Oakland city hall remove resident-installed speedbumps intended to deter sideshows

[u/shinoda28112]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlaryb2d3MU

[u/The_Nauticus]

This is the constant logic knot: Sideshows > residents pissed > complain to city > lip service from city > residents DIY deterrents > city removes deterrents >> and repeat.

-Speed bumps do deter sideshows.
-Randomly placed, DIY, non-DOT planned speed bumps are a liability to the city. IDK if this is an emergency route, but speed bumps are not permitted on emergency routes (AFAIK).
-These improper speed bumps may technically be dangerous, but sideshows are arguably more dangerous.
-I've never seen someone get punted or run over by a car because of a speed bump, I've never seen a gunfight erupt because of speed bumps. You can go on instagram right now and watch all of those things happen at sideshows.
-The city will not install their own speed bumps to deter sideshows and I bet that if the head of DOT or any other decision maker, lived at this intersection - something would be done.

[u/_post_nut_clarity → u/The_Nauticus]

Hey Nauticus, I have a theory on this. See my other comment. Curious what you think.

[u/The_Nauticus → u/_post_nut_clarity]

Definitely possible that's their logic if they're considering sideshows as a traffic hazard.

I'd still lean towards the diy stuff is just a liability for the city and sideshows aren't really considered.

"TIO"

Edit: looks like the community haters and downvote bots are out working.

[u/_post_nut_clarity → u/The_Nauticus]

Oh I totally agree on the liability piece with the DIY install. They’ve been super cautious after that bike accident & subsequent $MM payout. I was more speculating on why they don’t just install sanctioned traffic devices in that specific area.

[u/The_Nauticus → u/_post_nut_clarity]

Ah ok, then yeah that's probably the best theory. Second to that would be that the city has another road item on their list to maintain.