You seem to discuss much different aspects of safety - I'd assume that the article refers to the threat to a potential passer-by, not of the general crime rate in that area, which would include thefts from property.

Also, safety is not neccessarily correlated with a crimerate - if place A has 100 times lower rate of street crime than place B, "because there are no people" as it has 1000 times less foot traffic, then place A is 10 times more dangerous to a person who actually happens to be walking there.