The US Census Bureau thread

[Steely Dan]

^ the difference is that there is an actual percentage of suburbanites in Chicagoland who will literally not set foot in the city "because it's so dangerous".

There is no reverse phenomenon of a significant percentage of city residents who will literally not set foot in the burbs.

It's not a two way street here in Chicagoland, regardless of how badly you want it to be.

Maybe the world is different down in Texas?



But yeah, Schaumburg sucks

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ the difference is that there is an actual percentage of suburbanites in Chicagoland who will literally not set foot in the city "because it's so dangerous".

There is no reverse phenomenon of a significant percentage of city residents who will literally not set foot in the burbs.

It's not a two way street here in Chicagoland, regardless of how badly you want it to be.

Maybe the world is different down in Texas?

It's a little different in Texas because the crime in the big cities haven't been a national talking point like with Chicago. But there have definitely been a rise of people who don't want to go into the city due to perceived crime that wasn't there pre pandemic.

But yeah, Schaumburg sucks

Agreed lmao. The worst suburbs are the kind like Schaumburg with no walkable downtown areas and corporate campuses with acres of parking. nice redevelopment potential there tho

[Nouvellecosse]

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

[Steely Dan]

^ great video!

And if we go back to the car wrecks vs. crime perception thing, and which you should be more afraid of, it's also important to remember that car wrecks are FAR more random than homicides, on average. In a city like Chicago, if you ain't in a gang or gang-adjacent (relative, friend, neighbor, etc.), the actual chances of you being shot while visiting the city are vanishingly small. Last year we had a grand total of zero suburban soccer moms and their young children murdered on the streets of Chicago.

Yet, the good old 'responsible" soccer mom who hauls her kids around suburbia on high speeds stroads a couple of times a day, everyday, (without giving it even the slightest of first thoughts, mind you) will never believe it because "OMG, the city is so dangerous!!! Haven't you been watching the news?"


Again, most people suck at risk assessment because emotions.

[SIGSEGV]

Texas has a motor vehicle death rate of 15/100K in 2023. Dallas, the most shooty large Texas city, had a murder rate of 19/100k last year. For most people who aren't part of gangs or get into fights over dumb shit, they probably are significantly more likely to die from driving than from being shot.

[JManc]

Comparing car accidents to crime is apples to oranges. Most people assume there is a greater than zero risk of an accident anytime they get into a car but that's not stopping people from driving. Being a potential victim of a violent crime hits much different psychologically than the prospect of being T-boned by a Nissan on the way to work. Accidents seldom make the news, even fatal ones, while murder, assault, robberies and rape are a constant theme every evening.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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

The only thing this video proves is that American driving, whether urban or suburban, is more dangerous than other western countries but specifically Canada. And of course they are only looking at violent crime. A burglary or someone stealing your car isn't a violent crime.

There's more to the story than just the stats. For example California suburbs have some wide roads with speed limits up to 55 MPH in some places. Then you have LA with a weird mix of urban-suburban. Yet California as a state was closer to Canadian provinces, yet the rural Southern states are at the top of the list with Mississippi leading the way. Is MS known for fast growing typical American suburbs? Nope.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Texas has a motor vehicle death rate of 15/100K in 2023. Dallas, the most shooty large Texas city, had a murder rate of 19/100k last year. For most people who aren't part of gangs or get into fights over dumb shit, they probably are significantly more likely to die from driving than from being shot.

You're just looking at murder rate which is the ultimate crime but not the only one people consider when they leave the city. You can add people who don't drive at certain times of the day are less likely to be in a fatal accident too. What are we going to do next? Say people who drive to work are dumb because statistically it is safer to fly a helicopter so they should save up for one?

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ great video!

And if we go back to the car wrecks vs. crime perception thing, and which you should be more afraid of, it's also important to remember that car wrecks are FAR more random than homicides, on average. In a city like Chicago, if you ain't in a gang or gang-adjacent (relative, friend, neighbor, etc.), the actual chances of you being shot while visiting the city are vanishingly small. Last year we had a grand total of zero suburban soccer moms and their young children murdered on the streets of Chicago.

Yet, the good old 'responsible" soccer mom who hauls her kids around suburbia on high speeds stroads a couple of times a day, everyday, (without giving it even the slightest of first thoughts, mind you) will never believe it because "OMG, the city is so dangerous!!! Haven't you been watching the news?"


Again, most people suck at risk assessment because emotions.

What's funny to me is you said no one in the city is worried about speed racers in the suburbs, yet the YouTube comments prove otherwise as people are saying they are even too afraid to bike because of vehicles. Speed racers in the suburbs would scare the fuck out of them.

This thing goes both ways. People assess risks when they move somewhere. A person is not an idiot for moving to the suburbs just because American roads are dangerous when compared to Canada and other western nations.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

but that's not stopping people from driving.

But you actually can effectively decrease your chances of being the victim of a random car wreck by:

A. Living in a less car dependent place that doesn't require one to get into a car every time they leave their home.

B. Living in a place where vehicles tend to move at slower speeds relative to other places.


Of course, doing the above in the US more often than not means living in a place where "OMG, they're gonna murder my babies!!! Haven't you seen the news?"

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Trae

A person is not an idiot for moving to the suburbs

Jesus Christ, exactly no one is saying that.

But being terrified of a thing that has a relatively low risk of occuring, while completely ignoring the very real danger staring you in the face is a type of idiocy.

Don't worry though, as I said before, most people are pretty bad at risk assessment because their emotions get in the way. Suburban soccer moms are not the only ones guilty of this, but they are a pretty easy target because they are more emotional than most.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Jesus Christ, exactly no one is saying that.

But being terrified of a thing that has a relatively low risk of occuring, while completely ignoring the very real danger staring you in the face is a type of idiocy.

Don't worry though, as I said before, most people are pretty bad at risk assessment because their emotions get in the way. Suburban soccer moms are not the only ones guilty of this, but they are a pretty easy target because they are more emotional than most.

But what are you basing that on? And then you are only looking at exaggerated fears from the suburban soccer mom side too. when I brought up one urban folks might have you dismiss it. at the end of the day, there are risks in literally everything. I'm not gonna fault anybody.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

But you actually can effectively decrease your chances of being the victim of a random car wreck by:

A. Living in a less car dependent place that doesn't require one to get into a car every time they leave their home.

B. Living in a place where vehicles tend to move at slower speeds relative to other places.


Of course, doing the above in the US more often than not means living in a place where "OMG, they're gonna murder babies!!! Haven't you seen the news?"

Last accident I was involved in was in your neck of the woods; Uber driver rear-ended a delivery truck...for going too fast. He got one star. Yes, not driving does lower your odds but being less car dependent is not an option for most people because most cities are hopelessly designed around them and I'd suspect "accidents" are lower down the list of reasons why people want a less car dependent lifestyle; cost, convenience, lifestyle, etc. and they'll catch a cab to the airport with little thought of being killed in a wreck.

That said, having lived in big cities for 35 of my 51 years, I rarely give being a violent crime victim a second thought unless I'm in a shitty part of town which I tend to avoid anyway.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Trae

But what are you basing that on? And then you are only looking at exaggerated fears from the suburban soccer mom side too. when I brought up one urban folks might have you dismiss it.

You're right, the percentage of city dwellers in Chicago who would never dare set foot in the suburbs because "reasons" is totally equal to the percentage of suburbanites who would never dare set foot in the city because crime.





One of these things is real, the other is an invention of convenience.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

Yes, not driving does lower your odds but being less car dependent is not an option for most people because most cities are hopelessly designed around them

And that's a huge reason why so many remain so ignorant to the dangers of driving. It's so completely ingrained in so many places. Most people typically don't fear the familiar.

But "big city crime" tends to be highly concentrated in very specific areas, and is thus more foreign to a much VASTER swath of people, and therefore more easily feared, even if the danger it actually represents to them is far less than the danger they face getting into a car multiple times every single day.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And that's a huge reason why so many remain so ignorant to the dangers of driving. It's so completely ingrained in so many places. Most people typically don't fear the familiar.

I don't think this is true at all. Every time I or my wife leave the house, we tell each other "drive carefully". I'm reminded of the dangers every time I see some toolbag in a Charger swerving in and out of traffic at 90 or some old fossil in a Corolla doing 30 in a 65 in the passing lane. Like I said, traffic accidents are a calculated risk most people are willing to take. We all know someone who was either injured or killed in an accident and there isn't a day where I don't see a massive accident on the side of the freeway.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

I don't think this is true at all. Every time I or my wife leave the house, we tell each other "drive carefully".

But you do not viscerally and irrationally fear it the way the proverbial suburbanite who won't set foot in the city fears "crime".

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

You're right, the percentage of city dwellers in Chicago who would never dare set foot in the suburbs because "reasons" is totally equal to the percentage of suburbanites who would never dare set foot in the city because crime.





One of these things is real, the other is an invention of convenience.

I mean no one said they were equal. Just that they exist and can be one of several reasons why someone chooses the suburbs. Also that risk assessment works both ways for the urban dweller and suburbanite. You might not think so but it does. Neither is right nor wrong in how they feel because people choose on many issues. Using one example of "suburban mom driving on a high speed roadway lol dumb risk assessment" but dismissing all else is not a good way of looking at it or being open minded to people's issues.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

But you do not viscerally and irrationally fear it the way the proverbial suburbanite who won't set foot in the city fears "crime".

And again, what are you basing this on? How do you know people don't fear driving but also may live in a suburban area? I know several. And like JManc we tell each other drive carefully too. We all know the dangers of driving. But living your life where you want and how you want is not just about driving. It can be a big or small part of it but there's more that goes in.

So let me ask you this, do you think it is dumb of a suburban soccer mom and her salaried husband moves to the suburbs in a good school district when their kids become of age because they don't like the overall environment of their current neighborhood? They see a nice house in a statistically safe suburb with above average schools, but they can afford it. Should they stay in the dangerous neighborhood because one of them now has to drive further into work where they might be more likely a victim of a car accident instead of a crime? Is their risk assessment wrong?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Trae

The only thing this video proves is that American driving, whether urban or suburban, is more dangerous than other western countries but specifically Canada. And of course they are only looking at violent crime. A burglary or someone stealing your car isn't a violent crime.

That's not true. They also compared the rates of different US cities and showed how the ones that are more auto-oriented were strongly correlated with higher fatality rates. Which is comparing the US to itself not just to other countries. If it was just a difference between "American driving" vs people in other Western countries driving there wouldn't be such a big difference between US cities and regions.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by JManc

Comparing car accidents to crime is apples to oranges. Most people assume there is a greater than zero risk of an accident anytime they get into a car but that's not stopping people from driving. Being a potential victim of a violent crime hits much different psychologically than the prospect of being T-boned by a Nissan on the way to work. Accidents seldom make the news, even fatal ones, while murder, assault, robberies and rape are a constant theme every evening.

Well yes we know people view it differently. The whole point is to consider whether or not people should be thinking of it as differently as they do. And whether or not part of it is people assume one of the risks is much higher than it actually is while assuming the other is much lower.