Why My Family Won't Be Moving to the Suburbs

[Anonymous]

His 2009 study analyzing Virginia's major cities, suburbs and rural areas found that lower-density areas were the most dangerous, while the safest communities, for the most part, were high-density cities. Not only did low-density communities have more traffic fatalities, but they were also the most dangerous places for stranger homicides.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Studies+suggest+urban+areas+less+risky+children/4148798/story.html#ixzz1DNb51Zn2

[Anonymous]

Two things:

1) Why is this in the political forum?

2) You do know that the chances of your child being killed anywhere at any time are extremely remote, regardless of whether you live in the country, burbs, or city. Right? So live where you want because you like the lifestyle and amenities. Simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Your child's likelihood of dying of a childhood disease is pretty remote, too. Doesn't mean we don't vaccinate. Given that auto crashes are the number one killer of children, and living in suburbia increases your risk by five times that of living in an urban community. That's not even touching on the increased risk of drug/alcohol abuse, stranger homicides, even school assaults.

[Anonymous]

I agree that there are many good reasons to live in the city vs. the suburbs. I am not sure that safety issues should be a huge factor though. For one thing, teaching your children road safety when young, making sure that they never drink and drive and so on may be more important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your child's likelihood of dying of a childhood disease is pretty remote, too. Doesn't mean we don't vaccinate. Given that auto crashes are the number one killer of children, and living in suburbia increases your risk by five times that of living in an urban community. That's not even touching on the increased risk of drug/alcohol abuse, stranger homicides, even school assaults.

This is an extremely paranoid outlook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child's likelihood of dying of a childhood disease is pretty remote, too. Doesn't mean we don't vaccinate. Given that auto crashes are the number one killer of children, and living in suburbia increases your risk by five times that of living in an urban community. That's not even touching on the increased risk of drug/alcohol abuse, stranger homicides, even school assaults.

This is an extremely paranoid outlook.

Maybe risk-averse. But I don't see how it is paranoid. She is accurately representing the increased risk. Paranoia is imagining threats that do not exist, or perhaps magnifying them beyond their actual risk. In her case, she knows the numbers.

[Anonymous]

teaching your children road safety when young

well, most of the kids dying out there are in the back seat of a car, so I'm not sure how relevant that is. Do you mean in anticipation of when they eventually get a license? If you mean pedestrian safety, is there anyone who doesn't teach their 4-year-old to stay out of the street? They simply haven't got the impulse control to be trusted.

making sure that they never drink and drive and so on may be more important.

How do you do this, exactly? You can explain the dangers til you're blue in the face, but that's different from "making sure they never" do it. Have you met any teens?

[Anonymous]

Yawn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

His 2009 study analyzing Virginia's major cities, suburbs and rural areas found that lower-density areas were the most dangerous, while the safest communities, for the most part, were high-density cities. Not only did low-density communities have more traffic fatalities, but they were also the most dangerous places for stranger homicides.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Studies+suggest+urban+areas+less+risky+children/4148798/story.html#ixzz1DNb51Zn2

The NOVA suburbs don't count as low density communities. And that same study found that Arlington and Fairfax counties are among the top ten safest areas in the state.

http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=7593

[Anonymous]

On behalf of my family, my neighbors, my community, my geographical metropolitan area, thank you because there are already too many FAHEs here.

[Anonymous]

The findings, which look reasonably dubious to begin with, probably make sense only if you are living a truly urban life. If you are living in a single family home in NW DC and driving everywhere anyway what is the difference? And I am not convinced that going to Wilson is safer than going to Whitman or Langley.

But looks good if you want to live in a condo in downtown Toronto, which is a nice city.

[Anonymous]

I am one of the biggest proponents of living in the city you will find - and I find the OP to be ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On behalf of my family, my neighbors, my community, my geographical metropolitan area, thank you because there are already too many FAHEs here.

Friends of American Higher Education?

[Anonymous]

Op- your post is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On behalf of my family, my neighbors, my community, my geographical metropolitan area, thank you because there are already too many FAHEs here.

Friends of American Higher Education?

An acronym I made up, F...ing A$$Hole Extraodinaire."

Here is the complete list:

AH = asshole

FAH = F...ing A$$Hole

FAHE = F...ing A$$Hole Extraodinaire

FAHER = F...ing A$$Hole Extraodinaire Retired

FAHETA = F...ing A$$Hole Extraodinaire Retired to the 100,000,000.00th power.

Only one person has ever made it to FAHER. An attorney of my acquaintance, who is not a former husband, adversary, or even friend, just a horrible man of whom it may be truly said that the only people who love him are those that do not know him.