It's absolutely true that in car-dominated areas there is usually a greater risk from car-related injuries than from the crime in many more urban areas. The "Oh the Urbanity!" channel discussed this fairly recently and even showed actual stats. It isn't just two equal risks with one that some people are more familiar with and another that other people recognize. It's that one - crime - is a widely recognized risk that basically everyone is aware of to some degree with some placing greater emphasis on it than others, while the other - car dominance - is a risk that some don't even realize exists. There are probably many people who think that settings with wide, straight, multi-lane streets are actually safer to drive on since the infrastructure is specifically designed for the efficient flow of cars. Yet in reality, it's statistically more dangerous because of the higher speeds, false sense of security, complacency, and the much higher number of vehicle miles driven.
I get that most things can be viewed from more than one side or perspective, but I hate false equivalences where people try to pretend that everything is perfectly symmetrical when few things are.
• Video Link
Threaded Mode