Jakarta ranked in top ten most dangerous cities.

[Vanhelsing]

[/IMG]

Karachi

I've never found Jakarta dangerous as far as personal safety (robbery, muggings) is concerned. Other than petty theft that has occurred due of my own negligence and once having an altercation with a rather stubborn concrete bollard (I believe the bollard may have been drinking), I've always felt safe.

The most dangerous cities were all located in South and South East Asia, the Middle East or Africa, with Karachi in Pakistan deemed the most dangerous using the index’s criteria. It was followed by Yangon in Myanmar, Dhaka in Bangladesh, Jakarta in Indonesia and Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam.

The study says: “The results of the 2017 Safe Cities Index again show a sharp divide in overall levels of safety between the fast urbanising developing world and the stagnant developed world.”

The report from the Economist Intelligence Unit, entitled the Safe Cities Index 2017, scored cities on their digital security, health security, infrastructure security and personal security, which combined to create each one’s overall ranking.

51. Cairo: 58.33

52. Tehran: 56.49

53. Quito: 56.39

54. Caracas: 55.22

55. Manila: 54.86

56. Ho Chi Minh City: 54.33

57. Jakarta: 53.39

58. Dhaka: 47.37

59. Yangon: 46.47

60. Karachi: 38.7

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...ta-karachi-economist-index-2017-a8002476.html

 

[lifelongexpat]

I'm surprised Kuala Lumpur is so far up the list as crime is rife there. I feel much safer in Jakarta than I did in KL.

 

[Puspawarna]

I was very surprised until I read "...scored cities on their digital security, health security, infrastructure security and personal security, which combined to create each one’s overall ranking."

I don't even know how you'd come up with a score for "digital security" in Jakarta, since it's not like we even have a lot of automated transit to hack (though I suppose you could take out a power grid and that would contribute to traffic accidents, hospital deaths, etc.).

But infrastructure and health .... hah hah hah. That explains the low score.

I wonder if they took into account the likelihood of natural disasters. Jakarta is screwed if we ever get a really big quake. Or perhaps something like that is folded into the infrastructure score. You'd still have to account for the likelihood of a quake occurring, though.

 

[Bad_azz]

People get paid to make these lists... so who is paying them & what is their agenda?
Makes me laugh.

 

[Puspawarna]

People get paid to make these lists... so who is paying them & what is their agenda?
Makes me laugh.

I don't think one has to look for any grand conspiracies. It's just the usual thing: money.

As I recall list-mania really got underway in the 1980s or so, when big magazines like Time and US News and World Report started issuing college rankings. Of course, readers ate it up (and it has grown into an absolutely pernicious industry with respect to college admissions, but that's a long screed I'll skip). Seeing that they were on to something, magazines started doing more and more lists on more and more subjects. The editions that have lists always sell very well and hence attract advertisers.

Think about it - a huge amount of clickbait is based on the "people love lists" fact. How many times have you seen "Ten reasons men cheat on their wives," or "Five simple steps to the perfect hairdo," or "The 20 best resorts in Europe."

I've even seen "acknowledge the list-love" as advice for writers: if you want to write a catchy piece that you can sell, make it a list!

 

[Bad_azz]

I wasn't suggesting conspiracies, just pointing out that there is always bias in everything.
Knowing what the bias is helps us to form our own opinions on the worth of the content to us individually.

 

[Theoros]

I've even seen "acknowledge the list-love" as advice for writers: if you want to write a catchy piece that you can sell, make it a list!

I'm tempted to write Top 10 Reasons Idiots Read Lists. It's practically guaranteed to attract a wide readership.

 

[Minuteman]

They forgot to put Chicago and St. Louis on the list. For sure more dangerous than Jakarta!!

 

[Puspawarna]

I wasn't suggesting conspiracies, just pointing out that there is always bias in everything.
Knowing what the bias is helps us to form our own opinions on the worth of the content to us individually.

So do you have any thoughts on what bias might underlie this particular list? As far as I know, the Economist Intelligence Unit is pretty reputable.

 

[Bad_azz]

I guess their target audience is business... and business tends to be right wing. (just my own speculation) ... So by definition the criteria for a right wing business is going to differ vastly from my own.

As was pointed out by another poster, St Louis- the most likely place in the USA to get murdered (ironically according to another list, stating FBI & police statistics), doesn't get a mention.
So I guess it all comes down to how we define "safe"
Actual safety? perceived safety? financial safety? traffic safety? female safety? computer safety? Property safety? natural disaster safety? political safety?

Personally , I think of safety as how well I can sleep in my bed at night without fear of robbery & attack, or how I can walk down the street without fear of robbery & attack- I have had none of these fears in Jakarta.
This may be because the bulk of its population spend most of their time stuck in traffic & don't have any left to go around attacking people. I dunno. Maybe I am naive or oblivious, but I have walked around for many km in Jakarta & the most I get is "hey mister/mrs/bule" & then asked if I want to; have a ride/buy something or just greeted for the day

Computer/digital safety doesn't figure high in my own set of priorities- because no matter how smart the security is, there will always be someone somewhere smarter and better at hacking- technology development itself sees to that, plus all the data management is in the hands of a small select group (in comparison to the quotient of users). I treat it as a lottery if you win a hacking so be it... notably the two occasions my computer has been interfered with have both been in the UK.
Traffic safety- well I'd say Jkt is pretty tame, because nothing moves quickly enough to do much damage on the whole... BUT if we add the toll roads in west Java into the mix then that would be in my : not feeling safe at all.

Female safety, well unlike some, I have not had any of my body parts grabbed or had anything overtly sexual thrown my way here- but then again... sexism is rife.

I haven't got time to research the Economist, nor, to be fair would I ever even bother to read it.
Actually, I don't read any magazines at all.
Zombies, I read horror and zombies , and distopia stuff. The rest of it is just fluff in the grand scale of things ... when the zombies finally attack, will you be ready for them Pusp ?

 

[vocalneal]

Vancouver, BC was off the scale?

 

[William King]

Safe from corruption? Neil and Ferdi might beg to differ...

 

[waarmstrong]

The consolidated ranking strikes my as next to worthless, as Puspa kind'a implied. I would much prefer to see the individual rankings, especially in terms of "individual security." I think that is the reference point for most of us when we assess dangerousness.

 

[Puspawarna]

Zombies, I read horror and zombies , and distopia stuff. The rest of it is just fluff in the grand scale of things ... when the zombies finally attack, will you be ready for them Pusp ?

Zombies are nice! I have a cite: the TV show iZombie.