4 ms·
We have odd perceptions of safety. If you look at the website, you'll see the first photo labelled 0.51 for safety. But, honestly, what's the worst that could h
by beejiu 12y ago
We have odd perceptions of safety. If you look at the website, you'll see the first photo labelled 0.51 for safety. But, honestly, what's the worst that could happen there? There'll be no theft, because there are no houses. There will be less street crime, because there are no people. In fact, the one rated highest is probably the least safe, as it would likely be targeted by thieves looking for high valued property in houses from a nice neighbourhood. As far as murders and violence is concerned, these crimes are mostly targeted and it doesn't really depend on where you live.
- PeterisP 12y agoYou seem to discuss much different aspects of safety - I'd assume that the article refers to the threat to a potential passer-by, not of the general crime rate in that area, which would include thefts from property. Also, safety is not neccessarily correlated with a crimerate - if place A has 100 times lower rate of street crime than place B, "because there are no people" as it has 1000 times less foot traffic, then place A is 10 times more dangerous to a person who actually happens to be walking there.