Live where you want to live.
And then live the life you want to live.
And then live the life you want to live.
Urban vs. Rural Safety
- Thread starter doitmyself
- Start date
- Status
Rural is too broad a term. In some places it means getting robbed or killed by passers by. In other areas it can be a 10,000 acre vineyard and horse ranch 100 miles from a city. I have 200 acres 30 minutes from town with ocean views and a perfect climate. No break ins or other crime on the family property in over 100 years. Billionaires build mansions in my area so I think they agree with me that there's no better place to live. There's a "Castle" about 10 miles from me that used to be owned by a newspaper guy...
I love the city for a bit, but the crime, pollution and congestion are a deal breaker for me. I'll take the shorter life and die from the tractor, hard work or a tree falling on me!
I love the city for a bit, but the crime, pollution and congestion are a deal breaker for me. I'll take the shorter life and die from the tractor, hard work or a tree falling on me!
Originally Posted By: RedOakRanch
I love the city for a bit, but the crime, pollution and congestion are a deal breaker for me. I'll take the shorter life and die from the tractor, hard work or a tree falling on me!
More likely you'll die in an auto accident. I'm surprised it didn't get mentioned earlier. Lots of people fled the cities to avoid crime, but the number of people killed in the city vs the highway is much higher. Rural accidents might even be worse because they might not find your body for days, at least on well traveled highways, they'll find you quick. You still get over 30,000 people killed on the roads each year. That's down from over 50k back in the 70's.
http://science.time.com/2013/07/23/in-to...places-to-live/
I love the city for a bit, but the crime, pollution and congestion are a deal breaker for me. I'll take the shorter life and die from the tractor, hard work or a tree falling on me!
More likely you'll die in an auto accident. I'm surprised it didn't get mentioned earlier. Lots of people fled the cities to avoid crime, but the number of people killed in the city vs the highway is much higher. Rural accidents might even be worse because they might not find your body for days, at least on well traveled highways, they'll find you quick. You still get over 30,000 people killed on the roads each year. That's down from over 50k back in the 70's.
http://science.time.com/2013/07/23/in-to...places-to-live/
Quote:
You still get over 30,000 people killed on the roads each year. That's down from over 50k back in the 70's.
Again, you have a lot of control over that. It isn't 30,000 random people for the most part. A high percentage were driving too fast, drunk, high, or otherwise distracted. You can drive a safer vehicle close to the speed limit, watch where and when you drive, don't drive drunk, and pay attention and you eliminate a lot of that risk. Like anything in this world, you can do it right or you can do it wrong.
You still get over 30,000 people killed on the roads each year. That's down from over 50k back in the 70's.
Again, you have a lot of control over that. It isn't 30,000 random people for the most part. A high percentage were driving too fast, drunk, high, or otherwise distracted. You can drive a safer vehicle close to the speed limit, watch where and when you drive, don't drive drunk, and pay attention and you eliminate a lot of that risk. Like anything in this world, you can do it right or you can do it wrong.
My great aunt and uncle died in a head on collision driving from one city to another while in a rural area.(from LA area) I don't think it was the rural area that caused the accident. People travel between cities so the accidents have to happen there. Tired, high speed, unfamiliar. 80% of the new home sales in my area a few years ago were from people fleeing the LA and Bay areas in CA.
What am i thinking... Hey all, the city is way better, stay there!
What am i thinking... Hey all, the city is way better, stay there!
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Rural areas are not a place I would want to live, simply no future in a trailer park town.
Are you saying that all rural housing in Florida is in trailer parks? Wow. I sure wouldn't want to live in a place like that either. I never noticed that when I worked TDY at KSC. Perhaps your statement is a gross generalization?
The farming town I live in doesn't have any trailer parks. And there are no trailers on individual lots. That said, I've seen some inner city neighborhoods that would make most trailer parks look pretty desirable. And I've seen as many trailer parks in big cities than I have in rural towns.
Rural areas are not a place I would want to live, simply no future in a trailer park town.
Are you saying that all rural housing in Florida is in trailer parks? Wow. I sure wouldn't want to live in a place like that either. I never noticed that when I worked TDY at KSC. Perhaps your statement is a gross generalization?
The farming town I live in doesn't have any trailer parks. And there are no trailers on individual lots. That said, I've seen some inner city neighborhoods that would make most trailer parks look pretty desirable. And I've seen as many trailer parks in big cities than I have in rural towns.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Both areas can be great with mid to upper income. Low income urban and rural life is dreadful.
I think you're on to something there especially.
Quote:
People living in the nation's most dangerous states were also far more likely than other Americans to live in poverty. The poverty rate in six of the 10 states was higher than the national rate of 15.8% last year. Nearly 22% of New Mexico residents lived below the poverty line, the second-highest nationwide and the highest on this list.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/01/03/24-7-wall-st-most-dangerous-states/21214169/
Interestingly, some of the poorest states are also the most obese, and more rural:
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-obese-states-in-the-us-2015-5
Quote:
Based on a large national study, body mass index (or BMI, an indicator of excess body fat) was higher every year between 1986 and 2002 among adults in the lowest income group and the lowest education group than among those in the highest income and education groups, respectively (Truong & Sturm, 2005).
Wages were inversely related to BMI and obesity in a nationally representative sample of more than 6,000 adults – meaning, those with low wages had increased BMI as well as increased chance of being obese (Kim & Leigh, 2010).
http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-o...ght-or-obesity/
And since obesity is well tied with health, one can see how this could be an issue.
While some will make it out that rural living, or urban living, depending upon where the grass on the other side of the fence is "greener", is a "luxury", the reality is that poor urban and suburban life can be horrid, as said, but rural life can be as bad. There's a reason why valuations are much lower there. Lower valuations aren't a bad thing I and of themselves, especially if it can be leveraged to one's advantage, but it's typically valued that way because of less overall opportunity for the local population. An example is basic education...
Quote:
The availability of advanced-placement courses (AP) decreases as schools get smaller and farther from major cities, a University of New Hampshire study finds.
http://www.dailyyonder.com/fewer-rural-districts-have-ap-courses/2015/02/16/7725/
Some also seem to forget that time wasted driving twenty miles to get to anything, certainly is the same time wasted as if you encounter traffic in more populated areas. Of course, that also comes back to affluence, as the higher value locations allow for shorter commutes with less time spent in the car.
At the end of the day, people make what's best for them. Everyone's best is different. But as long as one is moving forward, it's all good. The issue is that half of the population is below average, and those who wish to remain stagnant, remain victims, not seize the opportunities that societyhasput out there... Will bolster these negative statistics and issues that you can find everywhere if you're looking for them...
Both areas can be great with mid to upper income. Low income urban and rural life is dreadful.
I think you're on to something there especially.
Quote:
People living in the nation's most dangerous states were also far more likely than other Americans to live in poverty. The poverty rate in six of the 10 states was higher than the national rate of 15.8% last year. Nearly 22% of New Mexico residents lived below the poverty line, the second-highest nationwide and the highest on this list.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/01/03/24-7-wall-st-most-dangerous-states/21214169/
Interestingly, some of the poorest states are also the most obese, and more rural:
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-obese-states-in-the-us-2015-5
Quote:
Based on a large national study, body mass index (or BMI, an indicator of excess body fat) was higher every year between 1986 and 2002 among adults in the lowest income group and the lowest education group than among those in the highest income and education groups, respectively (Truong & Sturm, 2005).
Wages were inversely related to BMI and obesity in a nationally representative sample of more than 6,000 adults – meaning, those with low wages had increased BMI as well as increased chance of being obese (Kim & Leigh, 2010).
http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-o...ght-or-obesity/
And since obesity is well tied with health, one can see how this could be an issue.
While some will make it out that rural living, or urban living, depending upon where the grass on the other side of the fence is "greener", is a "luxury", the reality is that poor urban and suburban life can be horrid, as said, but rural life can be as bad. There's a reason why valuations are much lower there. Lower valuations aren't a bad thing I and of themselves, especially if it can be leveraged to one's advantage, but it's typically valued that way because of less overall opportunity for the local population. An example is basic education...
Quote:
The availability of advanced-placement courses (AP) decreases as schools get smaller and farther from major cities, a University of New Hampshire study finds.
http://www.dailyyonder.com/fewer-rural-districts-have-ap-courses/2015/02/16/7725/
Some also seem to forget that time wasted driving twenty miles to get to anything, certainly is the same time wasted as if you encounter traffic in more populated areas. Of course, that also comes back to affluence, as the higher value locations allow for shorter commutes with less time spent in the car.
At the end of the day, people make what's best for them. Everyone's best is different. But as long as one is moving forward, it's all good. The issue is that half of the population is below average, and those who wish to remain stagnant, remain victims, not seize the opportunities that societyhasput out there... Will bolster these negative statistics and issues that you can find everywhere if you're looking for them...
By remaining a victim, you get great benefits from government.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
By remaining a victim, you get great benefits from government.
I agree, but a lot of this stuff is self limiting. If you're selling your food stamps for cash to buy drugs, you're rapidly killing yourself. If you're eating food with the food stamps and handouts, you're getting what? $50k worth of stuff per year? A lousy thing for someone EARNING $50k sure, but far from "making it".
Recently I was in GA and was in a convenience store. I was rather annoyed to see people buying junk food on EBT, then pulling a wad of cash out to buy cigarettes. If you can afford cigarettes, you can pay for your own junk food. That's what gets me more. The double dippers working under the table for a living and collecting government handouts too. It's not some slob lounging, which is disgusting but again self limiting in its own way. This is people with cash from something still using those benefits.
Of course this was in a rural area of GA, and stuff like this isn't supposed to happen in rural areas.
By remaining a victim, you get great benefits from government.
I agree, but a lot of this stuff is self limiting. If you're selling your food stamps for cash to buy drugs, you're rapidly killing yourself. If you're eating food with the food stamps and handouts, you're getting what? $50k worth of stuff per year? A lousy thing for someone EARNING $50k sure, but far from "making it".
Recently I was in GA and was in a convenience store. I was rather annoyed to see people buying junk food on EBT, then pulling a wad of cash out to buy cigarettes. If you can afford cigarettes, you can pay for your own junk food. That's what gets me more. The double dippers working under the table for a living and collecting government handouts too. It's not some slob lounging, which is disgusting but again self limiting in its own way. This is people with cash from something still using those benefits.
Of course this was in a rural area of GA, and stuff like this isn't supposed to happen in rural areas.
I live in an urban community. I live on the far West Side of Chicago and listen to gun shots on a weekly basis. I blame the police for no longer caring about gang members who hang out on the corners. The Chicago Police are allowing crime to explode in my area.
Thanks for those links doitmyself, I ended up using one of the articles in a Uni assignment on "Poor use of statistics" that is due tomorrow! You saved me having to search too hard
Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
I live in an urban community. I live on the far West Side of Chicago and listen to gun shots on a weekly basis. I blame the police for no longer caring about gang members who hang out on the corners. The Chicago Police are allowing crime to explode in my area.
If the residents don't care about their own community why would anyone else? Your neighbors wouldn't tell the police who did they drive by if the police asked.
I live in an urban community. I live on the far West Side of Chicago and listen to gun shots on a weekly basis. I blame the police for no longer caring about gang members who hang out on the corners. The Chicago Police are allowing crime to explode in my area.
If the residents don't care about their own community why would anyone else? Your neighbors wouldn't tell the police who did they drive by if the police asked.
Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
I live in an urban community. I live on the far West Side of Chicago and listen to gun shots on a weekly basis. I blame the police for no longer caring about gang members who hang out on the corners. The Chicago Police are allowing crime to explode in my area.
Blame the police ? You should blame the politicians. They know who the criminals are but are handcuffed by political correctness. Liberalism is destroying our cities and the people let it
happen by voting for the same politicians causing the problems.
I live in an urban community. I live on the far West Side of Chicago and listen to gun shots on a weekly basis. I blame the police for no longer caring about gang members who hang out on the corners. The Chicago Police are allowing crime to explode in my area.
Blame the police ? You should blame the politicians. They know who the criminals are but are handcuffed by political correctness. Liberalism is destroying our cities and the people let it
happen by voting for the same politicians causing the problems.
I just moved from a very heavily populated area to the country. I guess you could call where I lived, the suburbs.
I got extremely tired of the various ethnic groups and nationalities that changed where I was into a community of crime, litter, noise, and just plain weird habits I am not comfortable with.
Where I live now, is a very small farm town. Very low crime rate, no issues walking the neighborhood at night. The people all pretty much share a common upbringing and ethnic background. It's really nice. A level of expected behavior is the norm here. People wave, are very kind (so far), and the pace is slow and calm. No pounding ghetto music in every car that drives by....no garbage everywhere....and just a much more pleasant living condition that I am accustomed to.
I got extremely tired of the various ethnic groups and nationalities that changed where I was into a community of crime, litter, noise, and just plain weird habits I am not comfortable with.
Where I live now, is a very small farm town. Very low crime rate, no issues walking the neighborhood at night. The people all pretty much share a common upbringing and ethnic background. It's really nice. A level of expected behavior is the norm here. People wave, are very kind (so far), and the pace is slow and calm. No pounding ghetto music in every car that drives by....no garbage everywhere....and just a much more pleasant living condition that I am accustomed to.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
I live in an urban community. I live on the far West Side of Chicago and listen to gun shots on a weekly basis. I blame the police for no longer caring about gang members who hang out on the corners. The Chicago Police are allowing crime to explode in my area.
I hear gun shots whenever I do yard work, it seems. But in a rural setting that means... nothing.
When I hear shots at night I wonder a bit, then figure it's from a fox getting into the hen house, or similar.
I live in an urban community. I live on the far West Side of Chicago and listen to gun shots on a weekly basis. I blame the police for no longer caring about gang members who hang out on the corners. The Chicago Police are allowing crime to explode in my area.
I hear gun shots whenever I do yard work, it seems. But in a rural setting that means... nothing.
When I hear shots at night I wonder a bit, then figure it's from a fox getting into the hen house, or similar.
I used to hear rifle shots in my house in a rural part of Maine--illegal deer hunting. The problem is those bullets could have gone right through our frame home and out the other side. At times I could hear automatic weapons firing in the distance--some yahoo practicing up in the woods.
Originally Posted By: hpb
Thanks for those links doitmyself, I ended up using one of the articles in a Uni assignment on "Poor use of statistics" that is due tomorrow! You saved me having to search too hard
Excellent. That was part of my point of this exercise. I have to admit that I was attempting to stir the pot a bit and was
for diverse reactions. It worked. We have comments from the deep urban stereotype of querty1234 as well as from the VERY rural stereotype of supton, who I can relate my Michigan Upper Peninsula experience with.
I disagree with NATE1979 that stated "Your premise was that urban living may be better than rural living and then showed some statistics to show reasons to back it up." No where did I suggest it might be better. What I suggested is that rural living is not without its own challenges compared to urban problems. All of my data was from peer reviewed papers, not just magazine articles. But, if anyone took the time to actually read them, the usual problems of data and statistics are present. The data presented is effective in supporting my hypothesis that "rural living is not without its own challenges compared to urban problems". Anything else is the interpretation of the reader.
- the first paper is targeted at emergency care physicians, it only considers "injury death rate", and suggests that more consideration is needed for rural emergency medical care.
- the second paper is entirely based on data from Minnesota!. It explores data that indicates rural vehicle accidents tend to have higher fatality rates vs. urban. If anything like the rural Upper Peninsula, alcohol is a huge source of "the only thing to do". One must look at every research paper for what it is, and isn't. This paper is relevant to areas similar to Minnesota.
- The remaining three papers highlight rural problems with obesity, drugs, and suicide. Again, they support my stance that rural living is not without it own set of problems. Not always better, not always worse, but definitely there.
I posted this thread to get reactions/opinions to a common theme presented at BITOG that rural living will prevent the problems common to urban areas(which encompasses much more than the inner city ghettos). My personal experience is that it does not, but I still prefer a rural lifestyle, which can be had in many settings. I was glad to see many here imply that "home is where the heart is", people can and do succeed in both settings, and they do not have their heads in sand regarding lifestyles. Just the affirmation I was seeking!
On a lighter note regarding rural gun fire, my distant neighbor was standing in his garage one deer season and a shotgun slug came in through the wall, bounced around a bit, and landed on the workbench where he was working. His wife said he turned ten shades whiter.
Thanks for those links doitmyself, I ended up using one of the articles in a Uni assignment on "Poor use of statistics" that is due tomorrow! You saved me having to search too hard
Excellent. That was part of my point of this exercise. I have to admit that I was attempting to stir the pot a bit and was
I disagree with NATE1979 that stated "Your premise was that urban living may be better than rural living and then showed some statistics to show reasons to back it up." No where did I suggest it might be better. What I suggested is that rural living is not without its own challenges compared to urban problems. All of my data was from peer reviewed papers, not just magazine articles. But, if anyone took the time to actually read them, the usual problems of data and statistics are present. The data presented is effective in supporting my hypothesis that "rural living is not without its own challenges compared to urban problems". Anything else is the interpretation of the reader.
- the first paper is targeted at emergency care physicians, it only considers "injury death rate", and suggests that more consideration is needed for rural emergency medical care.
- the second paper is entirely based on data from Minnesota!. It explores data that indicates rural vehicle accidents tend to have higher fatality rates vs. urban. If anything like the rural Upper Peninsula, alcohol is a huge source of "the only thing to do". One must look at every research paper for what it is, and isn't. This paper is relevant to areas similar to Minnesota.
- The remaining three papers highlight rural problems with obesity, drugs, and suicide. Again, they support my stance that rural living is not without it own set of problems. Not always better, not always worse, but definitely there.
I posted this thread to get reactions/opinions to a common theme presented at BITOG that rural living will prevent the problems common to urban areas(which encompasses much more than the inner city ghettos). My personal experience is that it does not, but I still prefer a rural lifestyle, which can be had in many settings. I was glad to see many here imply that "home is where the heart is", people can and do succeed in both settings, and they do not have their heads in sand regarding lifestyles. Just the affirmation I was seeking!
On a lighter note regarding rural gun fire, my distant neighbor was standing in his garage one deer season and a shotgun slug came in through the wall, bounced around a bit, and landed on the workbench where he was working. His wife said he turned ten shades whiter.
I'm not that rural--I can see my neighbor's houses. Granted I haven't met my neighbors but that's because we're all New Englanders.
One time I drove across Wyoming, on one stretch of road for about 3 or 4 hours. Between gas stations, that is. Handful of houses, and only saw a handful of other vehicles. Now that was rural!
One time I drove across Wyoming, on one stretch of road for about 3 or 4 hours. Between gas stations, that is. Handful of houses, and only saw a handful of other vehicles. Now that was rural!
Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
I live in an urban community. I live on the far West Side of Chicago and listen to gun shots on a weekly basis. I blame the police for no longer caring about gang members who hang out on the corners. The Chicago Police are allowing crime to explode in my area.
Blame those pulling triggers. The police can only respond and are limited by law. Blame those who choose to pull triggers to solve their problems.
I live in an urban community. I live on the far West Side of Chicago and listen to gun shots on a weekly basis. I blame the police for no longer caring about gang members who hang out on the corners. The Chicago Police are allowing crime to explode in my area.
Blame those pulling triggers. The police can only respond and are limited by law. Blame those who choose to pull triggers to solve their problems.
Where can you earn a comfortable living is one of the questions we all need to ask ourselves. For some of us, it means living in the big city during the week and being able to afford a weekend home in the country.
- Status