Do you have the right?
 

Now I know this is going to p**s someone off but the question has to be asked especially with the recent conflicts going on.

I often read about bikers and travellers planning RTW trips through some very remote and war torn countries. You seem to read more about their worries for bike insurance and visa applications than about their own safety.
The concern I have is that if something should happen to them e.g. kidnapping, what is their exit strategy to get out of the s**t. Do they expect the army to come and rescue them thereby endangering the soldier’s lives as well and what about the stress and worry of their families and relatives as well.

So the question is `do you have the right to potentially put other lives at risk to rescue you so that you can have bragging rights down your pub and in some forums?

It might not just be your life at risk?

Thoughts….?c?

Having been to a few places my government would advise against I would say the real danger zones in countries that are in conflict are usually very small and localised and easily avoided if you listen to local advice. There is also the case when a country is so large, Sudan for instance before partition was the size of Western Europe, that you can pass through it without getting any closer than say France is to Portugal, a conflict in one of these places would not stop you going to the other.
For the question what would happen were I to be kidnapped I have no idea but wouldn't expect the SAS to come bursting through my prison door anytime soon and doubt anybody would risk their lives trying to rescue me, I wouldn't expect them to.
As to personal safety I think I am at more risk walking through the centre of any medium to large town in Britiain at 11 o'clock on a Saturday night than I have been on my travels, not wishing to make light of these events I think most travellers are more aware of their destinations and surroundings than you imagine.

Travellers are no different from any other person overseas
 

It is very likely that the tone of your question is correct; most people don't consider the issues involved and this is fair enough - for each of the occasional cases of travellers getting into serious trouble there must be 1000s who complete their travels successfully (after all, that is what the travel insurance industry is very good at assessing and accounting for the wide range of risks involved).

In contrast, national governments do have their own individual policies concerning their citizens who get into trouble overseas, whether it be kidnapping ransom demands etc etc
Just absorb some of the news coverage about such events (e.g. the recent one in Algeria for a gas production plant) and "read between the lines" - governments do not always make a lot of publicity of their policies.

Well there are two groups of people in the world:

The biggest group believes everything they hear without thinking about it, allows the government to cut there rights because of "terrorism" (even in Germany there was no terrorism at all), measures distances in the size of "socer fields" and invests its money in insurances. The biggest adventure in there live is to buy a coffee at Mc Donalds which comes with a warning: "Careful: Hot".

The second group uses there head to think about the reason why politics say something and give people in Africa etc. a chance before they say they are dangerous. This way they find out that sometimes people in Africa are more happy and friendly then we are in our modern money world...

Tobi

If I followed every 'arse covering' advice issued by my government, I would not have seen anything of the world. They have to be conservative, but as long as you are aware of conflicts and stay away from them, then you should be OK.

I have no exit strategy, but I am not travelling in any part of the world where there is open conflict.

Cheers
TS

Should everyone stay at home? :funmeterno:

Climbing a mountain even in the UK could put others lives at risk if they have to rescue you. Is that different? :confused1:

Same question at Do you have the right?

I think that the OP's question is a good one and am surprised by the tone of some of the responses on this thread.

I think posters are focusing too much on whether or not they should listen to their govt's warnings about where not to go, rather than whether they "have the right" to go to places that are genuinely risky.

Whether or not someone "as the right" to go to such places, I think it is rather selfish to do so given the potential impact on family, rescuers, taxpayers, etc. And yes, it is a similar analysis as to whether people should venture out into the wild without adequate preparation and/or under particularly risky conditions.

ta-rider says that there are two groups of people in the world: those that believe everything they are told without thinking, and those that use their head. Actually, I think the groups are a bit different, as expressed in an ancient Roman saying: "Wisest are those who can give good counsel to others. Next are those who can accept the good counsel of others. Long last come the fools who cannot do either." It is the last group that usually ends up in trouble...

Hi,

Referig to the pub the tone was bad right from the begining

The question is how to define "risc". Is it a risc to smoke? Do people have the right to drink alcohol? Why should anyone have the right to drive a car at all?


No i dont want any "taxpayer" to mess around in my live. I did not ask them to. The rules are the same and everyone can decide what to do with his livetime...

Tobi

OK, I propose a very simple rule for determining what is "risky": the "helicopter rule". If you're doing something that you can reasonably expect would require a helicopter--either a recue chopper or an armed military raid--to rescue you, what you're doing could be considered risky.

Newsflash: you don't get to decide what your taxes are spent on. If your country decides that taxpayers should pay to rescue you from some mountain or some terrorist den, then everyone else picks up the tab for your actions, and you don't get much say in it. Of course if you want to bear sole risk without burdening taxpayers if get stuck on a mountain somewhere, you can simply leave your cell phone/sat tracker at home and hide from the search helicopters, but somehow when push comes to shove I suspect that most people will be waving frantically at the helicopters...

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.

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.

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

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.

:D

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 beer with his mates on a Saturday night. Andy

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"...

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.

What a question on a mainly Motor cycle forum , which must rate as one of the riskiest activities going :rofl:

regarding involving others , there are a lot of people making a good living out of dealing with things that go pear shaped , and they do it from choice ( I know I did) .

As long as you are not stupid , live life , Que Sera sera JMHO

I didn't read every response to this original thread but is Tacr2man the first to grasp the question? It's 'do we have the right?' n'est pas? Not an invitation to define or quantify risk but a question, should we expect to be saved when it all goes wrong?
In my opinion, we should not. If we need help and it comes, its a blessing, if it doesn't, we must accept the consequences. An uncomfortable truth but I believe that's the diference between adventure and tourism.

I beleive that we do have the right. However, as with every other risky activity, it is selfish to act in a wreckless manner. If you act within your skills and ability then I don't see the problem. Any individual who may be involved in a rescue - be it mountain rescue or military rescue - has already made their own decision that they believe it is worth while to put themselves in a risky situation to rescue someone.

There is always an element of luck. You can never know for sure if there are kidnappers in the area, if the snow slope is going to give way or if the driver coming towards you is steaming drunk. It just educated guessing. The more educated the guess, the less selfish the act, the more you have the right.

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).

"There is a special place in hell for those who expectedly place others at risk pursuing their own 'rights'." - paraphrasing Dante.

As an American I'm SHOCKED at how often my countrymen expect "rescue" for contriving a crisis that could have been avoided with a bit of preparation, pluck and ahem, "independence".

Without risks . . . there are few rewards. It's a balance that should be considered a priori. If "ignorance of the law is no excuse" then ignorance of the risks is inexcusable.

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." - Helen Keller

Here's an interesting article on a similar topic--whether states should charge their citizens for the cost of their rescue:
For some stranded U.S. adventurers, rescues come at a cost - Yahoo! News

Missed some points.

The rescuee ASKS for help.

Rescuers make the CHOICE. As do ambos, police and fire ... they all make a choice at each situation, even if it is not a 'rescue'. Each individual evaluates the risk/reward and make the decision on going ahead or backing out. If you are a first aider you should know that. It is not compulsory for any one to place their life at risk for another. The rescuer makes the choice (and should evaluate and minimize their risk), not the rescuee.

Who rescues the rescuer?

---------------------------------
If the 'safety committee' thing is done then even those who don't want rescue will be denied. Because "it is too dangerous". Hence NASA, Columbus etc.
==================
The press here in OZ raises the issue of rescue costs, particularly where a 'round the world yacht' is involved.. lots of $$$$ estimated by accountants there. They forget that those services would be idle or practicing without the rescue.

Another balancing act.

The first rule of rescue is "don't add to the list of endangered".

On 9/11 alot of firemen and police definitely made decisions that they had to know were not entirely wise. And for the record, they did so, attempting to rescue people who did not look and perhaps even worship like 'them'.

And I'm sure they'd do it again, tomorrow. As an American it was good to see evidence that such character hadn't completely vanished in the country of my birth.

In Utah many years ago several noobs had headed up the Zion Narrows unprepared and were caught in a flash flood. Officials (police, national parks service, and local fire and rescue) decided not to chance adding to the casualty list.

A small group of private outfitters entered the Narrows against both recommendations and standing rules. The rescue was a success and no one was permanently injured.

It's poor judgement to rely on the kindness of strangers but it's still an amazing thing.

The way you phrase your post suggests that you would only visit a 'dangerous' place to brag about it, and that you view the world in a rather black-and-white way, i.e. 'I will not get killed in county X, but I might get killed in country Y'.

I think far more 'adventure' motorcyclists come to grief from accidents rather than conflict or kidnapping. It's not exactly the safest of hobbies, is it?