[Alberta's Child]

Actually, Montreal is a pretty wealthy city by most objective standards. What the author of this article is claiming is that its poor neighborhoods are more dangerous for pedestrians than wealthy neighborhoods.

Well, there might be a point there from a purely statistical standpoint ... but I'm not sure the author's recommendations (improve streets, add landscaping, eliminate four-way intersections where possible, etc.) will do anything in the long run. If these measures are adopted, the city's poor neighborhoods will become more attractive places to live ... and they won't be poor neighborhoods anymore. Then the whole process will start all over again. Eventually, the streets in the poor neighborhoods of Montreal (wherever they are in 50 years) will still be less safe than the streets in the wealthy neighborhoods. Then there will be another "crisis" to solve -- even if those poor neighborhoods 50 years from now are safer than wealthy neighboroods are today.

[gunsequalfreedom]

I think we are in agreement. You made the point very clear, obviously much better than I managed to.