A link from The Atlantic, I just like maps.
I thought it was interesting from my experience that Vietnam, Laos and China are grade two - and Thailand as well as Cambodia have avoid some areas (a imagine for Thailand the focus here is in the South). If you want to talk about, "exercise high degree of caution" and "avoid some areas" I recommend you keep Chicago and Detroit in mind . . . and the stories I've heard from both travelers and locals out of Guatemala and Honduras tell me that they are simply beyond the same league as places like China & Cambodia.
Note there is no area in which they said "Don't worry about a thing".
As for Saudi Arabia, if you are not a Muslim, you are not going. It ain't a tourist destination. People go for the Haj. That's all they go for if they're not in the killing business.
Re: KSA. We are so lucky then to have seen it.
Attractions like Direya falls, The Kings palace,chop chop square on a Friday (for those with a good stomach.)
Just the whole experience of watching people with money to burn. In all seriousness though the desert is so beautiful especially at dusk.
I would have thought Saudi one of the safest places on Earth. If you go into the gold souks you never see any security-maybe the punishments of the judicial system are a deterrent.
I am not sure about this but it looks like KSA has opened its doors
I have heard that Venezuala now is a very dangerous destination in South America.
As far as U.S. cities go if you allow everyone to bear arms what can you expect!
You missed East L.A., Washington and Baltimore by the way
On the other hand, New England, where I am from, is pretty safe on the whole.
As for Saudi - they still don't issue tourist visas. Check their embassy websites. Working visas, Haj visas...
And I hated the place. Starting with how difficult the Saudis themselves were. This is what happens when religiously inspired rules run amok. A wanring to us all.
Had a look at the map.
Are we supposed to make presumptions or is there more accurate information somewhere else on the site?
Russia is a 'avoid some areas' - presumably it means urban ghettos where there is a chance of being harmed by neo-nazis? I can't think of another reason.
Cambodia has the same colour. Is this because of the mines?
South Africa has a blue rating meaning it's safer than Cambodia. J'burg and various other cities there are extremely dangerous. I wouldn't go there without a serious side arm. I can't imagine why they think Cambodia is more dangerous.
My colleague from South Africa had a good laugh at that - we just traveled to Cambodia over Spring Festival and he said he'd never felt safer!
The old saying from Heinlein, "an armed society is a polite society." Anyway, I was just talking about the two US cities I have the most experience with.
It is an interesting analysis but very subjective.
No apparent reason why Argentina should be more dangerous than Uruguay.
Also, is America really safer than China? I know where I felt more secure.
#8 chinarocks has been a member since 17/6/2011. Posts: 738
Having grown up in the 2nd biggest city in Michigan - about 1 million in greater metropolitan area, where my friends have been mugged at gunpoint and women have to carry pepper-spray as they walk a parking garage . . . I compare that to the 2 years in Nanjing and 4 in Shanghai where I've wondered streets and back allies at all hours of the night and never had an incident.
Similarly Dublin (where I live) has often been labelled the gun crime capital of Europe (on a per capita basis I assume). However, the chances of an innocent bystander getting caught up in this is very slim (although unfortuantely it does occassionally happen). The vast majority of attacks are drugs and gang related and the victims are generally well known to the police.
#11 chinarocks has been a member since 17/6/2011. Posts: 738
All of Ireland had 46 gun deaths in 2010. Mukdahan had more than that. Gun violence, unless it's part of warfare (which Europeans used to excel at, but it's now a skill largely lost) is not something that Europe has a problem with. Certainly not Western Europe.
I am guessing the Cambodia/Thailand "avoid some areas" has to do with the border dispute that has been ongoing and possibly landmines. There are definitely places I wouldn't want to walk around late at night but those places exist everywhere and are worse in some more popular western cities.
MADMAC - all I said was that Dublin has been at times labelled (probably correctly) the gun crime capital of Western Europe. However to live and work here you wouldn't necessarily know that.
Mukdahan and Dublin are worlds apart in terms of law enforcement, access to guns, attitudes to human life and so on so I fail to see the relevance of the comparison.
#14 chinarocks has been a member since 17/6/2011. Posts: 738
It seems to me that chinarocks and MADMAC were essentially saying the same thing. Both Dublin (please pass my respects to the nice people at St. James Gate) and Mukdahan (similar respects to the folks at Ho Kaew) have high incidents of gun violence relative to their respective regions. Yet in both cases, the average person on the street, and certainly the average tourist, isn't a target of that gun violence and is only at risk as an innocent bystander.
The article in The Atlantic on dangerous travel destinations has received quite a bit of screen time here in the states too. People are looking for a care-free place for a holiday, and are understandably nervous about where to go. I think factors like local law enforcement, attitudes to human life, and so on definitely play a part. But it is difficult to make an informed decision when so much of the news coverage is overhype to get you to tune in.
If we are talking about dangerous destinations here surely we have to examine places in the context of danger to tourists/visitors. U.S.A would be low risk within this criterion. Most violence there is either basic domestic or drug related. It might offend some but it's a fact that much of that is black on black. Personally, I felt very relaxed there. The most violent places are in South and Central America. Places like La Boca in Buenos Aires or Caracas, Venezuala. Dublin dangerous? Don't make me laugh. China has a lot of Chinese and Russian gangsters in places like Harbin or Shanghai but these people aren't interested in tourists.I can't think of anywhere in S.E. Asia I would warn somebody to miss because of possibility of violence. The obvious exceptions to that, of course, are the Northern Malaysian states and Southern Thailand because of AQ terrorists.
Nobody said Dublin was dangerous, so I hope you didn't feel the need to laugh.
The most dangerous place I encountered in South America was Salvador in North East Brazil. Some nasty smack heads roaming the streets there.
I don't think I could describe anywhere I was in Asia as dangerous, other than some of the bus drving in Cambodia.
#18 chinarocks has been a member since 17/6/2011. Posts: 738
'Nobody said Dublin was dangerous, so I hope you didn't feel the need to laugh.'
That's right, nobody said it but I googled your statement and sure enough Dublin is known as the gun capital of Europe which would imply it's a dangerous city. I expect all the guns are left overs from The Troubles.Once these people get a taste for violence it becomes a habit. Doubt whether the guards would let it tip over into the tourist areas though.
Some nasty smack heads roaming the streets there.
Plenty of smack heads in Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville. Are you sure they were on it? It doesn't normally make people aggressive. They are either high or sick depending on the time of day. Maybe another local product-cocaine?
It's very hard to call any country dangerous per se but most countries have dangerous districts.
"I expect all the guns are left overs from The Troubles."
This is a tricky one to assess. Potentially you are correct, but not necessarily as many of these drug dealing/gangland types operating in the working class areas of Dublin seem genuinely free from any sectarian baggage and are just scumbags pure and simple. Although of course it is entirely plausible that their weapons were obtained in some way from the remnants of the Troubles. And it is also true that there are some drug dealing scumbags operating under the guise of "dissident republicanism" (a pathetic misnomer that gives their activities an unwarranted romanticism).
"Are you sure they were on it?"
Maybe it wasn't smack (my drugs knowledge is limited) but they were off their faces, decrepit looking and sporadically aggressive. Possibly cocaine alright.
#20 chinarocks has been a member since 17/6/2011. Posts: 738