Cities are safer than rural areas (tractors, well, 2013, area)

[zip95]

It seems that cities are safer than rural areas. I know that runs contrary to many of your preconceived notions, but fact are facts. It's always what I suspected.

[thecoalman]

I'll happily take that increased risk driving a quad across a mountain trail instead of taking the risk of getting shot while getting a jug milk. Excuse me, I have to go let the dogs in, they just returned from their morning stroll.

[SteelCityRising]

Yes, because I'm shot at on a daily basis living in one of the nation's safest large cities.

[thecoalman]

Well Paul I know you're familiar with the area so I'll issue you a challenge. You pick anywhere in Harding you want me to take a walk for 2 miles and I'll pick anywhere in Pittsburgh I want you to take a walk.... at 2AM.

[pman]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Well Paul I know you're familiar with the area so I'll issue you a challenge. You pick anywhere in Harding you want me to take a walk for 2 miles and I'll pick anywhere in Pittsburgh I want you to take a walk.... at 2AM.

do you have to ride your quad at 2 am? if so id take my chances in the city...after all im didging bullets everyday anyway. never ceases to amaze me the ideas some people have

[RyanR]

Reading the article, they're comparing apples to oranges when saying "safety".

Safety from crime - rural areas win.
Safety from injury - rural areas lose.

"Homicide rates are higher in cities, and people think of those more emotional and sensationalized dangers, but the risk of motor vehicle accidents and machinery accidents is much higher in rural areas," she said.

Motor vehicle and machinery accidents is pretty much a no-brainer in the rural areas.
- In rural areas people drive more miles in general and at higher speeds. If you need to go to the grocery store, it's likely a several mile drive at near highway speeds.
- Machinery is everywhere in rural areas. Don't see ag tractors with their implements too much in the cities.

[greg42]

Originally Posted by RyanR

Reading the article, they're comparing apples to oranges when saying "safety".

Safety from crime - rural areas win.
Safety from injury - rural areas lose.

"Homicide rates are higher in cities, and people think of those more emotional and sensationalized dangers, but the risk of motor vehicle accidents and machinery accidents is much higher in rural areas," she said.

It's not apples and oranges though. Our minds make it that way, but the reality is safety is safety. It ultimately doesn't matter HOW you get killed or maimed or whatever. What really matters is the overall chance of such things based on all factors. Considering safety as a whole is exactly what we should do, but it is very difficult to get most people to think in those terms. Note, not saying I'm perfect at doing that either. But I do recognize that it makes sense to think about all these things in terms of comparison.

Looks like they only looked at deaths, so it's specifically about chance of death.

[Gerania]

It matters to me how I'm killed or maimed. I'd rather be trampled by cattle in the country than raped and shot in the city.

[DauntlessDan]

Give me the rural/small town life any day. Personally I believe a lot of it involves the day-to-day choices one makes as to whether they will live or die. Not all, but a lot. Have lived in the city, NYC, Boston, Sacramento. Have lived in the country too, VT, western rural NY, WV, NC. Again, give me the country/small town over the city any day.

[pman]

Originally Posted by Gerania

It matters to me how I'm killed or maimed. I'd rather be trampled by cattle in the country than raped and shot in the city.

how about raped and run over in a small town?