[Nimby]

It occurs to me in the debate about GW is that city dwellers are so isolated from weather effects that cannot grasp the dangers of climate change.

The city ameliorates the weather and any slower changes that might occur.

City dwellers spend much more time in heated and cooled buildings compared with those out in the countryside.

City dwellers see only wet pavements as they dash from building to building or vehicle to building.

City dwellers don't see the snow for as long as those who see it lying for weeks or months.

City dwellers have their streets cleared of snow as rapidly as possible by the authorities. Snow hinders traffic. In the countryside it lies in huge banks where the snowplows left it each side of the road often for months on end.

City dwellers don't usually see flooded rivers and fields like those who live out in the countryside often do.

City dwellers don't usually see plants flagging in the heat or the lawns turning brown. What little grass they see is usually manicured and watered. Unlike the vast areas out in the countryside where irrigation water is expensive and damaging to crops due to salination.

City dwellers are unlikely to see the great swathes of forest snapped off half way up the trunk by vicious storms. Nor do they see tree and plant pest damage as southern pests move north. UV damage goes quite unseen in the city.

City dwellers don't notice trends like kids of my youth enjoying snow every winter often for months on end. Now you can't even give away a sled. They no longer have a practical purpose in some places.

City dwellers spend so little time out of doors that they don't notice that high winds are more common these days.

City dwellers no longer notice the amount of sunshine and clouds as they inhabit their flats, office blocks and shopping malls. City dwellers wear sunglasses to avoid eye contact and to avoid glare from reflective buildings and glass.

City dwellers don't see the brown clouds of wind-blown topsoil rising from exposed fields and modern big machine farming prairy techniques.

City dwellers can wear fashion garments year round on their heat islands. Oblivious to the vicious cold and heat of the countryside just beyond the boundaries.

City dwellers don't notice light and dark as they have artificial lights and blinds year round.

Since our leaders spend most of their time indoors in cities are they even capable of judging the real situation?

Would climate change affect them remotely so much as country dwellers?

Maybe you should get a sandwich board "end of the world is nigh" and wander around a few cities. I'm sure they will thank you for your efforts as they probably don't see any news and perhaps never realised the world is round.

Originally Posted by Nimby

It occurs to me in the debate about GW is that city dwellers are so isolated from weather effects that cannot grasp the dangers of climate change.

The city ameliorates the weather and any slower changes that might occur.

City dwellers spend much more time in heated and cooled buildings compared with those out in the countryside.

City dwellers see only wet pavements as they dash from building to building or vehicle to building.

City dwellers don't see the snow for as long as those who see it lying for weeks or months.

City dwellers have their streets cleared of snow as rapidly as possible by the authorities. Snow hinders traffic. In the countryside it lies in huge banks where the snowplows left it each side of the road often for months on end.

City dwellers don't usually see flooded rivers and fields like those who live out in the countryside often do.

City dwellers don't usually see plants flagging in the heat or the lawns turning brown. What little grass they see is usually manicured and watered. Unlike the vast areas out in the countryside where irrigation water is expensive and damaging to crops due to salination.

City dwellers are unlikely to see the great swathes of forest snapped off half way up the trunk by vicious storms. Nor do they see tree and plant pest damage as southern pests move north. UV damage goes quite unseen in the city.

City dwellers don't notice trends like kids of my youth enjoying snow every winter often for months on end. Now you can't even give away a sled. They no longer have a practical purpose in some places.

City dwellers spend so little time out of doors that they don't notice that high winds are more common these days.

City dwellers no longer notice the amount of sunshine and clouds as they inhabit their flats, office blocks and shopping malls. City dwellers wear sunglasses to avoid eye contact and to avoid glare from reflective buildings and glass.

City dwellers don't see the brown clouds of wind-blown topsoil rising from exposed fields and modern big machine farming prairy techniques.

City dwellers can wear fashion garments year round on their heat islands. Oblivious to the vicious cold and heat of the countryside just beyond the boundaries.

City dwellers don't notice light and dark as they have artificial lights and blinds year round.

Since our leaders spend most of their time indoors in cities are they even capable of judging the real situation?

Would climate change affect them remotely so much as country dwellers?

I think there is a lot of truth in that, but that is just my personal opinion. I wonder if any recent polls have been done to see if there's a significant difference in attitudes to climate and weather between urban and rural dwellers?

Originally Posted by stratagem

Maybe you should get a sandwich board "end of the world is nigh" and wander around a few cities. I'm sure they will thank you for your efforts as they probably don't see any news and perhaps never realised the world is round.

How is this in any way a reasoned response?

[Corey USA]

Thank you Nimby you hit it on the head the point I was trying to get across to Manhattan mike. About the visible effects of climate change and why he doesn't see it.


I am from "the City of trees" This was coined by groups not related to our city.

Rochester MN USA

Thus I see change all around me

Originally Posted by nikyzf

How is this in any way a reasoned response?

It is my way of saving this is condescending and insulting to city dwellers.

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Thank you Nimby you hit it on the head the point I was trying to get across to Manhattan mike. About the visible effects of climate change and why he doesn't see it.


I am from "the City of trees" This was coined by groups not related to our city.

Rochester MN USA

Thus I see change all around me

What changes are these then?

City Dwellers are oblivious to worrying about it, thats the difference.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by stratagem

It is my way of saving this is condescending and insulting to city dwellers.

Too one sided that is the part I suspect they refer too as being insulting. maybe put a comparison on how one is different from the other and why The ones in the country would see the difference while the city dweller would not and used both terms evenly rather than using City dwellers almost every single line beginning.

City dwellers almost every single line beginning.
This hints to me a very one side view. And putting "city dweller" as a lump all into two groups.

Here I am a city dweller the difference is I live in a "city of trees" and many parks. I also have a extensive conservation background so I have traveled and worked out into the country often, so I know the differences in change. City hit 100,000 or so this month.

Need more tolerance instead of being so insulted. It is just words. Learn to try to see the others meaning in what they are saying.

"City dwellers spend so little time out of doors that they don't notice that high winds are more common these days."

The meaning is many city dwellers spend so much time indoors they don't notice the weather or temperature extreme VS some one who lives in the country and spends most of there time outdoors such as farmers do. So the farmer is going to take notice of the extremes where the city dweller will not notice it as much due to the controlled environment there in while inside.

Try asking the residents of Hull if they have noticed any extra rain lately.

[Corey USA]

Sorry you may have misunderstood, stratagem, what I was trying to point out I was expanding why you might think it was insulting since you were being vague about how it was insulting. So that others could understand Why you might find it insulting.

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Sorry you may have misunderstood, stratagem, what I was trying to point out I was expanding why you might think it was insulting since you were being vague about how it was insulting. So that others could understand Why you might find it insulting.

That's OK Corey, the last comment was general and not amed at you, I can see you were try to balance things.

My example, Hull, is a UK city that has just suffered approx £1b worth of flood damage along with a few other English cities.

By insulting, I meant insulting to their intelligence, and of course a dreadful generalisation.

By the way, I am not a city dweller.

[Nimby]

Only the paranoid have enemies? This was not an attack on city dwellers it was a simple observation from long experience.

As a country dweller of several decades in several European countries I am shocked how little the weather actually affects the nearby cities.

When we have foul weather we quite often decide to drive into the city to wander the big enclosed shopping centers/malls where the weather is only a distant memory.

There we find constant warmth, light and relative peace. Instead of rain-lashed windows, blackened skies, wind in the roof tiles, trees in the garden thrashing twenty feet from side to side, a stream running down the drive scouring our parking area and lakes forming in the surrounding fields.

What on earth did you think I meant?

[Corey USA]

I got your meaning perfectly its just the way you wrote it it offended some. not me since I am in full agreement. note the "thanks"

then stratagem made this comment on why not all city dwellers are oblivious to the change. "My example, Hull, is a UK city that has just suffered approx £1b worth of flood damage along with a few other English cities"

[Nimby]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

"My example, Hull, is a UK city that has just suffered approx £1b worth of flood damage along with a few other English cities"

Floods are nothing new in England. There are tens thousands of rivers meandering through flood plains. There are endless cut backs in the maintenance of Victorian sewers and drainage systems. New building on flood plains and river banks where there was only marsh in former times. Chain building along roads which become rivers themselves in floods. Underpasses, bridges and embankments to carry road traffic which narrow swollen river flows. Tarmac and concrete over anything that isn't actually a building removes bare soil to soak up falling rain. The wholesale removal of trees, hedges, ditches, allotments, playing fields, rough ground, ponds, gardens and former agricultural fields which stored flood water and then released it slowly. Just imagine how many gardens have been paved for off-road storage of the multiple cars belonging to each property. Those gardens once soaked up a lot of rain. Now it has to run off somewhere. Think of the vast carparks attached to every supermarket and superstore. Square miles of tarmac impervious to rain. It's all down to human greed, obscenely overvalued property and sheer laziness.

Apart from ranting, what's all that got to do with anything, particularly with respect to this thread?

[Nimby]

It was a direct response to a mention of Hull. As it is my thread and you seem to be unable or unwilling to make the obvious connection I suggest you choose your words more carefully. If you have nothing useful to add then why bother to post at all? The accusation of ranting is often used by those who do not care for the message. Thereby avoiding intelligent thought and a constructive response. Your antagonistic behaviour here is becoming more than a little boorish.

The accusation was that it had nothing to do with the topic that you posted, Hull was given as a direct example where city dwellers are certainly aware of the consequences.

Originally Posted by Nimby

Floods are nothing new in England. There are tens thousands of rivers meandering through flood plains. There are endless cut backs in the maintenance of Victorian sewers and drainage systems. New building on flood plains and river banks where there was only marsh in former times. Chain building along roads which become rivers themselves in floods. Underpasses, bridges and embankments to carry road traffic which narrow swollen river flows. Tarmac and concrete over anything that isn't actually a building removes bare soil to soak up falling rain. The wholesale removal of trees, hedges, ditches, allotments, playing fields, rough ground, ponds, gardens and former agricultural fields which stored flood water and then released it slowly. Just imagine how many gardens have been paved for off-road storage of the multiple cars belonging to each property. Those gardens once soaked up a lot of rain. Now it has to run off somewhere. Think of the vast carparks attached to every supermarket and superstore. Square miles of tarmac impervious to rain. It's all down to human greed, obscenely overvalued property and sheer laziness.

Just to be sure there is no confusion, this is the subject of my comment, does it sound like the topic's subject or does it sound like a rant?

[Corey USA]

Sorry all but the topic of hull is off base for this reason: Nimby did make the valid point that the water run off is due to all the bare dirt and flood plain areas being covered over with non porous material making it easy for floods to occur. thus it would flood regardless to if there was global warming.

Then the severity of the flood was made more extreme by the climate change than if there had been no climate change it would be somewhat less but still there causing damage.

I guess what I am trying to say is your both right. Here is the reason your both right. Both points made by both of you have one thing in common
regarding The flooding and climate. Its the "Human factor and changing the environment to a state of NON-environmental sustainability"

So depending on which angle your looking at, it is and isn't on topic.
So what do we do about it? We modify the "human factor" so these things are reduced in severity.

[Nimby]

Corey has it mostly right.

Perhaps I should have laid it out with more care for the deliberately obtuse.

Cloudbursts are not a direct consequence of global warming. They have occurred throughout history. Even if one might reasonably make the connection between weather extremes and GW, tragedies like Hull often have a human element. Weakness of will and greed being the most common.

My real point being; that had all the right things been done over time: Had there been sufficient porous ground available for absorption over a wide area: Had there been sufficient temporary storage capacity available in the surrounding countryside: Then the city of Hull might not have suffered as it did. The inhabitants would have been largely oblivious to the downpour as they sat indoors watching TV.

Meanwhile those in the surrounding countryside would have been up to their necks in the temporary flood storage capacity. They would have been unable to cross their lawns to fetch in the washing on the clothesline. Their local roads would probably have been underwater because they were the sacrificial lambs for the the ever-more watertight city land surfaces.

Being in a low population area the interruption to normal country lifestyles could be largely ignored by the media and hence by the local decision makers. The fashion conscious city dwellers could still ponce about in the supermarket carparks in their spotless 4 x 4s and fashionable shoes. While the country dwellers are unable to get around in their more practical saloon and estate cars due to local minor road flooding. So they could only stare out of the window wondering whether the local livestock will survive. Or will the farmer attempt a rescue. They would wonder how long it would be before they had their electricity back online because overhead poles are very vulnerable to extremes of weather and losing power is almost routine. Meanwhile the city continues to waste vast quantities of electrical power on empty office block lighting. All night street lighting is largely ignored by a city population which avoids going out at night. They sit there in the their millions watching dumbed down TV about global warming and wonder what all of the fuss is about.

You can take a horse to water.... but can you make him swim?

Well, it seems I was right first time, you seem to have a grudge with people that live in and around cities, consequently any disaster that happens there will be of their own making and nothing to do with climate change.

You believe they are all completetely obivious to any climate change issues, they don't understand things as well as you as they just sit around "watching dumbed down news", they all drive around in 4x4s and waste as much resources as they want.

Yours is a patronising attitude, these people are just that, people, some choose to live there, some have no choice, they are not some anthill in your lawn.

I could argue they use less resources than you by living closer to their place of work, they use public transport more than you as the infrastucture is in place. Take all the people that use the London tube to work daily and put them in small cars out in the country and see how much CO2 they produce.

Take all the people that live in London, work out how much CO2 their annual travel costs, and then put that number of people in the country and see what it costs.

I'm pretty sure you will find in CO2 terms that they are subsidising your idylic life in the country.

Originally Posted by stratagem

Well, it seems I was right first time, you seem to have a grudge with people that live in and around cities, consequently any disaster that happens there will be of their own making and nothing to do with climate change.

You believe they are all completetely obivious to any climate change issues, they don't understand things as well as you as they just sit around "watching dumbed down news", they all drive around in 4x4s and waste as much resources as they want.

I think it’s not so much City folk don’t hear things but don’t believe them. People who live in the city have far more on their plate then people who live in the country so global warming is way down on their priorities.

Take Manhattan, no one cares less about global warming, most don’t even know what a carbon footprint is (I never knew until I read this forum). There are so many priorities that worrying about something like global warming in not important in our day to day lives. It’s not on our TV and it’s not on our news so we don’t worry.

I don’t think Manhattan it is any different to any major city in the world so when you add the people up there are one hell of a lot of bodies not worrying.

So is global warming a country thing, does it only worry people who live in the country or are there any city people who worry, its an interesting question.

[Nimby]

stratagem wrote: Well, it seems I was right first time, you seem to have a grudge with people that live in and around cities, consequently any disaster that happens there will be of their own making and nothing to do with climate change.

Nonsense. I have lived in several cities, several towns, a number of villages and rurally isolated houses. I now have a preference for the latter.

You believe they are all completely oblivious to any climate change issues, they don't understand things as well as you as they just sit around "watching dumbed down news", they all drive around in 4x4s and waste as much resources as they want.

From personal experience and talking to city dwelling colleagues I stand by what I have said. The lives of city dwellers is much more isolated from external factors than those of country dwellers. If you have not lived in the country how can you possibly judge?

Yours is a patronising attitude, these people are just that, people, some choose to live there, some have no choice, they are not some anthill in your lawn.

City people are different from town people. Both are are different from country people. I know this because I have lived in many different places, large and small.

I could argue they use less resources than you by living closer to their place of work, they use public transport more than you as the infrastructure is in place. Take all the people that use the London tube to work daily and put them in small cars out in the country and see how much CO2 they produce.

The opposite is actually true. Small town industries and businesses employ people from satellite villages and the town itself. Because there are no traffic jams commutes rarely exceed 1/4 of an hour. Road speeds are usually between 30 and 50mph rather than the walking pace of the city traffic. Mopeds, scooters and bicycles are popular in the country and small towns because distances are so low and traffic so light. City traffic, including public transport is usually at a total standstill with brief bursts of acceleration in between. Bicycles have been able to exceed London motorised 4 wheel traffic speeds since way back in the 60s.

Because city businesses have a catchment area which includes the whole city and surrounding area commutes are often very much longer. The mere presence of public transport often results in commuters choosing to live outside the city where property prices are lower. When a country dweller needs to travel into the city they travel to the center on a radius. Usually by the shortest and fastest feeder route. City dwellers often have to cross the busy center to reach their objectives. If a country dweller wants to reach the opposite side of the city he uses the ring road, bypass or ring motorway.They have the luxury of choice because they are already outside the built up area.

Take all the people that live in London, work out how much CO2 their annual travel costs, and then put that number of people in the country and see what it costs.

Country people do their shopping in bulk. Since they have to travel 5 miles to the supermarkets in the town or village they are usually efficient shoppers. City people will often get into their cars to drive 200 yards to buy one item which often involves sitting still in traffic. This is a combination of laziness and an optimistic view of road traffic loads and speeds. A very common weakness of gamblers where the victim assumes a foolishly high chance of a good outcome.

I'm pretty sure you will find in CO2 terms that they are subsidising your idyllic life in the country.

Nonsense. See above.

[inkinoo]

Originally Posted by Nimby

City dwellers don't notice light and dark as they have artificial lights and blinds year round.

I've read some nonsense in my time but this is amazing.

[Nimby]

Originally Posted by inkinoo

I've read some nonsense in my time but this is amazing.

Oh come on. Have your ever tried living out in the countryside where there are no street lights at all? Where there is no constant sweep of vehicle headlights to guide your footsteps? Where you can see not a single lit windows in your entire 360 degree view? Where there is no 24 hour traffic roar to mask the sounds of the night? Have you made the move to the countryside in winter?

I can assure you it takes some considerable adjustment. Having lived in a well-lit city for the previous decades I discovered for the first time since early childhood that I was actually afraid of the dark. At the age of 40! The cottage we had bought was totally isolated by a long drive from an almost unused lane to nowhere. No traffic noise at all. Had your ever noticed that background noise to your every waking and sleeping moment in the city?

The house was surrounded in woods, thick bushes, marsh and fields full of grazing animals. There were no no outside lights and it was completely impossible to see your hand in front of your face out of doors at night. It was like stepping out into a disused railway tunnel. Something we had dared each other to do as teenagers so I know what I'm talking about.

Try to imagine all the strange noises coming from all around you. The gentle wind in the trees and bushes. The countless animals and the birds that move unseen. Did you think grazing animals sleep at night? Or didn't you think about it? How much noise can cattle, sheep, badgers, owls, foxes, horses, rodents, amphibians and insects really make when not masked by the endless roar of traffic? Do you really think you know? What about the sounds that you can't and never will identify?

Is the chuckling stream passing through the property really going to engulf your entire world? Or is it just your imagination that it grows louder and nearer with each thump of your heartbeat? It has flooded on occasion after storms in the mountains.

Your only weapon against nature, red in tooth and claw, is a silly little torch with a dodgy switch that brought out as emergency backup. After twenty minutes standing there in the total darkness with your heart pounding you think you can actually see your hand pass in front of the blinding sprawl of stars. You are determined to overcome your fears of the unknown. To soak up the cacophony of noise which threatens your every sense...

So you tell me? How long does it take you to adapt to the pitch darkness in really wild countryside? Was that really just a hedgehog after slugs and worms? Or a vicious wild boar on the rampage? How can you possibly tell?

Nonsense. I have lived in several cities, several towns, a number of villages and rurally isolated houses. I now have a preference for the latter.

Same here, yet I hold opposite views to you, how strange is that.

From personal experience and talking to city dwelling colleagues I stand by what I have said. The lives of city dwellers is much more isolated from external factors than those of country dwellers. If you have not lived in the country how can you possibly judge?

I'm pretty sure your circle of aquaintances does not constitute a national average and I believe Al Gore for one lives in a city.

City people are different from town people. Both are are different from country people. I know this because I have lived in many different places, large and small.

No they're not, you call yourself a country person now, yet you were a city person, and a town person, are you that different now.?

The opposite is actually true. Small town industries and businesses employ people from satellite villages and the town itself. Because there are no traffic jams commutes rarely exceed 1/4 of an hour. Road speeds are usually between 30 and 50mph rather than the walking pace of the city traffic. Mopeds, scooters and bicycles are popular in the country and small towns because distances are so low and traffic so light. City traffic, including public transport is usually at a total standstill with brief bursts of acceleration in between. Bicycles have been able to exceed London motorised 4 wheel traffic speeds since way back in the 60s.

You are ignoring the sheer volume of people and public transport, which was the point of my comment.

Because city businesses have a catchment area which includes the whole city and surrounding area commutes are often very much longer. The mere presence of public transport often results in commuters choosing to live outside the city where property prices are lower. When a country dweller needs to travel into the city they travel to the center on a radius. Usually by the shortest and fastest feeder route. City dwellers often have to cross the busy center to reach their objectives. If a country dweller wants to reach the opposite side of the city he uses the ring road, bypass or ring motorway.They have the luxury of choice because they are already outside the built up area.

Again, we are taking about the sheer volume of people, put this number of people in the country and the country has a real problem.

Country people do their shopping in bulk. Since they have to travel 5 miles to the supermarkets in the town or village they are usually efficient shoppers. City people will often get into their cars to drive 200 yards to buy one item which often involves sitting still in traffic. This is a combination of laziness and an optimistic view of road traffic loads and speeds. A very common weakness of gamblers where the victim assumes a foolishly high chance of a good outcome.

If it's 5 miles to the supermarket then it's not really in the country, and do you really think someone would drive 200 yards and then try and find a parking space in a city?

I do think you need to be a little less egocentric.

Originally Posted by Nimby

Oh come on. Have your ever tried living out in the countryside where there are no street lights at all? Where there is no constant sweep of vehicle headlights to guide your footsteps? Where you can see not a single lit windows in your entire 360 degree view? Where there is no 24 hour traffic roar to mask the sounds of the night? Have you made the move to the countryside in winter?

I can assure you it takes some considerable adjustment. Having lived in a well-lit city for the previous decades I discovered for the first time since early childhood that I was actually afraid of the dark. At the age of 40! The cottage we had bought was totally isolated by a long drive from an almost unused lane to nowhere. No traffic noise at all. Had your ever noticed that background noise to your every waking and sleeping moment in the city?

The house was surrounded in woods, thick bushes, marsh and fields full of grazing animals. There were no no outside lights and it was completely impossible to see your hand in front of your face out of doors at night. It was like stepping out into a disused railway tunnel. Something we had dared each other to do as teenagers so I know what I'm talking about.

Try to imagine all the strange noises coming from all around you. The gentle wind in the trees and bushes. The countless animals and the birds that move unseen. Did you think grazing animals sleep at night? Or didn't you think about it? How much noise can cattle, sheep, badgers, owls, foxes, horses, rodents, amphibians and insects really make when not masked by the endless roar of traffic? Do you really think you know? What about the sounds that you can't and never will identify?

Is the chuckling stream passing through the property really going to engulf your entire world? Or is it just your imagination that it grows louder and nearer with each thump of your heartbeat? It has flooded on occasion after storms in the mountains.

Your only weapon against nature, red in tooth and claw, is a silly little torch with a dodgy switch that brought out as emergency backup. After twenty minutes standing there in the total darkness with your heart pounding you think you can actually see your hand pass in front of the blinding sprawl of stars. You are determined to overcome your fears of the unknown. To soak up the cacophony of noise which threatens your every sense...

So you tell me? How long does it take you to adapt to the pitch darkness in really wild countryside? Was that really just a hedgehog after slugs and worms? Or a vicious wild boar on the rampage? How can you possibly tell?

Ah, it all makes sense now, here's some tips.

1. Look at the stars
2. Look at the stars
3. Get a 4x4
4. Dont worry, cities are more dangerous

[Nimby]

Originally Posted by stratagem

Ah, it all makes sense now, here's some tips.

1. Look at the stars
2. Look at the stars
3. Get a 4x4
4. Dont worry, cities are more dangerous

I have been an amateur astronomer since childhood.
(Hence the desperate need to go outside at night)

I detest fashion symbols and labels of all kinds because they are empty of meaning. (other than the fact that they remind one, rather forcefully, that many members of the human race are utterly petrified of being seen to be the slightest bit different from the crowd)

Cities are not more dangerous. They are merely different.
One can be killed by a bull on a public footpath.
Fall on the often, very uneven surfaces. (You can't sue the council for your own stupidity if you trip)
Be shot by drunken hunters.
Be savaged by vicious hedgehogs.
Etc, etc.
Not many of these problems at the local mall.

Originally Posted by Nimby

I have been an amateur astronomer since childhood.
(Hence the desperate need to go outside at night)

I detest fashion symbols and labels of all kinds because they are empty of meaning. (other than the fact that they remind one, rather forcefully, that many members of the human race are utterly petrified of being seen to be the slightest bit different from the crowd)

Cities are not more dangerous. They are merely different.
One can be killed by a bull on a public footpath.
Fall on the often, very uneven surfaces. (You can't sue the council for your own stupidity if you trip)
Be shot by drunken hunters.
Be savaged by vicious hedgehogs.
Etc, etc.
Not many of these problems at the local mall.

Hmm, man eating hedgehogs, watch out for those field mice when they gang up on you. If you see a 4x4 as a fashion item, you're still not in the country.