invisible

WikiVoyage has very specific warning about following GPS

I was in Johannesburg in February for just one day and sure enough - after taking off from the airport towards Sandton where our office is, Google Maps put the route thru Alexandra. Fortunately enough, I have the habit to read about the area/destination before going there and knew about this.

We've seen cases when relying on technology blindly can really put people in danger. Remember the story of family who got lost on a forest road in Oregon during snowstorm with tragic consequences? There was another story of elderly couple got lost in Nevada for the same reason.

And I have first-hand experience of such blind trust of technologies - friend of mine from San Francisco exclusively used Waze for navigation when he came to Singapore. I warned him multiple times that he might setup himself for trouble if he continues to use it outside of Singapore. He did not listen. Sure enough relying on Waze took us in the middle of nowhere on Bintan Island. That was a comical situation and because we were not in rush, we could simply go back and use signs to reach destination. But week later, in Bali, when I was not around, he again used Waze to get from Ubud to DBS and as a result ended in car stuck (literally) in one way street used by motorcycles only. Only because he left 5 hours before the flight was was able to get out and arrive at DPS 50 min before the departure. But I think he learned the lesson.

Could you provide some details for those?

invisible

I think this might be genuine misunderstanding on both sides. As an (non-local) resident of Singapore, I've heard number of 'horror stories' might happen to you in JB. But being there several dozen times, I find the place way safer, even at night, than South of Mission in San Francisco.

CX HK

London, UK -- Most drunk-fuelled fights I've ever witnessed, from dinner-time / post-dinner drinks in Leicester Square and Piccadilly Circus to once when I was unfortunately on the tube at the same time as after a Chelsea match.

Paris, France -- Remains the only place on Earth where I have witnessed a mugging.

shuigao

I think the only place I've felt unsafe was in Karachi. Didn't help that the company arranged for an armed guard to escort me wherever I went.

WorldLux

Booze doesn't have to be involved for people to drown. AFAIK most people can't swim really that well and many overestimate currents and distance. The result is that they'll get in trouble. Another category are those that go swimming in restricted areas. Swimming in proximity to a dam (upstream and downstream) or in an artificial canal, where strong currents can occur at a moment's notice.

but they only tell half the story. There can be many death in one country because many Americans go there. That doesn't make said country dangerous. Vice versa, you can have countries with very few tourists from the US that are much more dangerous. They have only few cases recorded for Venezuela, but I wouldn't wann go there right now. Same goes for the Philippines with that madman as President.

Reds2011

It's sad really, there is some spectacular natural beauty there to see. And I believe the diving is amazing.

On one particular project I still remember getting in a helicopter and looking at the door frame, which had a circular hole in it. Asked the pilot about it and he casually said the helicopter had been shot up about 6 months before on a project with unfriendly locals. That was my last PNG project

OccasionalFlyerPerson

I've looked at the statistics on drowning in the UK in the past. Booze is a VERY large factor, in fact the most important factor. Sober, experienced, swimmers almost never drown. There are those who drown due to lack of ability, but sober incapable swimmers are still a small fraction of overall drownings.

I wasn't saying that booze was always involved. But:

holiday => drink lots of booze + water = drowning

is still a reasonable thing to say as it is a sufficient cause for there to be a lot of drownings, even if there are some drownings that don't match this model.

The circumstances you describe are very rare. Even for incompetent swimmers, the typical model is that they swim 50 metres of whatever their limit is, start struggling, panic, and drown. This happens in the safest of waters. Unusual/unexpected currents etc. simply aren't a significant factor.

Note that my stats are for the UK, as that's where I swim.

Yes, this is admitted in the statistics. However, even with only a relatively small number of tourists, if there have been no deaths other than earthquake and traffic for American tourists visiting Iran in 14 years, then that does say something.

I've done a search for European tourists killed in Iran, and it's the same story. Traffic accidents, including a very major coach accident, natural disasters including earthquakes, and a tsunami. I can't find people being killed in ways that would justify all those travel warnings.

Are there really so many American tourists going to El Salvador and Guatemala to justify THAT many homicides?

HomerJ

...let me preface my England comment...I went to school there in the late 80's.
I was astounded how frequently random acts of violence just broke out (not just at pub closing time either). A few years back I made this same post and asked if people still thought it was the same....and I was surprised how many people said was.
In the US you generally know which parts of town to avoid, in the UK things could just happen anywhere.

Phillipines and Korea was a result of dating locals....that tended to be frowned on, but many times they'd take it out on the girl instead of me, and I'd have to get involved.

Russia is weird because its sometimes hard to read people....you are never sure if they are angry or not.

wrp96

Every time I see this thread title, I think "nowhere I've been is more dangerous than where I live," a small city in flyover country in the US. Parts of the city are worse than others, but there isn't a magical line that keeps the crime out of the rest of the city.

I still laugh though about my first trip to Colombia, where they were handing out brochures about the "Kidnapping Awareness Area" at a place where we were stopped in traffic. Definitely not something I told my family about.

OccasionalFlyerPerson

Really? Can you give more details? I hadn't heard of this.

BuildingMyBento

Doesn't Alexandra have a Gautrain stop? I vaguely recall someone telling me not to explore that area (though I rather enjoyed wandering around downtown Johannesburg).

You want to go where?

There are a number of points that you miss in your analysis. First, despite your attempts to suggest that numbers of travelers do not matter, they do. I would not be surprise if the number of Americans who visit Canada every year to be more than a thousand times more than those who visit Iran. Second, with regard to Iran, it is important to read the specific warning. The State Department warning with regard to Iran does not warn of a risk of death, but rather a risk of being arrested, detained or being prevented from leaving the country. Lastly, in the case of El Salvador and Guatemala, you assume that the US citizens are tourists. I would assume that many are dual nationals either residing in Guatemala or El Salvador, visiting family, or doing business there, legal or illegal. Given the high murder rates in those countries perpetrated by gangs that were exported from the US to these countries, it is not altogether surprising that US citizens end up the victims of homicide.

OccasionalFlyerPerson

I specifically said that the number of travellers matter, and pointed out that the original article I found the statistics in mentioned this.

My point about Iran was about the type of deaths that have occurred. This accounts for the number of tourists in general as it shows the relative risk in Iran for certain types of death. Homicides and deaths through terrorism aren't happening, traffic and natural disaster deaths are. Hence, there are enough US citizens there for deaths to turn up in the statistics, but none of the type that we would expect if the country was dangerous in the way that warnings suggest.

There are a lot of homicides in El Salvador and Guatemala. If this was solely due to the number of US citizens there, then other types of deaths would be larger in proportion. However, as a proportion of total deaths, homicides are high there. This may be due to the gangs etc. that you describe. But, this is an explanation of my point, not a counter of it.

I think you've misunderstood my post, and followed up based upon your misunderstanding.

You want to go where?

Let me repeat this one more time. The State Department warning does not focus on death in the case of Iran. It warns about arrests, detentions, and being prevented from leaving the country.

You are making an argument against a warning that does NOT exist.


You asked a specific question.

My answer is no. It isn't about tourists. Whether it strengthens your larger point or is counter to it is irrelevant. Whatever larger point you seem to be trying to make is lost in the fact that you seem to think that State Department warnings are always about risk of death. They are not.

Are State Department Warnings overblown at times? Sure. But you cannot prove that by comparing a warning about the risk of detention in Iran with the number of fatalities on the streets because that isn't what is being warned about.

muji

Mongolia as well.