Comment by govind201 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by govind201 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The app was born out of personal experience. Within a month of moving to Philadelphia, I was assaulted on two occasions, including once on my very first day there. I put that down to my lack of knowledge of the area; I later discovered that a more knowledgable person wouldn't have accidentally wandered off at that time of evening to that particular area. Turns out, some of my neighbors had had similar experiences in the past in the very same area. I was later warned by local authorities that the area was known for the phenomenon of "gentrification".

Personally, I was scared out of my wits after those two incidents and landed up staying home many evenings for fear of a repeat incident. I think such an app could've really helped the general quality of my life in terms of reducing my apprehension.

I do see your point. To be honest, I didn't give the macroscopic windfalls excessive consideration. I had focused rather on the gains to individuals who stand to face the same situations that I did.

The app has not been released publicly so I think I'll do read a bit about crime patterns and their correlation to demography before taking any further step. Thanks for brining this to attention.

Having been raised in the Philly area I've heard this story from non-natives a number of times, so its pretty common.

That said I think the flaw in this from a positioning perspective is it shouldn't be an alarm that says "Danger, get out now!!!" like you're in a biohazard zone, its should be positioned more like a "Street Sense" radar.

Basically you learned urban street smarts in the hardest way possible. Make this more about softening the risks of navigating unfamiliar urban areas by giving folks the same level of street smarts as a native, and less about a shock and fear-based motivator and you'll be on the right track.

I would also consider focusing on safety by highlighting safer routes pointing out things like density of businesses and street lighting, police stations etc.

Totally agree. This is a much better approach.

Highlighting police stations and business density was on our minds. With regards to street lighting, I guess we'll have to search for the data for a bit.

I see both sides here. My main concern with this approach is the false sense of security it might create. In my experience , the separation of cities into "good" and "bad" areas is only valid in aggregate. I'd rather someone took precautions and stayed alert than happily sauntered through an area that the app told them was safe. I guess it's difficult to know if this strategy works, since you'll never know if you avoided a would-be encounter with a mugger.

With that said, I can't fault your motivations, and building it so quickly was a real achievement!

Hmm, I see your point regarding conveying a "false sense of security". If the research that I spoke of turns out to be encouraging, I'll be sure to add explicit warnings and instructions. A private beta to test users' perceptions is on the cards too.

If there's anyone out there with experience in sociology, I'd be glad to have a chat.

I agree, and can also see both sides here. However, in my experience, I find myself finding the same information in a less efficient way. When I'm going to Baltimore or Philly (the two cities I'm most familiar with), I'll ask people what areas I should visit and which areas I should avoid. It would be nice to have this "wisdom" distilled into an app, at least to give me a broad overview. Certainly I shouldn't feel invincible in "good" areas, but as a non-intimidating person, it would be nice to not accidentally put myself in a bad situation. Obviously in cities like Baltimore or Philly it's not a good idea to walk alone late at night, regardless of which street you're on, but there definitely are some places worse than others.

Build and release the app and ignore the whiners. All that you're doing is delivering notification to your users when the statistical likelihood of sustaining harm increases. If people get offended by the macroscopic implications of mathematics that's their issue, not yours.

Really? You're offending me because I come from a so-called bad area.

In fact most of the population of the world actually live in "bad areas" and would no doubt feel pretty insulted to find an app that categorized their 'hoods as a "no-go zones".

Let me put it another way, this app would be a reminder of how poor you are. I wouldn't want that - I can't say I know anyone who lived there would either.

As a person who grew up in a so-called bad area i feel in no way offended, because i know the actual risks.

My mother works as a railway attendend and often has to go to different cities without guides just to get to her hotel. I'd love for her to have an app or something that guides her on the safest path possible.

If you live in a bad area you shouldn't be ashamed about it, but ignoring it just makes things worse for everybody.

Me too. I'm not denying bad things can happen. An app won't navigate you away from a potential mugging, if they guy decides to try another street. That's the problem you are believing that this might be possible statistically it's not possible. This is not Minority Report, and actually you may be putting your mum in danger just by suggesting that it works. Criminals buy apps too.

The point I wanted to make was this:

If the app's aim was to draw attention to areas that needed help, for use to focus the minds of governments and aid agencies, and people with a social conscience, and they were using the data to determine the most needy areas in an aggregated fashion it could be positive thing. Where can we help next?

Do you see? This would be making the world a better place.

It is not doing this.

It is basically contributing to the view people from certain areas should be avoided, because statistically speaking they are mostly criminals.

This is not for the good of the many, it's for the good of the one.

Crikey, a downvote for wanting to make the world a better place? Is that really justified?

Wanting something is merely entitlement. Changing something is rewarded. As has been mentioned, if you disagree on the proposed solution to the "problem," a better endeavor would be to change it.

In other words: walk the walk, don't just talk the talk.

Wanting something is merely entitlement. Changing something is rewarded. As has been mentioned, if you disagree on the proposed solution to the "problem," a better endeavor would be to change it.

In other words: walk the walk, don't just talk the talk.

Edit: Oh, and complaining about downvotes isn't worthwhile either.

I believe the issue people are having with this is that its a bit condescending.

These guys built a mobile app and node API in 20hrs based on something that - they believed - is general common-sense among any city dwellers (avoiding bad neighborhoods).

If you think you know a better way of approaching the problem, then the general response in the hacker community is: build it yourself.

Asking to change wording to something less offensive is fine... but calling them out for not being socially concious and not trying to fix a problem that has affected cities for centuries is a bit of a stretch... especially considering it was a weekend project.

Why should he or she care one bit if you're offended?

Like the previous poster said, if you don't live in the area, then it's probably smart to not walk around some of these areas. Just because other people live there isn't some reason why this app shouldn't exist.

The point is, just because some people have to live in these areas isn't a reason why people who are fortunate enough to not live there should be forced to go there and put themselves in a statistically more dangerous situation.

Would you walk around most areas of Detroit or the east side of Cleveland, at night, alone?

Ah, the perils of "having to" listen to the feedback!

There is absolutely nothing irresponsible about your idea. You are not the one terming something good and bad. If the data says so, if people say so, if the reports and incidents so, then it is just right that somebody let that be known, so that stakeholders can make an informed decision.

A local is usually going to know what are the spots to avoid at what time of the day, it is the outsider who does not. All you are doing is giving that same information to the outsider that the local has, and I think that is completely fair. If in the process, a particular neighbourhood or area shows up as unsafe, then that is nothing but the hard truth becoming known. Hard, but the truth. People need to learn to live with it.

"You are not the one terming something good and bad"

You wrote the program, you set the thresholds, you are responsible. You can't absolve yourself by saying "the computer did it". It wouldn't stand up in court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com