Rick's travel safety page

Well you forgot one statistic.

Of those attacks you mentioned, the one where most Americans were killed, by a margin of thousands, was in a large American city on the 11th of September 2001.

So I presume you would go through the same reasoning if you had to go to New York or San Francisco.

Look. If you are so worried about traveling, to the point of having to write such a long post about it, just don't travel. Besides why would you want to go anywhere if you are already in Paradise? Are you looking for another Paradise, maybe equipped with 72 virgins?

I consider myself a reasonably safe and cautious person. However, I don't worry much about travel and feel I am at least as safe in Europe (and other places where I go) as I am in the United States (especially outside my "home" territory.) When I travel I take care against pickpockets, am more aware of my surroundings, don't get drunk, do drugs, do other illegal things, try to avoid areas which guides and guidebooks say are "unsavory" and am usually in the hotel by 9 or 10 at night. Could something happen? Sure, heck, something happened right here on my property. But the odds are still low. If you are that worried, I think travel should not be in your future.

"Terrorists' targets are predictable."
"Well, it's futile to 'do something' to be safe from terrorism. It's so random and localized, it's impossible to anticipate."
BTW I do not find the final two comments incompatible (unless there is a context I don't understand.) I believe he is saying in the top one that a true terrorist will select a specific type of target.... tourist site, religious site, political site..... generally with lots of people etc. I don't here in that comment that you can anticipate the actual point of attack, just that the majority of terrorist attack sites have certain qualities. The bottom comment refers to the fact that there are so many potential attack sites that it is impossible to predict which one will be attacked....not to mention when it will be attacked. I have been to Atocha station several times since the 2004 attack. Does that make me a reckless traveler? Not IMHO, as I think you could not predict when an attack will take place. Additionally, since there are lots of potential targets and the time is impossible to predict the attacks appear to be fairly random.

"Look. If you are so worried about traveling, to the point of having to write such a long post about it, just don't travel."

"So worried"?? - I only said I was re-evaluating the situation. The post was long because I found so many oddities worth commenting on in Rick's piece, not because of my "fear level." Stay home because my post is too long?? I'll decline that advice.

I agree with Ray about the last two quotes. When I first read them I didn't find them confusing, incompatible, or inconsistent at all. I read and understood them pretty much the same way Ray did.

In general I think using statistics such as these can be totally confusing because they are not comparing two identical scenarios. If you want to compare the chances of being involved in a terrorist incident in US versus Europe (or any other region) fine. If you want to compare your chances of dying by gun violence in the US versus another country or region fine. But don't compare the chances of being involved in a terrorist incident with the chances of being involved in gun violence - they are not equal, like comparing apples to oranges. Insurance actuaries have statistics on every method of death and it's frequency, I don't rely on them when going about my everyday life and I don't look to them when traveling or deciding where to travel. I do believe in using common sense and due diligence when researching a potential destination and then doing my own risk assessment for each.

I think it's worth remembering that Rick is not an uninterested, unbiased observer here...and neither are many (if not most) folks on this European travel forum. Speaking for myself, I am biased in favor of travel so asking me to debate select statistics with another biased party (Rick) is futile. I think you may get different responses from totally disinterested parties. The one remark that appears most compelling to me is that we in North America are blessed to be geographically separated from many world conflicts by an ocean (and we have friendly adjoining neighbors who don't start fights with us), - it's less likely for terrorist acts (absent homegrown ones or when we're infiltrated due to security lapses) to simply spill over here - we have restrictive policies on who can come in and out (visitors have to come in largely by plane which provides greater control), and no open borders like Europe.

For me, it's more like a shark attack. Keep your eyes open and have some idea what you would do or where you would go if it happened - but I don't stay out of the water because a shark attack is a remote possibility.

Like a shark attack, most people have no idea what to do in the situation. Maybe people should find some online training regarding active shooter scenarios as part of their trip planning (but that might make them more afraid to travel)?

You made some good points Russ! I am often ask why do I travel to Europe? Aren't you scared of terroists and of being robbed or mugged? I tell these folks that I actually feel safer in Europe than I do in the United States in spite of the statitics. Certainly, one should be aware of the potenial for a possible bad experience but I prescribe to the President Roosevelt theory: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" and actually now is a great time to travel to Europe because a significant number of travelers are "scared" and I've noticed that the airlines and hotels are very "helpful" when I made my resevations 2-3 weeks ago.

Is it really about the statistics? What's the practical difference between a theoretical chance of 1:1,000,000 or 1:100,000? Ten times as much, but you must still be very unlucky to be one of those 100,000 (or 10,000 or 1,000).
What it's about is: do you feel comfortable with the idea of somebody possibly preparing havoc of which you can be - how remote the chances - the victim? And do you feel comfortable with the visible presence of security forces at railway stations or extra checks at museums?
Personally I wouldn't think one moment about possible risks of being in Paris or London or wherever. Some would say that's the sensible approach. Others that I'm downright irresponsible. Who's right?

I agree with the general premise, ie high profile places are targets, unpredictable, whimsical too. Keep in mind that the last horrific events on Friday, the 13th in Paris included an Asian restaurant, ie, the Cambodian restaurant. That's pretty insignificant vis-a-vis a soccer game , a music concert, or a place connected to Jewish life.

I live in South Florida, where crime runs rampant. We may not have "terrorist" attacks, but we have deranged people robbing, raping, and killing people every day. Our streets are not always safe, yet millions of tourists flock here. You just have to be aware of your surroundings.

I personally feel safer in Europe than at home, I don't worry about terrorist attacks, because to me, if it is going to happen to me, it is going to happen no matter where I am. There is not much I can do about it, and I am not going to hibernate for the rest of my life.

Very good observations, Russ. Also by Agnes and tomfromleiden. Statistics are so misleading and misused; I take them with a grain of salt. 1 in 2 million, 1 in 20,000 -- they both equate to unlikely. I try to stay up on what is going on in the world and make my own judgments. The way I look at it, things could happen here (where I live) or there (Europe), but they probably won't, so I'm not going to worry about it. At least for now.

The definition of "safe" in Europe vs your expectations at home I think goes beyond the odds of being shot; safe and alive aren't exactly equivalent. Then there is the issue of trying to compare your suburban neighborhood and your life activities to each and every environment and activity you will enter as a tourist, so in my mind all the broad statistics are sort of irrelevant in vacation planning. There are just so many variables that can’t be considered that any opinion is really just a political bias so in my mind, while I respect them for what they are, they just don’t play that big a role in my decision making process; unless we are talking very large deltas like Madison, WI vs Kabul.

Here is an extreme example. Iran has a very low murder rate, but there are four Americans locked up over there that might not agree that the low murder rate made it a safe place for them to visit. Then there are unique situations. Another anomaly that sort of invalidates the simple view of statistics is evident in the homicide rate for Paris in 2015. The numbers aren’t in but if they are equivalent to 2014, and then you add this year’s terrorism homicides on top you will have a murder rate of something in the neighborhood of 9 per 100,000 in the City of Paris vs the City of New York at about 4 per 100,000. The reason I reject these statistics as having any impact on my decision making process is because I have a gut feeling that the odds of the terrorists doing the same thing in any major US city are about equivalent to it happening in Paris again. So despite the numbers, it’s really a wash. Of course if a pattern develops I may change my mind. But two events in Paris over 12 months isn’t much of a pattern.

Possibly better, but still imperfect for life as a tourist might be http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings.jsp although still imperfect because it doesn't identify tourism in each city.

What I am trying to say is there really isn't a great answer. Sure, NYC is safer than Kabul, but when you start looking at your life in Madison, WI vs your trip to Rome or Paris you just can’t come up with a definitive answer. My gut feeling is there isn't much of a statistical difference. I go overseas two or three times a year and personally, while I don’t support the attempt by many to wash the whole situation away, there is nothing so profound that I have felt a need to change my plans. I have plans in 2016 that include Ukraine and Uzbekistan. I will probably have to spend a night in Paris as well. I will be intelligent in what I plan and how I do it, but I will not worry about it. I just keep one eye open a little wider from time to time. At the same time if someone else’s sensibilities direct them to do something different or stay away all together, I understand and I respect their feelings.

Fred, if you remember the terrorist attacks in Paris in January there is a common thread that connects 2/3rd of the victims; Jewish. The music venue was Jewish owned until just prior to the attack and was used for a number of Jewish programs. It's reasonable to assume that the attackers knew that and it played into their plans. The attacks in January also involved Jewish businesses; and there have been a few lower profile attacks over the course of the year against the Jewish community that have resulted in injury but not death. So if someone is grasping for something they can do to lessen the likelihood of being a terrorist victim, then you might consider staying away from anything Jewish. Personally I think that would be a shame. But it is what it is. .

Rus, go back and read the NYT article again. The "1-in-32,250 chance of dying by gunfire" is pretty accurate, and I double checked it with another source to be sure. You are thinking of a while back when the statement was 30,000 (more or less) gun deaths when the truth was 10,000 were homicides and the remainder suicides. We shoot a greater percent of the time while the Italians use a club to get the same results a greater percent of the time. But dead, is dead, so dragging gun statistics into the mix is not informative, its political.

James E. writes, "Rus, go back and read the NYT article again. The "1-in-32,250 chance of dying by gunfire" is pretty accurate"

I did some confirming research as well. I wasn't challenging that number itself... just the way it was used in Rick's piece. Rick's wording appears to refer to all gun deaths - "Your odds of being killed by gunfire..." - which is exactly what happens in all gun deaths, whether suicide, police action, self-inflicted gun accidents, whatever. But other sources do indicate that the number refers only to gun homicides. Thanks for the heads-up.

So in this case I need to fault Rick only for his wording, not for his number.

Still, it's important to remember that "gun homicides" is a broad category that includes plenty of domestic squabbles that end badly, the sorts of murders that have no bearing at all on risk to the public or to travelers. No homicide is a good one, but not all are relevant to his article.

In 2011, 79 percent of murders reported to the FBI (in which the
victim-offender relationship was known) were committed by friends,
loved ones, or acquaintances. And in 2009, most of the homicides for
which the FBI has location data were committed in the home.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/domestic-violence-murder-stats

Russ, so going to Europe distances you from your friends who want to kill you, making you safer in Europe than at home ! I finally understand! But what if you are one of those nice people that makes friends where ever you go? Does that make you unsafe everywhere? I am confused again .....

Russ, you realize that you and I are not that far apart on the subject.

I'm going to jump into the pool here with some observations from a perspective that is different from just about all of you, because I live in Israel.

Terror attacks make bigger news stories, so people are more aware of them. So do airplane crashes. Fear is often (usually?, nearly always?) irrational because it is rarely based on real dangers. What are you afraid of and where is there real danger? If you haven't stopped flying, why stop traveling?

The first time I visited LA, my aunt insisted that we always drive with the car doors locked. Years ago I had a meeting with an Israeli who was working in New York City on assignment from his Israeli company. He lived with his wife and 6 year old son. He was looking forward to returning to Israel in another year so his son could have a normal childhood - where he could go to school on his own, ride his bike around the neighborhood with his friends and take part in organized and unplanned activities after school and on weekends. In the Bronx, the kid was chaperoned by an adult whenever he was outside and play dates had to be coordinated with other parents. Several years later I found that same mentality in the towns between San Francisco and Palo Alto, a seemingly peaceful low-crime area. For instance, a friend's 10 year old was only allowed to ride her bike with her mom (they lived in an area with only light residential traffic). Here in "terror-plagued" Israel, kids who are old enough to cross the street alone go out by themselves - with a cell phone so they can call home if there's a problem. In fact, there are PBA's every so often to remind parents (and alert drivers) that children under 9 should not cross streets alone . . . because they are so short, drivers might not see them. When I decided to relocate temporarily to the San Francisco Bay Area (not too many years after the big Loma Prieta quake), some of my Israeli friends told me I was crazy; it was too dangerous to live there because of the earthquakes.

Don't get me wrong about Israelis. It's not that they are different, they just have a different reality. In January, there were terrorist attacks in Paris. Just about everyone remembers the Charlie Hebdo incident, but rarely mentioned is the subsequent related attack on a kosher supermarket in which 4 people were murdered. That made more of an impression on Jews simply because they were targeted. About a month later I made plans to spend 2 (glorious) weeks in Paris, and some of my Israeli friends questioned if Paris was safe.

"...you and I are not that far apart on the subject."
That's right, James. No question - "...dragging gun statistics into the mix is not informative, its political," as you said. Just acknowledging your correction and mulling over further the irrelevance of the oft-cited gun murder rate in this discussion.

Kaeleku: "And do you think those terrorist attacks are equivalent?"
No. The 3k attacks in North America and the 15k attacks in Western Europe are individually very different on a misery index, I imagine. I've no idea whether killings are proportional to attack numbers on both continents.

But I do think large discrepancies like this are absolutely worth a look. North America is 2.5 times larger than Western Europe, but terrorist attacks here total only a fifth of Europe's - thus Europe wins the terror incident density rate by 12.5-to-1. Any terrorist attack involves major travel disruptions of some sort, from road blocks to rail station closures to city curfews. A 12.5-to-1 density differential certainly means disproportionate travel interruptions, more traveler apprehension - which tourist in Europe wants to even think about explosions?

Then again, in fairness, travel interruptions and apprehension are affected by many other events as well - protests, tornadoes, etc. As James says, it's a real tangle.

Yes, attacks and attack movements differ a lot; recent attacks distinguish themselves clearly from the pack. Jihadi terrorism, unlike the "troubles" and the Basque movement, is borderless, which in part explains its exponential effect on apprehension; the recent number of and frequency of events, the methods used, the goal of planetary domination, the absence of specific political demands, the targeting of innocent civilians, the notion that anyone and everyone is in Jihadi crosshairs, the senselessness of it all... there's a jarring impact made on the Western soul by this element that would take us back 1300 years, one that is hard to shake, one that we are largely spared when specific, comprehensible political objectives are involved. There's much more to this than just our personal risk of death and injury, and I think that for many, there's no way that reassurances about personal safety or admonishments to keep a stiff upper lip can truly address such concerns.

Chani, beautifully written. Bravo.

Russ, the issues goes to personal bias that no one here is going to alter; no matter what is presented on either side. Tough to accept (and I haven't quite yet myself), but that's life.

Nicely written Chani!!

Just this week my sister inquired whether we were going to Paris this year. When I responded no, she stated that was a smart idea as it is way to dangerous there. I, in turn, said it had nothing to do with what had happened, but that we already had plans made to travel elsewhere. Which she thinks is still dangerous and we should stay home. That caused a long discussion on our recent problems, here in the states. Finally, I realized I would never convince her that staying home is not the solution. She doesn't understand why my husband and I travel to Europe. I have tried to get her to go with us, even offering to pay, which she declines. I don't understand her perspective, either. I suppose I am the only child that got my dad's travel gene. I count myself lucky!!

Because of my overriding love of travel it's so hard to understand the 'stay at home' mentality. Just can't wrap my mind around it. So, sometimes it seems to me that those who have that mindset use the idea of relative safety or not of travel as an excuse, that deep down there are other stronger reasons for them to avoid traveling and I'll probably never know what those are. They can throw all the statistics and terrorist incidents at me that they want, the only thing that'll keep me from traveling is money or health (or lack of either).

@ James...True, the Paris attacks in Jan had an anti-Jewish message to them. That's historically obvious, significant, was politically motivated, and well known that they were the intended targets.

As for insignificant targets based on whimsical terrorism, hitting an Asian restaurant is about as insignificant and unheard of as you can get. There is no political message there unless to convey the message of wreaking whimsical havoc. Maybe it presents itself as such a soft target and is so easy.

On the stats and their being invalid: I go by the validity of gun stats in the US, who the culprits and victims are, murder stats in which cities, trends, etc. Yes, there has been a rise in crime in Europe, especially when you compare to what it was prior to 1990. I'm one of those who feels safer in western and central Europe, ie, much, much less of a chance of getting jumped in the streets or in a subway passage, (Munich, Frankfurt, Hannover, etc) being over there in the summer when I have tourist written all over me.

EDIT: Nancy apparently misunderstood the intent of this post, and after my re reading i understand why. First, Nancy, my sincere apologies. The poorly expressed point was to illustrate you were correct and that we all have similar feelings about a multitude of subjects, all true and as genuine as your post; and as such it isn't something to be argued with or criticized. And in point of fact I have the same basic feeling on the point as you do. *Again, apologies.*

Because of my overriding love of the Pittsburgh Steelers it's so hard to understand the 'game day is better spend watching a movie' mentality. Just can't wrap my mind around it. So, sometimes it seems to me that those who have that mindset use the idea of a lack of interest in competitive excellence as an excuse, that deep down there are other stronger reasons for them to avoid sports and I'll probably never know what those are. They can throw all the highbrow philosophical arguments at me that they want, the only thing that'll keep me from a Steelers game is money or health (or lack of either).

Fred, and I think you theater attack was chosen because of its Jewish ties. They had been receiving threats for a number of years. The Jewish owners finally sold the place and moved to Israel; presumably to avoid being victims.

Guns or bats, dead is dead. But you are correct that what is more important is who the perpetrators are and who the victims are. With that knowledge you can avoid all but the smallest percentage of risk; in the US or in Europe. How far you take that process an attitude is a persona thing.

What is most amazing here is that while there are individual opinions being stated, they also demonstrate tolerance to the sensibilities of others whose level of comfort is different for what ever reason. Very refreshing. Nice thread.

Kaeleku: This thread has been an attempt to understand and discuss the facts as they are known and published with a focus on current terrorism trends in Europe and travel decisions. "Fear-mongering" is the intent to spread unwarranted fear through lies and/or exaggeration of the facts - neither of which seems to be going on here, as far as I can see. Maybe you see something I don't?

It isn't these these threads that are scaring Europeans or scaring Middle East residents into the arms of Europe. Very genuine, fear-generating killing machines with a long list of victims have been operating in both places. It's a fact, not a bogeyman.

James posted this: "What is most amazing here is that while there are individual opinions being stated, they also demonstrate tolerance to the sensibilities of others whose level of comfort is different for what ever reason. Very refreshing. Nice thread."

I agree. I say keep it that way.

In 1986 two terrorist attacks deterred my wife and I from a trip to Austria / Germany. I don't think there were any more attacks that year. We went the next year ( and had a weaker dollar, darn lt ! )

My favorite travel author, Harry Franck, wrote, perhaps only a little tongue in cheek, that such events only happened after he left a town and nothing exciting ever happened to him.

I'll be travelling to Germany next fall and have no fear of terrorists, but I will only be in any place that would normally qualify as a target for a few hours out of the 3 weeks.

Of course terror can happen anywhere - the San Bernadino terrorists lived only two blocks from where I used to live.

I have gone to Europe for 13 of the last 14 years for about a month. I am currently making flight reservations to go back in May. I would never, I hope, let terrorist activity stop me from traveling. Once we all start staying home, the terrorists have won. I also fly often and the first thing I do is to read the emergency instruction sheet. Seldom do I see anyone else reading that sheet. As others have already said, you just need to be prepared and be aware of your surroundings.

I think the advice to avoid high profile targets is outdated after Paris.

But I still don't worry about it. I'm going to see a very popular movie tonight and am more worried about something happening in the theater. This is in Chicago. Later, I will be going shopping and probably to a restaurant. With all the mass shootings in the US at totally random places I don't see why I should worry more about Europe than at the movie theater down the street.

I lived in NY during 9/11, and I did let fear stop me from doing things then. I was young and pretty much stayed in my apartment, friends apartments, or work for months - I was living in an exciting city as a 20something and didn't take advantage of it. I regret that now and refuse to do it again.

For those of you who have stated that they aren't going to let anything deter their travel; I sort of agree in that there isn't any reason to put the luggage in the attic. There is a trip for every level of comfort. We will be off to Ukraine and maybe Uzbekistan but even I admit that both places sort of stretch common sense. Look inside and determine what it takes for you feel uncomfortable and then plan around it. Its a big world.