Why I Don’t Like Lists
OK, so the good press, it seems, has once again been followed up by bad press.
I’m amazed and amused by the listings that show Oklahoma City as one of “the most dangerous places” on earth (as written by an unemployed hack writing for an obscure website that is part of the crumbling AOL media empire). And now we’ve got Forbes listing Oklahoma City as 9th most dangerous city.
So, let’s see if I understand this correctly. OKC is more dangerous than New Orleans, where the cops are just as deadly and corrupt as the bad guys. OKC is more dangerous than notoriously violent places like Compton, Calif., Newark, N.J. and East St. Louis. OKC is more dangerous than Chicago, where gang shoot-outs are reportedly a daily concern.
So how does OKC earn such a high ranking? Well, the Forbes folks included transportation data. Really? Really? Oklahoma City has three major cross-country interstates coming through town. Could this be a slight skew to the data?
This list of full of horse manure. But if it has any of you concerned, I hear there are some great buys to be found in the lowest 9th ward of New Orleans.
For the record, I’m not impressed by some of the positive list rankings either – especially when they are published by online sites nobody has ever heard of and it’s clearly an attempt by the website operator to get noticed. When a listing involves judges of a respected organization actually taking a long look at the community – as was the case with Paseo earlier this week – that’s what gets my attention.
By the way – OKC could have topped the Forbes dangerous list instead of coming in at No. 9 if they had simply weighed in the risk of traveling the I-40 Crosstown Expressway.
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
What makes transportation deaths something that “skews the data” and not a legitimate safety concern? The three major interstates going through town are not a fact of nature. They are a choice we’ve made, and paired with terrible walkability and few alternative modes of transportation, it is a choice that makes us less safe. An illustration: http://carskill.tumblr.com/
Methodology for the list is definitely flawed. I will say that I’ve noticed an alarming number of pedestrian v. vehicle deaths in the past two weeks in the metro. I’ve counted at least six. We are not a very walkable community, and I hope that people (and drivers) have noticed.
The ones that really get me are the ones that factor in “quality of life.” What in the world does that mean? I have 40 year old friends with kids whose idea of “quality of life” is quiet, suburban streets and low traffic. I have other friends whose “quality of life” preferences revolve around urban living options, edgy clubs and cultural activities. Who is to say whether quality of life is higher in Manhattan, Key West, or Edmond? Yet some lists purport to rank in this way, and OKC can be at the top or the bottom depending on who is doing the ranking.
Facts are facts. I think the facts used by that list are legitimate. Why shouldn’t they count ALL fatalities?
I expect that, in addition to the major interstates, this has to do with the type if vehicles we choose to drive here- the odds of surviving being hit by a Suburban or a pick-up are a lot lower than they are with smaller, more fuel efficient cars.
By the way, if we want to change our place on the list- we should do something about it- not be a cry-baby saying it isn’t fair.
Guys, if you really think it’s safer to be hanging out in Compton or East St. Louis, well then, have fun. I’m just pointing out how stupid and meaningless this list truly is.
Different subject, but I’d love for you to do a follow-up post to your Myriad Gardens restaurant article. It seems this issue has perked the interest of many local stakeholders. I’d love for us to bounce this topic around and let it speak to the decision-makers who are using Devon’s and taxpayers’ money.