I have lived in many war thorn countries through out my life. As some people have said, most of the time the problem are localized in very precise areas. Listening to the advise of the local often permit you to avoid most of the problem. Your attitude and body language will also play a part. I don't think that any of us are idiot walking straight to the "kidnappers".

Then, I think you can skip the SAS scenario. More often your "kidnapping" will be resolve by negotiation and it will take time...
If it comes to SAS, or Rescue Team, people who do this job know that there is the risk they might die doing it. No one forced them to do a risky job.

And then there is the question of selfishness.
Ironically, I think that the people here, who go around the world in motorcycle, have all accepted to live their life to the fullest. We are not eternal and what we love doing has high risk: Every time we go ride it might be the last time. There is more chance of you dying in an accident.
Now, the question would be if you died in an accident would you have been selfish toward your family/friends/taxpayer ( yes, they pay, the embassy that will surely have to work on your case if you end up in a coffin)?

In the end: "It is better by noble boldness to run the risk of being subject to half the evils we anticipate than to remain in cowardly listlessness for fear of what might happen." Herodotus

The way the question is phrased is overly emotive with the reference to "bragging rights" mixed in with the right to endanger others.
Thereafter, it is a balance of risk and potential danger/threats for which there is no single, simple answer because we are all different and life and its circumstances are very complex and changeable.
No one consciously goes about an activity with the intention of endangering others, with some very obvious exceptions.
Likewise, those involved in all forms of rescue are devoted to that service and are prepared for the consequences (how about, for example, the "bullet catchers" who accompany the President of the USA?)

In some regard it is different in that there is a long, long history in the UK of volunteer rescue crews, both in mountain rescue and at sea with the RNLI.
Get into trouble on a mountain in, say, Switzerland and you will get a big bill at the end of the rescue process which should tend to concentrate minds; in other words, there are financial risks also.
Don't knock that risk please: I know people who are paying off big bills for repatriation half way around the world by air medic services simply because they did not have insurance for this when they got into trouble.


As per Motoreiter, it is not that simple because of your nationality.
"You may not be interested in politics, but politicians are interested in you" is one way of seeing this.
You could, for instance, change your nationality to one of a lot of places in the world where life is cheap and your new Government would not be interested in you or your welfare.

Precisely.
Such as the French military who recently lost lives in Somalia in an attempted hostage rescue - the hostage was also killed.
It got little media coverage because of Mali.

__________________
Dave

For many years I have actually worked in these parts of the world and various other choice places that have since calmed down a fair bit.

I for one, do not push my luck.

If I am travelling ( not working ) I do make a conscious decision to avoid trouble spots and I keep up to date on any situations happening near where I am going to be.....and not all these problems are in far flung parts of the globe, some problems are getting nearer to home daily.

I am sure the world is full of nice, decent people who just want to get on with life etc etc...but it is also full of not so nice people...meeting the better of the two can often be a case of luck that another traveller might well not get.

I might be paranoid, but that has kept all my body parts attached for the last 40 years..so it can not be all bad.

Every time you put your trousers on you take a risk.. Riding a bike instead of a car is another huge risk. Life is full of danger and you just get on with it.

You would say, "well I have to put my trousers on to leave the house".

Some would say it's safer not to so just stay in bed and hide under the duvet.

That's not an option for most though is it. It's a necessary risk. For many an overlander, the dangers of foreign lands is an educated risk and it's not an option for many to hide under their duvet.



Is it fair to put the police/army etc at risk by doing more dangerous things ??

No one joins the army thinking they might never get shot at. No one joins the police thinking they'll never be put into dangerous situations with criminals.

It's an educated risk they take too. They could of become paper shuffler or website designers instead if they wanted a safer life.

__________________
Did some trips.
Rode some bikes.
Fix them for a living.
Can't say anymore.

You mean getting something caught in your flies? That'd definitely give you bragging rights in the pub, although your voice might sound a bit different.

__________________

TBS.com

I disagree...are you seriously suggesting that putting your pants on in the morning is as dangerous as a pleasure cruise down the Somali coast or a joy ride through northern Mali? Obviously there are risks, and there are risks, and not everyone is as good as they should be at determining when risk exceeds a reasonable level. Clearly this is a very subjective issue, but...

I completely disagree with this argument. The fact that soldiers/police are willing to risk their lives does not mean that they should have to do so to save from idiot from themselves. The fact that many of them volunteer for the army, or even if they volunteer for particular rescue missions, does not mean that it is right to put their lives at risk by undertaking foolish activities.

I think it all comes down to how you manage and mitigate those risks. People who blunder in with little preparation and get themselves into trouble really do put others at risk, unfairly IMHO. On the other hand well prepared people who
find themselves in an unexpected situation, well that is a whole different story.

I do get quite annoyed by those people who go places, like say Somalia, get kidnapped, held for ransom and then they or their families complain that their government is not doing enough/didn't do enough by refusing to negotiate with the hostage takers.

To that end I have actually instructed our family if we do get caught in hostage situation not to negotiate.

So where should one draw the line ???? It's an impossible situation.

Should I drop driving my car because I might run over a child ? If I was walking I wouldn't be able to hurt anyone ?

Should I never go hill walking in case I break my ankle and a rescue team have to risk themselves to save me ??

If I was unselfish, I'd stop riding my bike because if I crash an ambulance crew might get run over while they're tending to me...

I'm being intentionally ridiculous because it's a ridiculous notion to suggest that we can change the way we live our lives on a global scale to reduce the risks to other people that we have very little affect on.


Craig sums it up quite nicely.......

I'm not going to feel overly guilty if I have to get rescued by Sudanese police in Khartoum but I wouldn't expect them to come and pull me out of a firefight in Darfur.

I have a suspicion that in these countries/situations, the unofficial protocol would be:

"screw you mate, you shouldn't be there anyway"...

__________________
Did some trips.
Rode some bikes.
Fix them for a living.
Can't say anymore.

Who decides what is a foolish activity?

Some would have stopped Columbus going to America...

NASA considered the space shuttle safe ... but has made some improvements after a number of deaths.

Sorry but the committee on deciding what is a 'foolish activity' does not exist. And that is a good thing. People make poor choices all the time - look at traffic crashes. Most of the time we get away with it. Some times others help. People who go to help also make choices.

Both of your examples are off the mark--we are not talking about putting yourself at risk, of course you have the right to do whatever you want with your own safety. We are talking about putting the lives of potential rescuers at risk. Clearly, neither astronauts nor Columbus could have expected any rescue (and thus no rescuers are involved).

Hi,

Thats exactly the point. Been in "war" countrys many times and always was surprised how friendly the people where. Didnt feel unsafe at all, informed my self were the landmines are and got offered fresh fruits instead of being kidnapped.

Anyway if it comes to the politics every million spend in the rescue of people cant be wasted to financially rescue banks, build projects that become even more expensive at the end and so on.

Hi, i agree with the sentiment of a number of the posts that you are in no more danger than in a UK city. I took my 18 year old son on a 2 month tour (he only passed his test a few months earlier) including places like Russia, Moldova, Bulgaria, Albania, etc not real hot spots but enough for his mother to worry. She did hower accept that he was probably at less risk than going into the centre of Glasgow for a with his mates on a Saturday night. Andy

That's a pretty good take on it...I sat in a bar in Bosnia where one wall had been shot to pieces and barman looked like a hitman but at no time was there anything like what you see any Friday night if you go into Brighton,no punch ups and girls dragging each other round by the hair...

And what is risky anyway? Should say you travel to a country with a homicide rate 6 times your home country? That instantly rules the US for an Aussie. Naturally the US is not a dangerous place to travel (well maybe if you eat what everyone else does ) and nor are many of these so called dangerous places. I just spent 2 weeks in Mexico, great place.