[dvdplm]

Isn’t it a bit sad to think that trips like these are pretty much impossible to make these days? The number of countries I would consider safe to live in and raise my children in is much lower today than it was in the seventies. On that metric, things have only gone in the wrong direction for the duration of my life.

[lmm]

It's not the world that's changed, it's you. Objectively that kind of trip is a lot safer today than in those days (although the specifics may differ; Afghanistan and Iran are doubtless more dangerous for a westerner today than in the seventies, but Eastern Europe and a lot of SEA are now safer).

[jajko]

Yes generally thats true, but you just mentioned a massive bottleneck that all the folks doing some variant of silk road (Europe to say India) are facing - Iran and Pakistan.

I've visited Iran in cca 2017 for mostly hiking up highest active volcano in euroasia (Mont Damavand) and spent some remaining days in places like Isfahan and Yazd, and it was one of best travelling experiences ever. People unspoiled by mass tourism are a very rare experience these days, very friendly folks, everybody spoke english very well and seemed highly educated, you have ancient history all around you. These days, I wouldn't go there (to not be used in some political chess game, common people didn't change obviously).

Pakistan is more free, but more dangerous too and as a tourist you stick out massively.

There are other changes for the worse - most of Africa is massively more dangerous than say in 50s and 60s. There were famous folks who rode some basic old cars from say Egypt to South Africa and had just great mostly positive adventures, these days such a trip would be pretty much suicidal as per their own accords.

[sa-code]

Can't stress this enough, as someone who has traveled to a lot of countries in South/South East Asia the quality of life have improved tremendously

[LorenPechtel]

Many places are safer, some are now crazy or even impossible. And the bad places block every long route I'm aware of having previously existed.

[ghaff]

Yeah. I’d be very cautious about the Middle East and some other specific locations including a lot of Africa. But I’d have very few concerns about Eastern Europe with obvious exceptions.

[koyote]

Why would they be impossible?

Plenty of people do similar trips every year. I know two people who cycled from London to Sydney several years ago. There's also the Mongol Rally and similar fun adventures that people do.

Today you might not go through Afghanistan just like in the 70s you would not go through Vietnam.

I am also surprised you consider countries less safe today than in the 70s. The 70s were rife with terrorism and war throughout the world and poverty was orders of magnitudes higher in the vast majority of the countries than it is now.

Maybe you have just become more cautious?

[tim333]

It's not impossible - I did India to Europe overland a while ago. The problem is Iran. They make it awful hard to get a transit visa like insisting on holding your passport for a month and maybe giving it or not depending on whether your politicians have annoyed them recently or not. Half the people on our trip had to fly over it due to that stuff.

In the 1970 you could go via Afghanistan but that's been troubled for a while.

[kelipso]

I think the difference is you would have a lot of normal people traveling in the same roads, which does make it safer. Today you would be much more isolated as a traveling going through those roads.

[LorenPechtel]

Two factors:

1) There are a lot of places with Islamist violence that are not safe or in some cases simply not permitted. This is much worse than it was in the 70s.

2) You don't get a free choice of routes. There are a limited number of countries and going around isn't always an option.

Let's consider the two routes I did part of in the 70s/80s:

Katmandu to London. (Note that I'm not 100% sure I'm remembering the route right. I'm trying to reconstruct what I can remember with a map.)

Katmandu to Delhi: I wasn't on it for this section, I do not believe it's too problematic.

Delhi to Lahore: Pakistan??

to Islamabad: Pakistan????

to Kabul: Nope!

to northern Afghanistan: Nope!

to Karachi: Afghanistan, Nope! Pakistan????

to Shiraz: Pakistan???? Iran, Nope! and denied.

to Tehran: Iran, Nope! and denied.

We did not plan on staying with the bus past Tehran so I'm not confident beyond that, I think it was going to go to Tabriz, then Istanbul and up through Europe.

Let's see what we can do now:

Google will not map the route. However, I can get a partial map: It is willing to route to Kashgar. It goes *east*. Then south through Myanmar (pretty much a nope). I'm completely unable to get it to go across the India/China border, I don't know if this is political or a matter of roads, I suspect the latter. After Myanmar it goes through Thailand (AFIAK fine), Laos (no idea), Vietnam (I think ok) and up into China. Note that Kashgar is in Xinjang province--I consider that a nope.

Google now fails me. At this point there's a pinch between Russia to the north and Iran to the south. The only route west is via Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan, to reach the Caspian sea. At least in the past you could take a ferry but I have no idea of what it connected. The only viable spot I see on the west coast is Baku, Azerbaijan, then I can force Google to take the route through Armenia and Turkiye. AFIAK Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan are iffy, don't know about Azerbaijan and Armenia. I also haven't paid attention to where you might want to avoid in Turkiye.

Now, let's consider the other long trip I've done. Johannesburg to London.

South Africa: Parts are ok but there's no way I would overland. I can force it to approximate the route we were taking but there's a wall of Congo/South Sudan/Ethiopia that are Nope! places. And then there's a second barrier posed by the Sahara. You can take the western route through Nigeria (Nope!), Niger (no idea) and Algeria (my impression is Nope!) but AFIAK this route is actually forbidden at Timbuktu. Google will also map a route through Sudan (right through the combat area) up to Egypt--but AFIAK there's no way to proceed past that point. You have to cross into Israel (AFIAK temporarily blocked), then either up through Lebanon (Nope!) and Syria (Nope! and you will be denied) or through Jordan, then Syria (Nope! and you will be denied) or Iraq (Nope!, I suspect you will be denied.) Syria/Iraq make another uncrossable wall and you will have two damning stamps in your passport. (Israel will not stamp your passport, but Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon will. Once you've crossed an Israeli land border your passport is tainted and can't be used in a bunch of Muslim nations.) Trying to hug the western coast you'll hit Western Sahara (a Nope!) and I think some of those places along the coast are also Nope!s.

[dheera]

I actually think things are much safer nowadays with cell phones and satellite communicators, and the wealth of information on the internet about what parts of certain countries are safe. You can even message random people who actually live there on social media about the situation on the ground. Many are happy to reply.

Up until the Russian invasion of Ukraine it was fairly straightforward to do a train journey from London to Singapore. Other than Russia and Belarus the entire rest of the route (London-Paris-Frankfurt-Warsaw and Ulaanbaatar-Beijing-Nanning-Hanoi-HCMC-Siem Reap-Bangkok-Penang-Kuala Lumpur-Singapore) is extremely safe in terms of violent crime.

Warsaw-Moscow-Ulaanbaatar was also safe for tourists prior to the Russian invasion.

(Nitpick: The -Siem Reap- segment would have to be a bus due to the lack of functional rail in Cambodia. However, China is building rail across Laos to connect China and Thailand by rail)

Getting from London to India over land is a little more involved. The European rail network will get you to Turkey comfortably and safely with very little effort (-Frankfurt-Munich-Budapest-Bucharest-Istanbul all have regular trains), and Istanbul-Tehran(Iran) rail service also exists, but heading further east will send you into some unsafe areas very quickly. In the absence of the Russian situation you could do -Warsaw-Moscow-Astana(Kazakhstan)-Almaty-Wulumuqi(China)-Kashi and then as long as it's summer/fall you can take a bus from Kashi to Gilgit(Pakistan), then another bus to Islamabad, and then you can take trains from Islamabad-Lahore-Delhi(India), which travel through some sketchy areas but also isn't a war zone and you'll probably be just fine on the train. Once you're in India you once again have all the rail you want, you can continue to the far south of the Indian subcontinent by train.

[LorenPechtel]

I will agree that most of that is acceptable if you stay on the train. Lots of spots I wouldn't want to get off the train, though!

And what good will your satellite communicator be? They're a very good safety precaution when you're heading away from civilization, but this isn't an issue of danger due to remoteness, but danger from the people and politics along the road. Not to mention that your inReach is illegal in China.

[dheera]

> people and politics

Different issues here. It might not help you against politics, but it may help you in "lawless" type situations where cell networks get taken down by gorillas (e.g. if you were on the ground in Ukraine during the invasion)

As for China, it's probably technically illegal, but in China intention matters a lot in law enforcement. If you're doing a cross-continental trip and just passing through China and have it off during that time they are unlikely to actually care. The 4G/5G coverage in China is excellent anyway and violent crime is rare.

[LorenPechtel]

Yeah, as a tourist I wouldn't expect too much of an issue. I've seen it multiple times that I get something of a pass on security measures. I've been routed around metal detectors more than once, almost never asked to take a swig from my water bottle etc. So long as I wasn't in a sensitive area I wouldn't worry much about it. (Although the part of China I would be most interested into going into the sort of location where I would be carrying my inReach is Tibet.)

China concerns me for political reasons, not for personal safety ones.

[jmwilson]

I had this discussion (specifically about the Hippie trail) with a friend before I made a trip to Hong Kong in 2019. The conclusion was it is important to travel while you can. Things can change and not always for the better. I returned from Hong Kong on June 3, and less than a week later the protests started and turned violent. Then the next year, global travel all but shut down. I also had the opportunity to visit Kyiv in 2019 and regret not taking it.

[henvic]

I can relate to this. In 2017 I was traveling around Europe and planned to go to Chernobyl because a friend of mine really wanted to visit there. We ended up our trip short in Moscow, unfortunately, because Kyiv was hosting the UEFA Champions League Final and it was impossible to find any hotel room for less than the equivalent of $1000 USD/night. We had already arranged tours and everything. We considered finding accommodation when we got there, but then two days before we reached there, we still haven't had anything and we decided to cut our trip short. I really regret it! I hope I can go to Kyiv soon.

[satvikpendem]

But...it is literally safer today than at any other time in the world previously (during human habitation). You might just have become more jaded or cautious over these years, as it is also well-established that younger people tend to be less cautious than older people.

[AltruisticGapHN]

Bah I wouldn't be surprised it is actually safer today. Problem is today there are far, far more rules and regulations.

[LorenPechtel]

Yup. There used to be "tour" groups that operated Katmandu to London. Sort of like this bus service but expecting to spend time in the cities it passed through. In 1975 I (with my parents) did what was supposed to be Delhi to Tehran, but we ended up leaving in Shiraz because of a breakdown, it was going to take too long to fix.

I've also done part of the Johannesburg to London route. Rougher, we were in a truck fitted out for passengers and most nights were in tents. Again, breakdowns, we were forced to leave before crossing the Sahara.

Neither route would be sane to do these days. Nor am I aware of any other such long route that's still sane. Such overland travel takes longer than flying by air but you see so much more of what you're passing through.

[spoonjim]

Untimely deaths are much lower than in the 1970s. The difference is in your perception

[_DeadFred_]

Kids in my highschool used to routinely load up a VW camper van and go surfing in Baja and camping on the beach, without cellphones and without contact most of the trip. No way I'd let my kids do that today.

Side note it's crazy that today a camper van is unaffordable to the rich yet alone a budget highschool vehicle and Pacifico commercials are on TV. The future is weird.

[ghaff]

>without cellphones and without contact most of the trip

Well, that's a big difference. Even traveling 25 years ago it was pretty accepted that, even if I were traveling with a company, I was pretty much not reachable. Among other things, I did a 10 day sea kayaking trip with a company and we'd have been totally out of communication if something had happened. I think they had VHF but it would have been--maybe if there's a ship on line of sight we could possibly reach them.

Today, I think a lot of people would have a problem with the idea that I might be incommunicado for weeks or months.

[throw_pm23]

You are the one who is setting the boundaries and rules for your own life. Not being reachable for weeks or months is totally fine if that's what someone wants.

[ghaff]

Of course. I just think it's probably also true that the expectations of what is customary and "normal" have also changed.

[indus]

I grew up in a boarding school—-the only checkin was them sending me a letter and me writing back.

By the time a round trip completed—-a broken bone would have completely healed and plaster removed.

[hnbear]

Yes, aged 8 went to boarding school. There was no phone for the kids. They did have phones for staff, obviously. In our case they’d call a parent if you broke something. But, communication was a weekly letter. We had letter writing every Sunday morning.

My parents seldom wrote back. My mother would send the occasional post-card, at which point the whole school would comment on how bad her english was.

I got a letter from my father and it was signed off:

“Love Dad

Actually, this is his secretary, but he told me to write love dad on it”

After a while there was a campaign to put phones in boarding schools, so a phone was installed. A single phone for 250 boys. There was always a queue and time was limited. On the plus side, I memorized a lot of phone numbers that I’d never know today.

Event with the phone new joiners to the school were banned from using it for the first 3 weeks on the basis they’d adapt quicker to just break the tie to parents than spend all their time moping on the phone.

[klondike_klive]

What a strange interjection from the secretary! Funny and poignant, with an undercurrent of exasperation?

[hnbear]

Yes, I does strike me as someone only someone very undertrained would put in. I found it funny at the time, aged 10 or so. It wasn't bad.

I'd rather have letters from him than not, even with odd secretarial additions.

[dzhiurgis]

25 years ago I was in high school and pretty much everyone had an inexpensive cellphone. Where did you live where it's so unreachable?

And EPIRBs have been around for more than 50 years.

[ghaff]

When I travelled internationally in the 1990s—so maybe 30 years—I was pretty much unreachable. I’ve never had an EPIRB. And didn’t really have a routinely connected cellphone until probably 25 years ago or so when I got a Treo.

I had a cellphone earlier but it was something I used rarely.

[dzhiurgis]

Bought my first MacBook almost 20 years ago now and been almost permanently online since then (for better or worse).

Connectivity existed, esp outbound. Of course it wasn't as ubiquitous and cheap as now, but it was there. Heck Starlink is cheaper than my home fiber.

[ghaff]

Laptop connectivity was still pretty awful in the 1990s and even early 2000s. Conference WiFi was something of a joke. You were still often still using Dial-up. It’s probably in the last 20 years or so that cell and WiFi have become pretty much a utility in most cases. Which is a while but I remember when they weren’t.

[throw_pm23]

A pity you wouldn't let your kids do that. There are still kids today with no cellphone doing their things, and being just fine.

[_DeadFred_]

TBH I don't think I'd be cooling with them taking a trip on their own driving through Mexico even with cell phones.

[boringg]

A bunch of kids tragically died last month in baja doing this trip but with cell phones. Mexico is not the same as back in the 70s whatever some boneheaded people on this form may say about risks.

Safe to say i wouldn't send me kids to mexico on a surf trip without a cell phone.

[hifromwork]

>A bunch of kids tragically died last month in baja doing this trip but with cell phones. Mexico is not the same as back in the 70s whatever some boneheaded people on this form may say about risks.

Didn't kids also die in Mexico in 70s? You just didn't hear about it this much.

[ignoramous]

Along the way, viral often tragic stories made the pessimist out of most of us.

[thriftwy]

A lot of countries has converged to median values, and the median is the one you won't consider safe for yourself and your children.

Another difference is perhaps that back then, population of most countries will consider a European as an ET or nobility, and will not question their ways. If these do something weird, they'll look the other way because obviously.

Now, they don't perceive the difference between themselves and the First World that much, and therefore will bother occassional tourists with upholding the customs of the land.

[cherryteastain]

This bus used to go through countries like Afghanistan that were definitely below the median back then too

[dyauspitr]

Honestly race is very relevant here. It might have become less safe for a white man over that time period but it’s orders of magnitudes safer for people of other ethnicities than it used to be. I’ve been to more than 70 countries and for the vast, vast majority of those visits, the people have been overwhelmingly welcoming.