View Full Version : US rural life more dangerous than city-living
Some interesting finds here, though I didn't think they were terribly surprising, and you can bet some of the firearms related data will be taken out of context:
US rural life more dangerous than city-living
City-dwellers considering an escape to the country may not find the rural life so idyllic after all. A study published online today reveals that US rural counties are not as safe as urban ones, with a 22% higher risk of death.
The study, published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, was conducted by researchers from the American College of Emergency Physicians. They analyzed all 3,141 of the counties in the US during a 7-year period, yielding data on nearly 1.3 million "injury deaths."
Since many US cities have seen recent reductions in population thanks to perceived crime and safety threats, the researchers wanted to investigate whether these perceptions were based on any truth. The difference in injury risk between urban and rural areas had not been fully studied before.
Alongside the finding that risk of injury death was 22% higher in rural counties than in urban ones, the study also revealed:
Motor vehicle crashes led to 28 deaths for every 100,000 people in rural areas, versus only 11 deaths per 100,000 in urban areas
Firearm-related death rates were higher in rural areas for children and people over 45 years of age, but for 22- to 44-year-olds this risk was higher in urban areas.
Lead study author Dr. Sage Myers from the University of Pennsylvania says:
Cont:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/263826.php
and or
http://newsroom.acep.org/Want-to-Be-Safe-Move-to-the-City-No-Really
I grew up in a town in NY that spans 53 square miles with a population of around 2,400 people according to the last census. I now live (not counting the current deployment to Afghanistan) in one of the safest towns/ cities in the Los Angeles basin/ County. I'll take country living any day of the week. Over the 25 years my family has lived there, 1 murder, none involved even lived in the town, just happened to occur there.
Motor vehicle crashes led to 28 deaths for every 100,000 people in rural areas, versus only 11 deaths per 100,000 in urban areas
Firearm-related death rates were higher in rural areas for children and people over 45 years of age, but for 22- to 44-year-olds this risk was higher in urban areas.
I guess I don't find this surprising. Firearms are being discharged (legally) way more often in rural areas for hunting/target practice than the city, so obviously injury or death will be higher also. I see the age brackets fitting, statistically. Kids at a younger age are shooting more often in rural areas. I see all this as just being the "nature of the beast".
Same with motor vehicles. Higher speed limits, gravel on corners, animals, etc. will lend to more traffic accidents out in the country.
But hey, anything to discourage the city folk from moving out to the country, I'm good with it.
Sent via Tapatalk
I grew up in a town in NY that spans 53 square miles with a population of around 2,400 people according to the last census. I now live (not counting the current deployment to Afghanistan) in one of the safest towns/ cities in the Los Angeles basin/ County. I'll take country living any day of the week. Over the 25 years my family has lived there, 1 murder, none involved even lived in the town, just happened to occur there.
The numbers are not just about murder and murder, even in the worst parts of the US, are still mostly a high risk for a small % and subset of people. Car accidents and such however, much more an "equal opportunity" mode of death.
But, living can't be reduced to statistics either.
I agree, a sample size of one, a statistic does not make. One can also mention how police and ambulances are generally closer and have faster response times in cities, many more hospitals that probably have better trained and experienced staff, thus creating a lower fatality rate in cities than rural areas for the same given injuries. Many factors go into it. Makes no difference to me in making the decision on where I would prefer to live.
I bet farming operations account for a lot of the rural injuries.
Not sure how the statistics were put together for the car crashes but, isn't there many more square miles of rural area/roads than there is square miles of urban area/roads.
The population density is also less in rural areas and rural areas have a higher number of miles of roadway.
This seems skewed to me.
I'll take my country living any day.
Not sure this is believable. All of the high concentrations of violent crime come out of highly populated cities. How can this stay be reversed for this study?
Not sure this is believable. All of the high concentrations of violent crime come out of highly populated cities. How can this stay be reversed for this study?
And when compared to the number of people who die in auto accidents, most of which happen outside big cities, it's concluded actual risk of dying is higher in rural areas. Other factors as mentioned above surly involved, and I'm not a statistician by any means, but I don't really find these results surprising if correct.
People always fear things far out of proportion to actual risk of death, like the person who fears flying while driving to the airport, or the guys who CCWs every day, but smokes and does not wear a seat belt, etc.
But there's "lies, damn lies, and statistics" :cool:
I would like to dig into the data a bit. However, what I have personally scene is cities getting more gentrified with yuppies and hipsters, and the "element" moving to the suburbs. I have watched what were once nice suburban areas 30 years ago turn into ghettos. Whereas I have seen city neighborhoods that were once filled with hookers and dope dealers, are now filled with douche bags in skinny jeans.
I would like to dig into the data a bit. However, what I have personally scene is cities getting more gentrified with yuppies and hipsters, and the "element" moving to the suburbs. I have watched what were once nice suburban areas 30 years ago turn into ghettos. Whereas I have seen city neighborhoods that were once filled with hookers and dope dealers, are now filled with douche bags in skinny jeans.
Hey, that's wealthy tax paying non threatening metro sexual douche bags in skinny jeans! :D
You know how it is, large data sets that come to X conclusions often don't hold up well when one parses out the variables, such as what Lott did with the supposed data that found guns = bad and other classics.
Once pulled apart to find BS like "your 50times more likely to die having a gun in your home" included the gun the BG entered with, drug dealers and customers, etc, etc, that number went to sh&$ and when picked apart to look at law abiding types defensive use of guns...well, you know what happened. ;)
But, on the large swath of data, it does not surprise what this study found. Per usual, it may not be the data, but what they are assuming the data actually means.
Let us know what you find if you do dig up the full study and take a closer look at the data.
And when compared to the number of people who die in auto accidents, most of which happen outside big cities, it's concluded actual risk of dying is higher in rural areas. Other factors as mentioned above surly involved, and I'm not a statistician by any means, but I don't really find these results surprising if correct.
People always fear things far out of proportion to actual risk of death, like the person who fears flying while driving to the airport, or the guys who CCWs every day, but smokes and does not wear a seat belt, etc.
But there's "lies, damn lies, and statistics" :cool:
What people fear is loss of control more than ultimate outcome.
I don't think it's hard to understand why most people would much prefer to die from lung cancer resulting from smoking than being shot by some random stranger in a gang initiation.
montanadave
07-24-13, 09:02
Montana has an extremely high suicide rate, attributable in large part to social isolation, an aging population, a paucity of mental health services, and a Native American community that has been ravaged by poverty, alcoholism, and drug abuse.
Additionally, motor vehicle deaths are higher due to lots of two-lane highways, longer driving distances, young drivers, fewer emergency medical services, and drunk driving. It ain't for nothin' that Montana traffic fatality reports which include "no seat belts" and "alcohol related" are referred to (with appropriate gallows humor) as "death by natural causes."
There are also a fair number of industrial/employment-related accidents and deaths as, proportionally, more rural residents are employed in farming, ranching, mining, timber, energy, etc. where the risks of injury and/or death are higher.
You buys your ticket and you takes your chances. Trade this for living in some larger metropolitan/urban area? No thanks. I'm good.
MountainRaven
07-24-13, 09:07
All I've got to say is that you can live life like a goose or a chicken:
You can live life wild, rough, and free or you can be taken care of from egg to McNugget. Either way, you're going to end up as food for someone.
Cities are the chicken coups of mankind....
Additionally, motor vehicle deaths are higher due to lots of two-lane highways,
Yah, I recall reading that UNdivided highways have a significant role in fatality statistics and are more prevalent in rural areas.
-john
Let us know what you find if you do dig up the full study and take a closer look at the data.
Right off the hop I can't where they controlled for self-defense shootings. In rural areas criminals are much more likely to encounter armed resistance. Tweekers commonly prey on farms if for nothing else than to try to get some Anhydrous Ammonia.
Yeah, I am not surprised. Given the time/distance/availability of (emergency) medicine combined with locations of some of the deadliest jobs, morbidity/mortality seems to be higher in rural areas.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/11396
Methinks this "shocking" statistic is nearly entirely due to vehicular stats.
The average MPH in a rural setting is probably 3x what it is in a dense area. Think not only of the four lane highways cutting through rural areas... but every back road, every access road... all have higher average speeds. Spend any amount of time in a populated area and you can't go long before having to come to a full stop for a red light or traffic. SPEED is the major contributing factor to vehicle fatalities. Even with higher vehicular accident rates in a dense area... if almost 90% of city accidents are under 35 MPH that is a whole different story than the 90% of vehicular rural accidents being over 50 mph.
Methinks this "shocking" statistic is nearly entirely due to vehicular stats.
The average MPH in a rural setting is probably 3x what it is in a dense area. Think not only of the four lane highways cutting through rural areas... but every back road, every access road... all have higher average speeds. Spend any amount of time in a populated area and you can't go long before having to come to a full stop for a red light or traffic. SPEED is the major contributing factor to vehicle fatalities. Even with higher vehicular accident rates in a dense area... if almost 90% of city accidents are under 35 MPH that is a whole different story than the 90% of vehicular rural accidents being over 50 mph.
Clearly, what needs to be done, and for our own good no less, is ban any motor vehicle that can exceed 55mph. Think of the children!
I got me a better idea.
Let's ban assault tires.
Nobody needs radial tires that can go those speeds. Wheels with wooden spokes don't allow anyone to go assault speeds. All radial tires are good for is killing people.
I got a better idea - let's ban ideological propaganda cloaked as research and "news"...
I got a better idea - let's ban ideological propaganda cloaked as research and "news"...
If it makes the fools flock to urban areas, I'm actually kinda ok with this one.
montanadave
07-24-13, 12:57
If it makes the fools flock to urban areas, I'm actually kinda ok with this one.
Abso-freakin'-lutely.
Two comments, questions.
#1 it's going to take longer for emergency services to locate you and make it to you in a rural area compared to a city. So probably more people die from a lack of expedited treatment.
#2 How have these numbers increased since more people from the city have moved out into the country?
Abso-freakin'-lutely.
Everyone knows leaving the city is scary and dangerous.
And how many folks in cities drive ?
And what where were city limits vs county compared for other things
Yeah sure more folks die out of the city in cars ?
Survey said almost all airline deaths people were in there seats !
Standing up wont help :)
Would be curious to compare to violent crime rates !
Quick honey grab the kids lets rush to get back to detroit where its safer !
Living in fear of dying is silly I would rather live in country vs city ! Hate cities like NY L.A. Etc..
xjustintimex
07-24-13, 14:54
I could buy it, in south Texas along the rio where I grew up hunting/ranching there are plenty of ways to get yourself injured out by yourself. Most of the rural jobs are dangerous and the environment is risky from wildlife, heat, basically any organic living thing having a natural weapon, exc. Lots of nasty old grain trucks, sleepy oil workers exc fly down the roads. If and when something happens to you.. well rescue is a long way away! If it is even accessible at all.
I grew up on 160 acres in rural upstate NY. Had like 10k acres of land surrounding us that was owned by others that I only saw three or four times in my entire childhood (they lived elsewhere and just had the property as an investment I guess). Dirt road, and for years our nearest neighbors were 1.5 miles away. When it flooded every year, sometimes we'd have to kayak to where the school bus could pick us up. It certainly had its moments.
My folks were professors, but Dad wanted to recreate the conditions of his childhood in Tennessee for my brother and I. We went to public school, and at the first one my graduating class went from 55 to like 35 by the end (dropouts, pregnancies, and some deaths).
I remember my friends getting their arms caught in farm machinery and showing off these giant scars at school. I still fear hay balers. At least a couple people a year were killed in hunting accidents, and there was a lot of drunk driving. Still is. My best friend back there is currently recovering from a crash that nearly killed him where he was hit by a kid who was wasted (he took the pic below with the tractor in the field a couple years ago). I'd often hear stories of tractors falling over on people, heart attacks out in the middle of the woods, and all kinds of stuff like that. Ah, the good old days. :p
Working on a farm is dangerous sometimes. Working with heavy machinery is dirty and dangerous too. More chances of exposure to harmful chemicals as well. We had problems with companies putting carcinogenic waste in our local river for years, and who knows what else could have been toxic around there that had just been dumped in the middle of the night. We had astronomically higher cancer rates in a few places with no explanation or investigation. For instance, there would be an area of a few square miles where it seemed like everybody got cancer. But maybe it's just generally more hazardous to live there because people are simply physically DOING things for a living, rather than sitting behind desks or some other job where they're not in harm's way. Sometimes I miss the isolation, and sometimes I wonder who I would be if I'd grown up in a different place. But most of the time I'm pretty thankful for my rural upbringing. I could do anything I wanted. Was I at more of a risk of physical harm than some kid in the suburbs? Maybe. Certainly had my share of close calls and accidents that left scars. Worth it? Hell yes.
I guess this thread made me nostalgic. My Dad is now selling the farm. I'll likely never be able to see it again while he still owns it. Makes me pretty sad, but I've still got pictures and memories.
This is (was) our place -
http://imageshack.us/a/img5/9601/0rvh.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img96/3214/0p0v.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img713/1219/ntvx.jpg
Moose-Knuckle
07-24-13, 15:40
If it makes the fools flock to urban areas, I'm actually kinda ok with this one.
This.
Let the propaganda commense and let the brain dead jelly fish migrate to urban centers.
I'll take my chances with Bambi. ;)
Two comments, questions.
#1 it's going to take longer for emergency services to locate you and make it to you in a rural area compared to a city. So probably more people die from a lack of expedited treatment.
#2 How have these numbers increased since more people from the city have moved out into the country?
I'd rather take my chances in a small town where the hospital is probably within 5 miles and emergency response vehicles aren't stuck in gridlock traffic.
This.
Let the propaganda commense and let the brain dead jelly fish migrate to urban centers.
I'll take my chances with Bambi. ;)
I think the safest city in the nation is probably Detroit. Failing that a person would want to live in Chicago, NY or LA. They have everything.
I have a feeling that once the "data" is dissected we might find things being "normalized" or excluded for the sake of <insert stupid political reason here>....
If the mode of death is accident by vehicle, then by a shear volumetric overflow of vehicles you would see more deaths in a place that has more cars. Period. You might have an outlier, like a study of Pike's Peak and high speed crashes involving a cliff and a car, but a place with more cars will have more car deaths.
I have a feeling that once the "data" is dissected we might find things being "normalized" or excluded for the sake of <insert stupid political reason here>....
If the mode of death is accident by vehicle, then by a shear volumetric overflow of vehicles you would see more deaths in a place that has more cars. Period. You might have an outlier, like a study of Pike's Peak and high speed crashes involving a cliff and a car, but a place with more cars will have more car deaths.
And what is truly astonishing it the vast numbers of people who read such "studies" and accept and promote it as completely factual without even taking the time to consider such incredibly basic variables.
This type of "Study" is BS.
It reminds me of a study I saw earlier this year conducted to show how places where gun laws are less restrictive have greater gun violence & deaths per capita than places where gun laws are more restrictive.
The study had a very specific qaulifier with certain statistics being left out: "Gang related crime/violence & murders/killings" not being taken into consideration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can set up any statistic or "conclusion" of any study to be what you want with the correct parameters ignored or magnified
Sad people believe these studies without reading & independently researching the criteria and sources being used.
People are dumb and getting MUCH dumber at an insane pace. It is getting more and more frustrating every day.
If it makes the fools flock to urban areas, I'm actually kinda ok with this one.
+ a million. I just moved in to a more rural area. If this is 'dangerous,' call me Mr. Lives Dangerously.
Although to be fair, I did hurt my knee while pulling up some new field fence through uneven terrain.
MountainRaven
07-24-13, 19:53
If it makes the fools flock to urban areas, I'm actually kinda ok with this one.
My only issue is that it will mean more voters will be living in urban areas, not rural areas. Which will result in negative outcomes for those of us living in exurban and rural areas.
Don Robison
07-24-13, 19:56
Their stats are akin to me saying city life is more dangerous because there are more subway deaths in the city compared to rural areas.:rolleyes:
Chainsaws, guns and bulldozers ....what's not to love about dangerous country livin' ?
Sent from my iPhone on tapatalk
I'd rather take my chances in a small town where the hospital is probably within 5 miles and emergency response vehicles aren't stuck in gridlock traffic.
We're not on the same page here when it comes to rural areas. Rural areas to me are anywhere from a mile to twenty outside of city limits. Not small towns with streets and house numbers.
I do agree with your point on large cities and traffic inhibiting response time.
montanadave
07-25-13, 07:06
We're not on the same page here when it comes to rural areas. Rural areas to me are anywhere from a mile to twenty outside of city limits. Not small towns with streets and house numbers.
I do agree with your point on large cities and traffic inhibiting response time.
Ditto. My primary residence is in a "city" of around 100K. I have two medical centers less two miles from my house. There's a fire station with paramedics a mile from my house. Response times are easily less than 5 minutes. Population density in this county is almost 60 people per square mile.
My "ranch" is a couple of hundred acres about an hour away. The sheriff's office is twenty miles down the highway in one direction and the nearest hospital is twenty miles in the opposite direction. And that's after driving a mile out to the county road and a couple more miles to the highway. Population density is this county is around 2 people per square mile.
For folks living in big U.S. metro areas, both of these would probably be considered "rural." But for me, one's city and one's country. And those big metro areas? That's hell. :)
I have a feeling that once the "data" is dissected we might find things being "normalized" or excluded for the sake of <insert stupid political reason here>....
If the mode of death is accident by vehicle, then by a shear volumetric overflow of vehicles you would see more deaths in a place that has more cars. Period. You might have an outlier, like a study of Pike's Peak and high speed crashes involving a cliff and a car, but a place with more cars will have more car deaths.
I think, on first blush, the issue with your last paragraph is different than what the statistics are 'supposed' to show. Yes, higher volume = more accidents, but I 'think' (without re-reading the OP) they are looking at percentages.
This type of "Study" is BS.
It reminds me of a study I saw earlier this year conducted to show how places where gun laws are less restrictive have greater gun violence & deaths per capita than places where gun laws are more restrictive.
The study had a very specific qaulifier with certain statistics being left out: "Gang related crime/violence & murders/killings" not being taken into consideration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can set up any statistic or "conclusion" of any study to be what you want with the correct parameters ignored or magnified
Sad people believe these studies without reading & independently researching the criteria and sources being used.
People are dumb and getting MUCH dumber at an insane pace. It is getting more and more frustrating every day.
Actually the study is statistically sound.
That said, although I live in a 'rural' area about 8 miles from a town (city?) of 275,000, I prefer 'real' rural areas and would not mind living in the boonies on a plot of land a few hundred acres in size.
I think, on first blush, the issue with your last paragraph is different than what the statistics are 'supposed' to show. Yes, higher volume = more accidents, but I 'think' (without re-reading the OP) they are looking at percentages.
Fair enough, but this is how these things can get out of control...
A town has 10 people, and 8 of them die in a two car head on collision. That town has a fatality rate of 0.8. 80%.
A city of 4,000,000 people has 3,000 die in a year via car crashes with a fatality rate of 0.00075. Less than 1%.
Which place is REALLY safer?
I used extreme examples to simplify, but you can see how this can be misconstrued pretty quickly.
If you have 3,000,000 drivers in close proximity to one another, the likelihood of being involved in a car crash that takes your life is higher.
ETA:
They say 28 per 100,000 in "rural" and 11 per 100,000 in "urban"....
So if the town has 50,000 people it would stand to reason that they would suffer 14 deaths - total.
A city of 4,000,000 would suffer 440 deaths - total.
Fair enough, but this is how these things can get out of control...
A town has 10 people, and 8 of them die in a two car head on collision. That town has a fatality rate of 0.8. 80%.
A city of 4,000,000 people has 3,000 die in a year via car crashes with a fatality rate of 0.00075. Less than 1%.
Which place is REALLY safer?
I used extreme examples to simplify, but you can see how this can be misconstrued pretty quickly.
If you have 3,000,000 drivers in close proximity to one another, the likelihood of being involved in a car crash that takes your life is higher.
Absolutely, and no argument from me. I think that the article's argument is that living father away from definitive medical care increases M&M. An analogy would be how military medicine viewed its trauma system, with the concept of using helo's and the concept of the golden hour (and not opening THAT can of worms...)...time to care decreased and mortaility decreased as well.
This type of "Study" is BS.
I don't agree. Such studies can be useful in appropriate uses of resources and other factors that may benefit people:
"By digging deep into the data, we may be able to tailor injury prevention efforts to the populations that need them, such as seniors in cities who are more likely to fall and rural children who are more likely to drown," said Dr. Myers. "This data is relevant to staffing issues as well. Injury-related mortality risk is highest in the areas least likely to be covered by emergency physicians and least likely to have access to trauma care, which argues for using a population-planning approach to improve emergency and trauma care systems in the U.S."
Note who the study is directed at and the journal it was published in, etc. The "BS" part would (potentially) come from how the study is used and interpreted by people or groups with a specific agenda. The study itself can have value.
Obviously, it fails to take various intangibles into account, but as I said in other threads, actual results of this study didn't surprise me in the least. I can easily see however how some anti gun group could take the finding out of context to push their BS anti guns agenda. That's another matter however.
It reminds me of a study I saw earlier this year conducted to show how places where gun laws are less restrictive have greater gun violence & deaths per capita than places where gun laws are more restrictive.
The study had a very specific qaulifier with certain statistics being left out: "Gang related crime/violence & murders/killings" not being taken into consideration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How did you come to that conclusion? Cars kills more people by far than all cause homicides in the US, including every gang related type murder:
"Although the risk of homicide is higher in big cities, the risk of unintentional injury death is 40 percent higher in the most rural areas than in the most urban. And overall, the rate of unintentional injury dwarfs the risk of homicide, with the rate of unintentional injury more than 15 times that of homicide among the entire population."
You can set up any statistic or "conclusion" of any study to be what you want with the correct parameters ignored or magnified
Sad people believe these studies without reading & independently researching the criteria and sources being used.
People are dumb and getting MUCH dumber at an insane pace. It is getting more and more frustrating every day.
I agree with most of the above to be sure, but I think it's another issue and your frustration perhaps misplaced on this one.
Recently there was a fatality on I-80 in rural Pennsylvania. A truck driver trapped in a vehicle burned alive. Add one to "rural is more dangerous".
This study is meaningless since it includes vehicle fatalities. Has nothing to do with "where you live", has everything to do with where vehicle fatalities occur.
It is more of a "where are you more likely to die in an auto accident" study.
Recently there was a fatality on I-80 in rural Pennsylvania. A truck driver trapped in a vehicle burned alive. Add one to "rural is more dangerous".
This study is meaningless since it includes vehicle fatalities. Has nothing to do with "where you live", has everything to do with where vehicle fatalities occur.
It is more of a "where are you more likely to die in an auto accident" study.
It is absolutely not "meaningless." I would imagine, but do not know for certain, that most MVCs are within "n" miles of residence, but I agree with that the more important 'question' of where the fatalities occur. But add rural MVC with fatality rates to the number of occupations that are high-risk/high-death, there is a huge amount of sound evidence to conclude that rural living is "more deadly".
Don Robison
07-25-13, 10:52
Interesting, I don't see a single rural town on the list. :D
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22686/america-s-10-deadliest-cities-2012
My point being anyone can pull the stats they want and use those to "definitively" declare XXX place is more dangerous than XXXX.
Traveshamockery
07-25-13, 11:06
Fewer people drive in cities, and when they do drive, it's at shorter distances at lower speeds. I'd also wager that far more interstate highway miles are in rural counties than urban settings.
Farm accidents are, no doubt, a huge contributor to the injury numbers.
Furthermore, potentially-dangerous outdoor activities like hunting, hiking, ATV riding, mountain-climbing, rafting, mountain-biking, etc. exclusively take place in rural settings.
I don't see where more subtle risk factors of city living like pollution's effect on health, and stresses of traffic, proximity, noise, etc are added in either.
The distinct difference in city and country life, to me, is that in the country you're largely choosing your own risks: where and how you drive, the job you work, recreation. In the city, some of the biggest risks are externalities, like violent crime.
I'll take the personal risks of ATV riding over the external risks of walking through Baltimore at night, thank you very much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Farming is inherently dangerous, period. Being around machinery and live animals means accidents and deaths. Plenty of my family members have been hurt, but none killed, while working on family farm operations.
That being said, I like the study b/c hopefully it will sway liberal city folks from moving outside of urban areas.
I don't agree. Such studies can be useful in appropriate uses of resources and other factors that may benefit people:
"By digging deep into the data, we may be able to tailor injury prevention efforts to the populations that need them, such as seniors in cities who are more likely to fall and rural children who are more likely to drown," said Dr. Myers. "This data is relevant to staffing issues as well. Injury-related mortality risk is highest in the areas least likely to be covered by emergency physicians and least likely to have access to trauma care, which argues for using a population-planning approach to improve emergency and trauma care systems in the U.S."
Note who the study is directed at and the journal it was published in, etc. The "BS" part would (potentially) come from how the study is used and interpreted by people or groups with a specific agenda. The study itself can have value.
Obviously, it fails to take various intangibles into account, but as I said in other threads, actual results of this study didn't surprise me in the least. I can easily see however how some anti gun group could take the finding out of context to push their BS anti guns agenda. That's another matter however.
Yes, I agree with most of what you have said. I guess I am using my own filter here- in so far as; I believe it more dangerous to have the threat of murder or injury due to say an armed criminal or a gang turf war errupting- over someone being injured or killed as a result of a mistkae on a piece of farm equipment or driving their vehicle.
Both can cause injury or harm- yes, but you have to actively be working around the farm equipment for the danger to be present and you accept these risks as the reward of the fruit of your labor outweighs the risk, not so in the urban areas where the danger can rear its head at any moment, any place and the reward of city life is not worth it (To me).
I know this is kind of weird thinking, but I accept one danger as necessary and the other as unecessary- if that makes sense? Same thing with driving- everytime I get in the car I realize it might be dangerous and I get the beneffit of traveling quicker and with greater ease. the risk/reward is acceptable IMO. But in heavily populated urban areas, the risk of being robbed or raped or murdered OUTweighs the rewards of city life- so the risk/reward ratio/factor is much different.
How did you come to that conclusion? Cars kills more people by far than all cause homicides in the US, including every gang related type murder:
"Although the risk of homicide is higher in big cities, the risk of unintentional injury death is 40 percent higher in the most rural areas than in the most urban. And overall, the rate of unintentional injury dwarfs the risk of homicide, with the rate of unintentional injury more than 15 times that of homicide among the entire population."
Again, the possibility of injury or harm is a calculated risk when one decides to live life in a rural environment and is necessary to survival as the labor/job that is dangerous serves a purpose to the individual/community.
Not so with the threat of violence from armed robbers, rapists and gang memebrs- they serve no purpose to the community, thus the danger in rural areas is accepted and necessary, but in urban areas it is a bunch of crap. Again, I understand I am using my own filter here, but it is valid in so far as some forms of danger are necessary to survive, and others are just people threatening your life.
But I can accept unintended injury/death as a necessary part of life, I cannot accept criminals murdering me as a necessary danger. It is danger without any benefit; which is a LOT MORE DANGEROUS in my view.
I agree with most of the above to be sure, but I think it's another issue and your frustration perhaps misplaced on this one.
Yes, I am frustrated, and misplacing my frustrations here to a certain extent. I apologize- been a real rough year without much relief in sight...
I guess what I am saying is that I can accept the dangers of rural living as necessary to that form of lifestyle, but not so with urban areas, the threats of bodily harm from criminals is not an acceptable from of danger in my opinion- that was what I was getting at with the statistics being manipulated- as if the danger of getting killed while driving are the same fo the danger of some whacko just murdering you on the side of the road; you get a benefit/reward from driving and take the risk to have such benefit/reward.
I do realize a higher rate of pay is available in urban areas to a greater extent than rural (FOR the most part). Thast is where my own filter reflects my comments on the study- I am slanted to my personal opinions here and can admit that.
I guess the proper perspective of the type of danger means more to me than just "danger" itself- beyond what the study is reporting is what I am getting at in a long winded and bloviated way...
I did make it personal beyond the study parameters and I realize my comments are somewhat off base.
I live in the city for half the year and the country for the other half. Not really afraid of either form of "danger". I can just accept one much more than the other I guess.
Thanks Will.
I'll take the personal risks of ATV riding over the external risks of walking through Baltimore at night, thank you very much.
Yes, you certainly have to figure in the right/ability/willingness to do dangerous things.
Most people are going to draw the line at walking a dark back alley simply because of the likelihood of danger/death. It's not like the danger is not present.
On the the other hand, riding an ATV, hunting, learning to water ski, whatever. They have an acceptable level of danger and a minimal risk of death. So overall those activities are less dangerous but someone is going to flip that ATV or ski into the boat dock.
The dark alley and ghetto is still more dangerous. It's just that fewer people temp a successful run at it.
The city is far more dangerous in my opinion but people get out in rural areas and forget ordinary danger, like drifting into the on coming lane on a back road. In the city the constant danger of on coming traffic keeps you in your lane. It's the person not the place.
I mean if you pull up to any major traffic intersection and don't think you are in a dangerous place something is wrong with you.
Here is the problem with this crazy study:
Alongside the finding that risk of injury death was 22% higher in rural counties than in urban ones, the study also revealed:
That is just the thing. The very claim that "rural living is more dangerous" is a spoof, because the stats aren't about "where you live", they are stats about where people drive at a higher average speed and where older populations choose to reside.
Being OLD is the biggest fatality problem, not geographic location. If you want to parse out "injury death" this study does not allow you to conclude living in a rural area is more dangerous.
The CDC lists the top five causes of death to be Heart disease, Cancer, respiratory disease, Stroke and Accidents. Increased fatality rate has to do more with age than anything else, but obviously vehicular is a big contributing factor to death other than natural causes.
Just because virtually every mile of many 4 lane roads are located in a rural county doesn't mean that living in an adjoining rural home with a 4 lane road in the back yard is somehow at-risk of some higher mortality probability rate. That is flawed thinking. Just because a four lane death-corridor runs through the mountains filled with rural towns does not make living in the rural town more dangerous, it means that driving at higher average speeds is generally hazardous.
I know people that live just feet from toll roads that almost NEVER go on the road... yet the fatalities on the turnpike mostly made up of city slickers and truck drivers driving 70 MPH somehow makes "Rural life more dangerous".
If you want to say "There are more fatalities on roads in rural areas than on city roads" that is fine. But "live in a rural area = more likely to die" is using the wrong data.
Liberty vs. Safety, that's all this is.
I'd rather die a free man than live in accordance to what society deems as "safety." And I do not take kindly to reports that try to use statistics to convince people otherwise.
10-4 on that.
The biggest factor that tells me rural living isn't more dangerous is.... they don't factor that in to life insurance rates, not even a little bit. If it had ANY impact at all you would see insurance companies charging life insurance rates based on urban/rural factors.
montanadave
07-25-13, 15:41
The virtues of country living versus the benefits of life in the city has always been a bone of contention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umS3XM3xAPk
:)
I say lets cut the city off from the country and see which one makes it after a few weeks :)
if it were not for the country folks doing all the work so people could live in a city the city would die out !
so of course the city in some ways is safer ? but like others not fair
its like saying your engine in your car is going to need maintenance before your seats do ?
lets look at your chance of being beat up and mugged ! as part of that health ! lets look at air conditions etc...
Of course the study makes sense, longer response times, all volunteer medics and firemen. Also rural areas are a lot of farming communities. If you look up farm related injuries or deaths there are quite a few. Side note a mechanic my dad had work for him lost his hand in a bailing machine, Joe was surly and not a guy to mess with, unless you told him you were going to take him to a second hand store to do some shopping.
it boils down to people are simply farther away from top tier medical and response times from county or city. For me its 3.5 hour drive to the nearest level 1 trauma center now by helo its much shorter but that just lets people know if you screw up its gonna cost you. Our joke up here is don't get hurt on the weekend, be lucky if the e.r. is properly staffed.
Absolutely, and no argument from me. I think that the article's argument is that living father away from definitive medical care increases M&M. An analogy would be how military medicine viewed its trauma system, with the concept of using helo's and the concept of the golden hour (and not opening THAT can of worms...)...time to care decreased and mortaility decreased as well.
I think we all get that from the article. Most of us realize there are several more factors involved such as first responders stuck in urban traffic jams which can offset the conclusions of the article.
Furthermore, most of us are far less likely to need that ambulance if we resided in a peaceful, more rural setting. If we had to live in very urban areas such as NYC, Chicago, DC or LA we'd probably stroke out in our mid 30s.
Traveshamockery
07-26-13, 05:35
I mean if you pull up to any major traffic intersection and don't think you are in a dangerous place something is wrong with you.
That's a fact. On Monday I watched a dump truck with no brakes plow through an intersection as I waited to turn. Miraculously, and with the help of some stuntman driving by the operator, he didn't hit anyone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Vehicular and self-inflicted fatalities, together, make up 63% of all accidental fatalities. I think we are discussing the wrong areas to properly analyze the subject.
32% of "death by accident" are self-inflicted.
31% of "accidents" are transportation related and have to do with higher average speeds, not distance of medical care.
_____
63% of all deaths by injury are from one of two categories.
The thought of all of the farming injuries contributing to this statistic isn't explaining it either. Farming is incredibly dangerous, but the number of actual deaths from farming is quite small. This does not impact an analysis that the rural areas are more dangerous.
Your intersection might also be dangerous but remember, we are not talking about paralysis, amputations, comas... we are talking about deaths.
Google: average speed relation to fatalities
Check out the NHTSA.gov study. Accidents occur with vehicles going much slower and much faster than posted speed, but the fatalities occur when above 15MPH above average speeds.
CDC deaths 2010:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf
Agenda 21...
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Agenda 21...
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep." that will end it all. Yeah there are more ATV deaths,drownings at the lakes large animal accidents, vehicle deaths. The country is not for the weak city slicker pansies. Hold my beer and watch this!
I loathe reading that sort of mindless statistics tripe, but did they account for urban/suburban dwellers going to a rural area and offing themselves on accident?
All the news stories always seem to be about some dumbass from NYC, SF, LA, DC or whatever climbing some hill and dying on it. Or driving through a logging road with a RWD sedan in 3' of snow. Or driving their jetski into a pier on a rural lake. Or trying to navigate a triple on their sweet new 900cc+ ATV....
brickboy240
07-31-13, 10:43
I know that when I am out in rural towns here in Texas...I am not nearly as worried about the things I face while being in Dallas, Houston or other larger cities.
-brickboy240
montanadave
07-31-13, 11:07
I know that when I am out in rural towns here in Texas...I am not nearly as worried about the things I face while being in Dallas, Houston or other larger cities.
-brickboy240
Along the same lines, I am more willing to accept the risk of injury associated with working on my out-of-town property, frequently alone, because of the measure of personal control I possess. Whatever injuries I may sustain are most likely due to either my own ineptitude or equipment failure (again, largely in my control).
Conversely, most injuries I might fall victim to in town are generally due to someone else's negligence, carelessness, or deliberate malevolence.
brickboy240
07-31-13, 11:12
Dad's tractor and chainsaw at the ranch do not scare me nearly as much as the street gangs and burglars in Houston.
-brickboy240
I know that when I am out in rural towns here in Texas...I am not nearly as worried about the things I face while being in Dallas, Houston or other larger cities.
-brickboy240
Perception of risk has nothing to do with actual risk, like those who worry about flying while driving to the airport not wearing a seat belt.
Perception of risk has nothing to do with actual risk, like those who worry about flying while driving to the airport not wearing a seat belt.
Agree :agree:, but the survival rate of aviation crashes is grim...:sad:
Auto crashes can be minor and even without being belted in most cars on the road today have airbags.
brickboy240
08-01-13, 10:21
I drive a Volvo...that ought to tell you how I feel about my safety on the road. Still..any of us could get killed on the road if the conditions are wrong that day. Cannot live life all worried about that.
I'll take my chances with using the tractor and chainsaw out in the country over any thugs or criminals I could encounter in the big city.
-brickboy240
Agree :agree:, but the survival rate of aviation crashes is grim...:sad:
Auto crashes can be minor and even without being belted in most cars on the road today have airbags.
But a plane could crash every single day and not equal the number of people killed in cars each year.
But a plane could crash every single day and not equal the number of people killed in cars each year.
This is true, and I wish I could recall the book, but there is a book that talks about the impact of perceptions on statistics and economics.
I dealt with this with my wife...I had the opportunity after I was married to take a part-time job flying as a flight paramedic (which I had done when I was single, sans incident). Becuase EVERY time a helo goes down it is on the news, she thinks it is more dangerous than the job I had as a paramedic in an ambulance, which injures and kills far more medics than aircraft incidents. Irrational perception is not based on fact...hence the name "irrational."
This is true, and I wish I could recall the book, but there is a book that talks about the impact of perceptions on statistics and economics.
I dealt with this with my wife...I had the opportunity after I was married to take a part-time job flying as a flight paramedic (which I had done when I was single, sans incident). Becuase EVERY time a helo goes down it is on the news, she thinks it is more dangerous than the job I had as a paramedic in an ambulance, which injures and kills far more medics than aircraft incidents. Irrational perception is not based on fact...hence the name "irrational."
Women. :D
Personally, I try my best to approach the topic rationally as possible and will examine the issue from an objective manner as a risk/benefit assessment where possible.
Motor cycles a good example. I like them, had one as a kid, but decided the risk to benefit just didn't add up, so I don't have one.
Some things can be viewed like that, some can't.
Country living is more dangerous. I tool a header off the wife's horse and cracked my collar bone. It hurts like a mofo !!! You really do have the most fun just before you fall off.
You really do have the most fun just before you fall off.
I was going to say something about this statement and fat chicks but it would be insensitive.
I was going to say something about this statement and fat chicks but it would be insensitive.Agreed!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.