My take - just be reasonable and aware. Travel advisory is worth knowing but also not the main source of information. I went in Iran, it is one of best places. I went in Senegal during last year elections, when most whites left fearing coup d’etat. The town I live in in France lately had highest crime rate in the country. I would usually not ignore the travel advisory but rather read it, along with many other sources and make my mind that way. Those guidelines are made for average tourists, whom I imagine as family with children looking for a beach, ice cream and a theme park nearby. From that perspective, these travel advisories make a lot of sense. You just have to decide for yourself how much you differ from the norm.
Worth noting that on one of Against the Compass' tours, four of the group were murdered.
Risk has two axes: likelihood and severity.
Low likelihood, low severity: most rural areas as long as there aren't drunks and you're not sleeping with anyone you shouldn't.
Low likelihood, high severity: most stereotypical "dangerous countries". Afghanistan, et cetera. You'll probably have an amazing time and meet nothing but wonderful folk, but you could also be shot dead with fellow tourists on an Against the Compass tour. Also, dodgy parts of cities in the Americas.
High likelihood, low severity: for example last month in India where an idiot driver ran over my foot. My main reaction "well, it was going to happen at some point".
And I didn't know people were murdered on an Against the Compass tour? Can't find anything online, do you have a link? Would be interested to read more about it
My take - just be reasonable and aware. Travel advisory is worth knowing but also not the main source of information. I went in Iran, it is one of best places. I went in Senegal during last year elections, when most whites left fearing coup d’etat. The town I live in in France lately had highest crime rate in the country. I would usually not ignore the travel advisory but rather read it, along with many other sources and make my mind that way. Those guidelines are made for average tourists, whom I imagine as family with children looking for a beach, ice cream and a theme park nearby. From that perspective, these travel advisories make a lot of sense. You just have to decide for yourself how much you differ from the norm.
Worth noting that on one of Against the Compass' tours, four of the group were murdered.
Risk has two axes: likelihood and severity.
Low likelihood, low severity: most rural areas as long as there aren't drunks and you're not sleeping with anyone you shouldn't.
Low likelihood, high severity: most stereotypical "dangerous countries". Afghanistan, et cetera. You'll probably have an amazing time and meet nothing but wonderful folk, but you could also be shot dead with fellow tourists on an Against the Compass tour. Also, dodgy parts of cities in the Americas.
High likelihood, low severity: for example last month in India where an idiot driver ran over my foot. My main reaction "well, it was going to happen at some point".
High likelihood, high severity: Donbass.
Interesting.
And I didn't know people were murdered on an Against the Compass tour? Can't find anything online, do you have a link? Would be interested to read more about it
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240520-attack-on-tourists-rocks-fledgling-afghanistan-tourism-sector
And from their own website:
"In fact, on May 17th, 2024, the Islamic State attacked a group of tourists in the town of Bamyan, where 3 Spanish citizens died.
Unfortunately, the attack was against our group, we aren’t trying to hide it. "