A forum, news site and archive begun in February, 2007 about politics and the environment in Wisconsin. And elsewhere.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Data Show Milwaukee Safer For Kids Than Are The Outer-Ring Suburbs
This analysis is bound to set off the "Suburbia Is Better" crowd, as the outer-ring suburbs have higher risks for highway fatalities than do the central cities.
Another vote for walkable, transit-served neighborhoods.
Yes, and I am sure you find some study that find kids in the suburbs are safer walking ang playing outsied than those in the inner city also. The previous comment must contain the motto for this blog.
James - do you actually read the articles and access whether the content is credible?
The article's premise is seriously flawed. Try reading the book, "How to Lie with Statistics", or "200 Percent of Nothing".
Here's the significant flaw and I quote, "The ultimate measure of safety, of course, is whether you're able to stay alive from one day to the next. By this standard, cities are safer than many suburbs -- at least, according to a University of Virginia Study".
The University of Virginia study goes on to describe that the sole measures of safety are traffic fatalities and homicides by strangers.
Really? No, REALLY?
So, the car-jackings that occur - not counted.
Robberies - not counted.
Rape - not counted.
Assaults - not counted.
For that matter, being threatened, or intimidated on the street corner - not counted.
So, according to the study, unless you are killed the other types of events do not impact one's safety. Starting to see a problem yet?
So, the next time Billy, whether in the city or burbs, is robbed while picking up some groceries or filling the gas tank, he is still safe. He wasn't killed in a car accident, or murdered by a stranger.
So James, please confirm that you support the University of Virginia's methodology in determining "safety". For your convenience, here's the definition according to Wikipedia...
Safety is the state of being "safe" (from French sauf), the condition of being protected against physical, social, spiritual, financial, political, emotional, occupational, psychological, educational or other types or consequences of failure, damage, error, accidents, harm or any other event which could be considered non-desirable. Safety can also be defined to be the control of recognized hazards to achieve an acceptable level of risk. This can take the form of being protected from the event or from exposure to something that causes health or economical losses. It can include protection of people or of possessions.
Why do you even bother posting links to such rubbish?
Tom-Waukesha; If you don't think that crime and tragedy occur outside a city's limits, you are not even reading a newspaper's online digest and are being governed intellectually by stereotypical thinking.
And I made mention of the highway safety issue which the study highlights. Your rant is off-the-mark.
James - the comment in your post does not match the title of your post.
I never stated or implied that crime and tragedy are void in the suburbs.
I merely pointed out that the article's source for the argument that cities are safer than suburbs is seriously flawed.
Find a sound argument that cities are safer than the 'burbs, and I'll beleive it.
I'll take my quieter neightborhood, less polluted air, less light polluted evening sky. I'll even take the infrequent manure-odor filled air and increased risk, per capita, of dying in a car accident versus city living. I did the later for my first 35+ years.
Tom, you can choose what community to live in. But you can't choose what reality to live in. You're stuck in the same one as the rest of us, no matter what talk radio tells you.
And in this reality, auto traffic is a bigger risk to children than violence. And, naturally, it is a much bigger problem in the suburbs, where traffic speeds are higher, and walking is discouraged.
Yup. Garbage in, Garbage out.
ReplyDeleteIt must be true.
Yes, and I am sure you find some study that find kids in the suburbs are safer walking ang playing outsied than those in the inner city also. The previous comment must contain the motto for this blog.
ReplyDeleteI'm always surprised that people who do not like what they see here keep reading it.
ReplyDeleteBut thanks for the traffic boost.
Really, Ron?
ReplyDeleteThen let's find that study. Go ahead. We'll wait.
You take one aspect of what constitutues safety and declare Milwaukee safer for everything.
ReplyDeleteTypical spin Rowen.
James - do you actually read the articles and access whether the content is credible?
ReplyDeleteThe article's premise is seriously flawed. Try reading the book, "How to Lie with Statistics", or "200 Percent of Nothing".
Here's the significant flaw and I quote, "The ultimate measure of safety, of course, is whether you're able to stay alive from one day to the next. By this standard, cities are safer than many suburbs -- at least, according to a University of Virginia Study".
The University of Virginia study goes on to describe that the sole measures of safety are traffic fatalities and homicides by strangers.
Really? No, REALLY?
So, the car-jackings that occur - not counted.
Robberies - not counted.
Rape - not counted.
Assaults - not counted.
For that matter, being threatened, or intimidated on the street corner - not counted.
So, according to the study, unless you are killed the other types of events do not impact one's safety. Starting to see a problem yet?
So, the next time Billy, whether in the city or burbs, is robbed while picking up some groceries or filling the gas tank, he is still safe. He wasn't killed in a car accident, or murdered by a stranger.
So James, please confirm that you support the University of Virginia's methodology in determining "safety". For your convenience, here's the definition according to Wikipedia...
Safety is the state of being "safe" (from French sauf), the condition of being protected against physical, social, spiritual, financial, political, emotional, occupational, psychological, educational or other types or consequences of failure, damage, error, accidents, harm or any other event which could be considered non-desirable. Safety can also be defined to be the control of recognized hazards to achieve an acceptable level of risk. This can take the form of being protected from the event or from exposure to something that causes health or economical losses. It can include protection of people or of possessions.
Why do you even bother posting links to such rubbish?
Tom-Waukesha; If you don't think that crime and tragedy occur outside a city's limits, you are not even reading a newspaper's online digest and are being governed intellectually by stereotypical thinking.
ReplyDeleteAnd I made mention of the highway safety issue which the study highlights. Your rant is off-the-mark.
James - the comment in your post does not match the title of your post.
ReplyDeleteI never stated or implied that crime and tragedy are void in the suburbs.
I merely pointed out that the article's source for the argument that cities are safer than suburbs is seriously flawed.
Find a sound argument that cities are safer than the 'burbs, and I'll beleive it.
I'll take my quieter neightborhood, less polluted air, less light polluted evening sky. I'll even take the infrequent manure-odor filled air and increased risk, per capita, of dying in a car accident versus city living. I did the later for my first 35+ years.
Tom, you can choose what community to live in. But you can't choose what reality to live in. You're stuck in the same one as the rest of us, no matter what talk radio tells you.
ReplyDeleteAnd in this reality, auto traffic is a bigger risk to children than violence. And, naturally, it is a much bigger problem in the suburbs, where traffic speeds are higher, and walking is discouraged.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete