Read the Vancouver Sun, page A21
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,213
From: North Vancouver, BC
Read the Vancouver Sun, page A21
Well, a police analyst has decided to offer his views on street racing. If he has his way, anyone who modifies his or her car would have to register it and have it inspected for legality. In addition, speed shops would become culpable for accidents caused by cars street racing with they made modifications.
This is probably the most naive account I have ever seen on street racing, and I will cook up a response and mail it in to the paper (I'll post it here too). It is sad to see the views presented in this article, and if his views are aligning with the views of the general public, our sport and pastime, and our constitutional right to modify our cars (legally of course) is in serious trouble.
This is probably the most naive account I have ever seen on street racing, and I will cook up a response and mail it in to the paper (I'll post it here too). It is sad to see the views presented in this article, and if his views are aligning with the views of the general public, our sport and pastime, and our constitutional right to modify our cars (legally of course) is in serious trouble.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,213
From: North Vancouver, BC
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,711
From: Canadian West Coast
Although he chooses his words carefully and much of what he says is true, it is rather unfortunate when someone who is viewed as an "authority" figure makes certain biased and unrational statements. His words, whether he is right or wrong (and whether objective or subjective), will unfortunately be persuasive to a lot of the general public, creating even greater stigma towards modified cars (and unjustly so, I might add). What makes it even worse is the fact that the beginning portions of his article make reasonable sense, which will persuade more people to agree with his later (even though less reasonable) statements as well. Sort of like sugar coating the rat poison.
Persons in such public view should be much more careful about how they state or phrase things as their statements can unnnecessairly bias many people. It is negligence of their profession when they make such "subjective" statements openly and publicly, full well knowing it will fuel the hatred that some people have towards modified cars (or towards drivers of such cars).
Focus on the bad drivers who prove themselves bad... not the cars or the shops. And don't assume someone is a 'bad' driver just because their vehicle is modified for speed.
Persons in such public view should be much more careful about how they state or phrase things as their statements can unnnecessairly bias many people. It is negligence of their profession when they make such "subjective" statements openly and publicly, full well knowing it will fuel the hatred that some people have towards modified cars (or towards drivers of such cars).
Focus on the bad drivers who prove themselves bad... not the cars or the shops. And don't assume someone is a 'bad' driver just because their vehicle is modified for speed.
Last edited by Camaro ChriSS; Nov 19, 2002 at 11:15 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,417
From: Chilliwack, BC, Canada
I like the fact that he distinguishs between the drivers that have no respect for their cars - and the one's who have worked hard and take pride in their vehicles. Mainly becuase I fall into the latter.
Ever since aircare was brought abought, I thought is was a poor substitute for the vehicle inspections of the old days. I would say bring on the vehicle inspections, they at least kept the cars off the road that were unfit to drive - as long as air care leaves the picture. I'm not willing to pay for both.
Ever since aircare was brought abought, I thought is was a poor substitute for the vehicle inspections of the old days. I would say bring on the vehicle inspections, they at least kept the cars off the road that were unfit to drive - as long as air care leaves the picture. I'm not willing to pay for both.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,213
From: North Vancouver, BC
Here is my letter to the editor of the Sun:
----------------------------------------------------
To whom it may concern,
I felt compelled to write a response to the article written by Mr Fung in today's Vancouver Sun (Nov. 19, 2002). If you could please pass this on to him, that would be appreciated. I have no idea how to get this published, and I didn't really write it with that in mind, but if you want to use it in any way please feel free. Perhaps the public would appreciate the view of a performance car enthusiast.
The text is below.
Thanks,
Craig Lawson
cplawson@shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Fung,
Thank you for the article on street racing, however some of the points you mention warrant further discussion. Let me begin by saying that I do own and drive on the street a powerful, modified car. My vehicle is a Pontiac Firebird with a heavily modified engine, and despite this obvious domestic bias, I am a fan of all high performance vehicles regardless of their origin, engine displacement, or brand. As an owner of a car that is heavily modified (legally, at least under current regulations), I have a stake in anything that may result from the street racing issue. I certainly agree that street racing in Vancouver is a growing problem that needs to be addressed. You raise some interesting questions about the family unit and street racing behaviour, however, some of the other points you make are incorrect.
You begin by misinterpreting the true definition of a "rice rocket". A "rice rocket" is a car that looks fast, but isn't. Import cars that really are powerful and/or handle well are generally not dubbed "rice rockets" at all. However, whether a car is fast or not is not a true indicator of the danger that car presents to the public, as we will see later. You also completely ignore the many forms of organized and safe car racing that 99% of all cars (modified or not) can participate in. You are correct that we do not need more speedways, as I for one have no interest in racing on an oval track with banked curves at 150 mph. I much prefer Autocross at Boundary Bay, Drag Racing at Mission, and I will attempt to start road racing at Mission Raceway Park next summer. You say that racing venues "have strict regulations governing vehicle equipment and modifications", however you erroneously construe that to mean that modified cars would be banned from attending. The truth is that many of the regulations serve the purpose of fitting modified cars into classes with cars of similar capabilities. This actually enhances safety, and makes car racing much more competitive and enjoyable. It is true that dangerously modified vehicles would be excluded from these events, but I argue that the vast majority of modified cars are safely able to race on the track and drive on the street. In fact, Autocross is famous for catering to almost every modification you could ever make to a vehicle, and in doing so, the playing field is levelled in such a way that a turbocharged Porsche can be beaten by a 20 year old Toyota Corolla. The problem here is that we are starved for venues. Mission raceway hosts about 10 events per summer for drag racing on Friday evenings, but they often close their gates due to overcrowding before many people are able to arrive thanks to work and school. If you do manage to get through the gate, you are lucky to get 3 runs down the quarter mile (that last less then 20 seconds) in a span of 5 hours before the track closes for a few more weeks.
You continue by discussing the blame involved with a street racing incident, and to whom it should be assessed. Why is that in this society we must seek to blame as many parties as possible for something that was the fault of a single individual? There is nothing wrong with selling fast cars, or modifying these cars further, since no one can predict how a driver will use the tools at his disposal. In fact, modifications can be a tremendous asset in certain situations. Imagine a scenario where you are crossing a dangerous intersection with low visibility. If someone is speeding through the intersection, the car crossing it needs to immediately evade in order to avoid a potentially deadly accident. This has happened to me once when I was attempting to make a left turn at a controlled intersection when a large pickup truck ran the red light at high speed. Thankfully the power of my engine was able to pull me through the intersection before I as well as my passenger were killed. As long as cars (and modified cars) are operated in accordance with the law and common sense, there is no danger involved. You attach a stigma to modifications, and you are leading the public to believe that these changes are by definition unsafe. I challenge this belief, because in my opinion, everything I have done to my car increases its performance - the definition of which is to increase one's ability and likelihood to accomplish certain tasks. I have increased my car's power, I have strengthened its brakes, I have put better tires on it, and I have improved its handling. How in any way do these modifications make my car more dangerous when I drive it according to the law on the street? I argue that they make my car much safer on the street for myself as well as everyone else around me. The key here is that yes, illegal and unsafe modifications need to be addressed - however, poor mechanical condition for all other cars should be enforced at the same time. I see dozens of cars, most of them old, underpowered, and poorly maintained that are genuine hazards to other cars on the road. If an effort is made to punish unsafe modifications, then the same effort should be applied to any car that has an unsafe mechanical deficiency.
You have a strong point when you mention the differences in habits between drivers who bought a car themselves, as opposed to those who received their vehicle as a gift. I for one bought my car myself, and have spent hundreds of hours modifying it and tuning it - my car is a labor of love, and I would never put it, others, and myself into an unsafe situation. Many of these young drivers who crash their cars in street races did not earn the money used to buy their cars, and if the cars were modified, they probably paid to have work done at a car shop. However this has nothing to do with the performance of the car itself, or the modifications done to it.
You mention dialogue multiple times, however it seems that you are not interested in talking with the segment of the population that is genuinely interested in driving modified cars in accordance with the law. You propose to shackle not only the owners of these cars, but the shops that work on them. What we have here is a three-way conflict. We have society, authorities and law enforcement, and the general public who share your opinions and oppose the existence of cars that possess high performance capabilities thanks to modifications. However unfortunate and inaccurate this belief may be, it is a natural one, and I hope to help change it. We have the other extreme, composed of the blatant street racers (whether their cars are modified or not is beside the point) who have little regard for safety and responsibility. And finally we have the group that is stuck in the middle of the conflict, those of us who safely, legally, and passionately care about our sport. I think it is safe to say that the middle group, to which I belong, is also interested in curbing the street racing menace. Unfortunately in this case ignorance is bliss and the vast majority of the public, and the authorities themselves, are unaware that the majority of modified car owners fall into this category. Thus street racers as well as performance enthusiasts are all lumped together, much to our dismay.
Unfortunately, no one is considering our ideas. Many of us enthusiasts are willing to help find a solution to this problem, if only people were willing to at least consider alternatives such as more track availability and/or higher frequency of events, instead of dismissing them outright. There are many possible solutions to this problem, however this does not involve regulating the modification of cars since that would be an impossible goal. Demonizing and thus inciting the public against modified cars is not the answer either, especially when you consider that most of the accidents involve stock or lightly modified vehicles.
Your article brings up some important points about irresponsible driving, poorly maintained cars, and street racing. However the root cause of the problem is still the same - too many drivers who do not know how to properly handle their cars are driving them unsafely. The chief reason is almost always the driver doing something stupid with the vehicle they are driving, and the vehicle in question is often not even a "sports car". There is a reason for the driver to commit these acts, and that reason is the adrenaline rush (along with an ego boost). If we can provide an alternative way for drivers to engage in this sport (there is no greater rush for me then running a great time at an Autocross event), then we will reduce the desire to street race. Simple logic allows us to see that there are alternatives out there, however this article quashes them based on false information.
----------------------------------------------------
To whom it may concern,
I felt compelled to write a response to the article written by Mr Fung in today's Vancouver Sun (Nov. 19, 2002). If you could please pass this on to him, that would be appreciated. I have no idea how to get this published, and I didn't really write it with that in mind, but if you want to use it in any way please feel free. Perhaps the public would appreciate the view of a performance car enthusiast.
The text is below.
Thanks,
Craig Lawson
cplawson@shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Fung,
Thank you for the article on street racing, however some of the points you mention warrant further discussion. Let me begin by saying that I do own and drive on the street a powerful, modified car. My vehicle is a Pontiac Firebird with a heavily modified engine, and despite this obvious domestic bias, I am a fan of all high performance vehicles regardless of their origin, engine displacement, or brand. As an owner of a car that is heavily modified (legally, at least under current regulations), I have a stake in anything that may result from the street racing issue. I certainly agree that street racing in Vancouver is a growing problem that needs to be addressed. You raise some interesting questions about the family unit and street racing behaviour, however, some of the other points you make are incorrect.
You begin by misinterpreting the true definition of a "rice rocket". A "rice rocket" is a car that looks fast, but isn't. Import cars that really are powerful and/or handle well are generally not dubbed "rice rockets" at all. However, whether a car is fast or not is not a true indicator of the danger that car presents to the public, as we will see later. You also completely ignore the many forms of organized and safe car racing that 99% of all cars (modified or not) can participate in. You are correct that we do not need more speedways, as I for one have no interest in racing on an oval track with banked curves at 150 mph. I much prefer Autocross at Boundary Bay, Drag Racing at Mission, and I will attempt to start road racing at Mission Raceway Park next summer. You say that racing venues "have strict regulations governing vehicle equipment and modifications", however you erroneously construe that to mean that modified cars would be banned from attending. The truth is that many of the regulations serve the purpose of fitting modified cars into classes with cars of similar capabilities. This actually enhances safety, and makes car racing much more competitive and enjoyable. It is true that dangerously modified vehicles would be excluded from these events, but I argue that the vast majority of modified cars are safely able to race on the track and drive on the street. In fact, Autocross is famous for catering to almost every modification you could ever make to a vehicle, and in doing so, the playing field is levelled in such a way that a turbocharged Porsche can be beaten by a 20 year old Toyota Corolla. The problem here is that we are starved for venues. Mission raceway hosts about 10 events per summer for drag racing on Friday evenings, but they often close their gates due to overcrowding before many people are able to arrive thanks to work and school. If you do manage to get through the gate, you are lucky to get 3 runs down the quarter mile (that last less then 20 seconds) in a span of 5 hours before the track closes for a few more weeks.
You continue by discussing the blame involved with a street racing incident, and to whom it should be assessed. Why is that in this society we must seek to blame as many parties as possible for something that was the fault of a single individual? There is nothing wrong with selling fast cars, or modifying these cars further, since no one can predict how a driver will use the tools at his disposal. In fact, modifications can be a tremendous asset in certain situations. Imagine a scenario where you are crossing a dangerous intersection with low visibility. If someone is speeding through the intersection, the car crossing it needs to immediately evade in order to avoid a potentially deadly accident. This has happened to me once when I was attempting to make a left turn at a controlled intersection when a large pickup truck ran the red light at high speed. Thankfully the power of my engine was able to pull me through the intersection before I as well as my passenger were killed. As long as cars (and modified cars) are operated in accordance with the law and common sense, there is no danger involved. You attach a stigma to modifications, and you are leading the public to believe that these changes are by definition unsafe. I challenge this belief, because in my opinion, everything I have done to my car increases its performance - the definition of which is to increase one's ability and likelihood to accomplish certain tasks. I have increased my car's power, I have strengthened its brakes, I have put better tires on it, and I have improved its handling. How in any way do these modifications make my car more dangerous when I drive it according to the law on the street? I argue that they make my car much safer on the street for myself as well as everyone else around me. The key here is that yes, illegal and unsafe modifications need to be addressed - however, poor mechanical condition for all other cars should be enforced at the same time. I see dozens of cars, most of them old, underpowered, and poorly maintained that are genuine hazards to other cars on the road. If an effort is made to punish unsafe modifications, then the same effort should be applied to any car that has an unsafe mechanical deficiency.
You have a strong point when you mention the differences in habits between drivers who bought a car themselves, as opposed to those who received their vehicle as a gift. I for one bought my car myself, and have spent hundreds of hours modifying it and tuning it - my car is a labor of love, and I would never put it, others, and myself into an unsafe situation. Many of these young drivers who crash their cars in street races did not earn the money used to buy their cars, and if the cars were modified, they probably paid to have work done at a car shop. However this has nothing to do with the performance of the car itself, or the modifications done to it.
You mention dialogue multiple times, however it seems that you are not interested in talking with the segment of the population that is genuinely interested in driving modified cars in accordance with the law. You propose to shackle not only the owners of these cars, but the shops that work on them. What we have here is a three-way conflict. We have society, authorities and law enforcement, and the general public who share your opinions and oppose the existence of cars that possess high performance capabilities thanks to modifications. However unfortunate and inaccurate this belief may be, it is a natural one, and I hope to help change it. We have the other extreme, composed of the blatant street racers (whether their cars are modified or not is beside the point) who have little regard for safety and responsibility. And finally we have the group that is stuck in the middle of the conflict, those of us who safely, legally, and passionately care about our sport. I think it is safe to say that the middle group, to which I belong, is also interested in curbing the street racing menace. Unfortunately in this case ignorance is bliss and the vast majority of the public, and the authorities themselves, are unaware that the majority of modified car owners fall into this category. Thus street racers as well as performance enthusiasts are all lumped together, much to our dismay.
Unfortunately, no one is considering our ideas. Many of us enthusiasts are willing to help find a solution to this problem, if only people were willing to at least consider alternatives such as more track availability and/or higher frequency of events, instead of dismissing them outright. There are many possible solutions to this problem, however this does not involve regulating the modification of cars since that would be an impossible goal. Demonizing and thus inciting the public against modified cars is not the answer either, especially when you consider that most of the accidents involve stock or lightly modified vehicles.
Your article brings up some important points about irresponsible driving, poorly maintained cars, and street racing. However the root cause of the problem is still the same - too many drivers who do not know how to properly handle their cars are driving them unsafely. The chief reason is almost always the driver doing something stupid with the vehicle they are driving, and the vehicle in question is often not even a "sports car". There is a reason for the driver to commit these acts, and that reason is the adrenaline rush (along with an ego boost). If we can provide an alternative way for drivers to engage in this sport (there is no greater rush for me then running a great time at an Autocross event), then we will reduce the desire to street race. Simple logic allows us to see that there are alternatives out there, however this article quashes them based on false information.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,213
From: North Vancouver, BC
As an addenda, Mr Fung, or anyone else who may be interested, I personally invite you to follow me through this coming racing season - I invite you to follow my trips to Mission, my trips to autocross at Boundary Bay, and through my road racing training - all in a safely modified street car. This will be free to you, and if you are truly interested in seeing the sad state of the legal racing scene here in Vancouver, I challenge you to join me and see what we have to put up with to engage our passion. You will see the lack of options that we have here, and maybe that will give you some insight into why some people turn to street racing to get the adrenaline rush they could get on the track, if it were possible to find one. You will also get to see why us true enthusiasts modify our cars, and maybe then you will see that it is a sport worth saving and even promoting.
And as for you street racers out there who insist on racing on busy, urban streets, I challenge you to come to the Autocross events held at Boundary Bay airport - let's see how much driving skill you really have. You might even find something more satisfying, rewarding, and worthy of respect then street racing
And as for you street racers out there who insist on racing on busy, urban streets, I challenge you to come to the Autocross events held at Boundary Bay airport - let's see how much driving skill you really have. You might even find something more satisfying, rewarding, and worthy of respect then street racing
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,087
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
Great letter, I just hope it doesn't go to waist. I wish the general public could read about our point of view inorder to decrease the lack of informed people. If that letter was published in a newspaper with decent readership, I'm sure it would change many people's opinions. I will also add that this represents my feelings exactly.
Thanks Craig,
Andy
Thanks Craig,
Andy
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,842
From: BC, Canada
well done craig
You impress us everytime ...
if they dont bother to read your letter or reply to it, maybe we can send it in with some sort of petition.. im sure we can get quite a few people to sign your letter demanding a response from Mr Fung or other autorities.
You impress us everytime ...
if they dont bother to read your letter or reply to it, maybe we can send it in with some sort of petition.. im sure we can get quite a few people to sign your letter demanding a response from Mr Fung or other autorities.
Last edited by sideways_Into_3rd; Nov 19, 2002 at 06:22 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,419
From: Coquitlam, British Columbia
..very well done,
...you should send that letter to local newspapers, radio stations, and perhaps television news stations. I'd hate to see that go to waste, may the truth be told.
Mike
Mike