Originally Posted by gwd
It is the perception promoted by news outlets. The reporters live in the suburbs. I don't carry weapons but bike through neighborhoods where many suburban friends are afraid to drive.
Me too. Portland's pretty tame but formerly in San Francisco I regularly passed through (and lived in) areas considered dangerous by ... drivers. Yes I think the habit of seldom or never leaving home without a couple tons of steel cage, glass etc. isolating one from subtle social cues tends to make one rather paranoid, and probably more likely to support political agendas emphasizing more police power, tougher immigration law enforcement, property rights over commonwealth, majoritarianism over democracy, and a disproportionate level of concern about "monsters in our midst" -- pedophiles, child abductors etc. Basically the FOX news affiliate program, half or so of whose ad revenue comes from motor interests and the balance from germophobe cleaning products, lawn care items, and Baby Einstein DVDs to assure one's progeny can afford to keep out of the city.
While living in one of these "crime infested neighborhoods" (and I won't deny that crime was a big issue, just not to the extent represented in popular media), I analyzed property crime statistics for the area, adjusted for population density, and determined that the crime rate was double that of the suburbs per capita. Then I observed that slightly more than half of the property crimes were car break-ins, car theft, car vandalism. So, having a car basically doubled one's chance of being a crime victim. No car: pretty much the same as the most staid suburbs. The vast majority of violent crime was gang-related, inter-gang. There was dope-dealing territory to defend if one was to be able to make car payments, after all.