this way, any narrative that suggests investing a larger fraction on a smaller problem, makes me wonder how much worse the other problems those resources had been applied to becomes when we take them away to focus on this smaller problem.

So I would ask the people, are you prepared to have over all vehicle fatalities double while fatalities due to street racing go to zero? When street racing is 5, 10, 15, even 25 percent of the problem that calculus means more dead people, more people losing children and loved ones to a vehicle fatality.

There are at least 5 direct calls for resources in that article[1]. They are calls for more police, more tracking, more infrastructure. It is a simple and common narrative, "My problems are really important so you should agree to spend more money on them rather than the other things you are spending them on."

Anyone who has lived in California for a while realizes that there are only two choices, raise taxes to increase the size of the resource pool (and then have factions fight over the raises) or let some existing priority slip while you focus on a different one.

It is also annoying (but understandable) to me that these articles cluster around the March/April time frame because that is after the Governor has submitted their budget and the legislators are figuring out where to send the money.

If the article was arguing for more resources on vehicle fatalities, I could understand that. We've got way too many people who don't even follow basic road rules. So if you spent all your taxes on that and no additional on the street racing scene and achieved a 10% reduction in fatalities you would have saved more lives than completely wiping out street racing would. That makes it a better investment overall for a limited resource.

[1] Passages in the article that suggest that applying more resources to this problem would ameliorate it:

A few law enforcement agencies have assigned officers to the task force. But some agencies say they lack manpower.

Efforts to place a similar unit in the Valley, another racing hot zone, were abandoned for lack of staff, a street racing investigator said.

“You can’t solve a problem that you don’t measure,” Englander said.

Neither the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department nor the Long Beach Police Department, two of the largest agencies in the region, have officers assigned to the county task force.

County deputies are being trained to recognize vehicles that have been modified for racing, but, Det. Christine Ostrander said, “our deputies are just overworked, understaffed.”