Hacker News Reader

Comment by s1mon | Hacker News Reader

In San Francisco, many people avoid walking in areas with higher crime - which is not mentioned on this site. Sometimes higher crime areas are not as well lit, don't have enough visibility, or don't have clear egress in the case where someone might hassle you.

Also, while walking routes are not 1:1 with running routes, Strava has very good data on popularity of particular streets globally. Here's a link to the Boston area (you can navigate wherever from there) which has strong similarities to the map that the MIT site shows.

https://www.strava.com/heatmap#13.00/-71.12481/42.34039/hot/...

View on HN

Egress goes both ways. Streets with no hiding places nor alleys to flee down tend to be safer.

Also, a street lit well in some pockets but not others ruins night vision and creates hiding places. A residential street with lights on at every door might look nice at night but may also be worse for safety. Except for the psychological deterrence of "people live here, are home, and care enough to leave the light on."

I can't seem to find the paper, but there was a study conducted in my city that found that, beyond a certain point, more lighting makes people feel safer, but seems to also be associated with more crime.

As I recall, they didn't really figure out the reason for that, but the paper suggested one potential problem is that adding lights simultaneously ruins people's dark vision and creates more shadows to hide in. One other hypothesis I'd want to rule out before drawing any big conclusions is that law-abiding citizens aren't the only ones who know that people choose the more brightly lit streets when walking at night.

My own personal best guess is that, if there's any relationship, it's non-causative. I'm guessing that what muggers actually prefer is areas with low foot traffic, and it just happens to be that places with less foot traffic also tend to have fewer lights.

Muggers need low traffic, but not no traffic. One neighborhood I lived in had so little traffic I felt perfectly safe. It was an area criminals went to flee after their crimes, not to commit crimes. Amusingly, I'd run into more film crews than any other sort of people out walking. The neighborhood made for a good scene background.

In contrast, the college student slum near my university had high foot traffic. From my biased sample, I estimated that 1/10 student residents of that neighborhood were mugged in a 4-year period.

sadly I tend to avoid walking through parks at night for this reason, even though it ought to be a more pleasant (and often more direct) route. there's nothing good about crossing paths with a crowd after dusk where I live.

If you're referring to the tenderloin, there's a larger issue there with obstruction of sidewalks. I'm certainly not arguing these should be 'cleaned' or 'swept', though, just pointing out that 'crime' is rather incidental to the reasons why someone might avoid the area.

My first day in SF downtown was "oh cool, here is a bunch of free parking spots along the street" when I got to Tenderloin. I didn't see any crime but at the same time I started to avoid this neighborhood since then.

Urban crime is all about lack of eyes on the street. Well utilized People friendly environments will create safety. (Cf jane jacobs, death and life of American cities)

I wouldn't say it's all about eyes on the street. There are more dangerous and less dangerous neighborhood overall--especially if you're a confused-looking tourist. But I agree that a well-lit busy city avenue will tend to be safer than some deserted street.

I believe pickpockets prefer crowded, busy streets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com