London just left the bucket list

[Totoro]

Eh, I tend to do the inverse sometimes.

Went to Egypt last winter, because there were great deals to be had and it was a lot more quiet than usual. I went to Nepal during the tail end of their civil war. And to Sri Lanka right when there were potentially destabilizing elections.

Usually when something happens in an area it is very isolated and overblown, so you can get the most beautiful spots, best service and can hear real stories of actual citizens easier. Also, the tourists that do come tend to be more colorful I'll go to the Ukraine this fall.

We all have our tolerances - In Egypt for example quite a few people went to the Sinai, I didn't dare go.

London is too busy and I've been there a few times already so won't be visiting there soon I guess. But I'd rather go there than through the US borders. The brits treat me like a guest firstmost, not a potential terrorist.

[John Galt III]

I landed at Heathrow to start my "Eurail Pass" European summer vacation during college years. I couldn't get out of crowded London fast enough. Hopped onto a train, went off to the small towns and countryside, and had a great time, though.

[Montecfo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldShooter Statistically speaking the risk is probably much higher for getting injured in a traffic accident, maybe getting hit by an American who can't figure out a left-hand roundabout. Seriously, the rest of the world thinks every street corner in the US features battling drug gangs with assault rifles. It's the press that gets people spun up, not the reality of the risk. I don't think I'd head for Syria or Sudan right now but if we hadn't already been to Egypt I'd be considering it and looking for the bargains that are undoubtedly available. London, with the weak pound, is more attractive than it has been in years. We've already been there a couple of times, though.

Sure. But two completely different risks of course. One a given and longstanding, the other new and growing. I do not really see an equivalency there.

That the UK is so PC and unwilling to take steps to reign in terror is troubling. And yes, be vigilant. But realistically the victims had little chance to avoid this attack.

I would personally not rush to book travel to London right now. But I would also not cancel plans.

[Dash man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Galt III I landed at Heathrow to start my "Eurail Pass" European summer vacation during college years. I couldn't get out of crowded London fast enough. Hopped onto a train, went off to the small towns and countryside, and had a great time, though.

I lived in England in the 80s for three years and never felt crowded in London. Now when I lived in Tokyo in the early 90s...that's crowded!!!

[Dash man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montecfo Sure. But two completely different risks of course. One a given and longstanding, the other new and growing. I do not really see an equivalency there. That the UK is so PC and unwilling to take steps to reign in terror is troubling. And yes, be vigilant. But realistically the victims had little chance to avoid this attack. I would personally not rush to book travel to London right now. But I would also not cancel plans.

New and growing? When I lived there in the 80s terror attacks were a concern then too. Remember the IRA? The Pan Am bombing that crashed in Lockerbie? The Harrods department store bombing? Terror in London is not new.

[Totoro]

Terror in London indeed is nothing new - there was a lull though for a decade or so.

Indeed, the whole of Europe, nothing new under the sun:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ism-in-europe/

The only thing that has changed is the nature of the attacks: it used to be more nationalist inspired (ETA, IRA, ..) and local, now it's more muslim and international.

[Montecfo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dash man New and growing? When I lived there in the 80s terror attacks were a concern then too. Remember the IRA? The Pan Am bombing that crashed in Lockerbie? The Harrods department store bombing? Terror in London is not new.

3 terror attacks in 2 months linked to radical Islam is new there. It did not happen last year, the year before, or the year before, for example.

I do not subscribe to the idea that terror is to be expected and we should just live with it.

[euro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davef This is awful but I will not let this deter me from travels. I feel this is letting them win. No offence intended to the OP. Just wanted to state my view. I am grateful for the people who maintain their plans. And for the recent heroes in Portland who defended the Muslim women. I hope this craziness stops in my lifetime. Not sure this post fits here. If not, feel free to delete.

+1.

[Aerides]

London has always attracted incidents, just different factions. Many threats, many real. In the 70's and 80's it was the IRA.

So if you were gung ho on London before, that would be odd to change now.

But that said, if someone is uncomfortable about an specific location for travel, there's zero point in going as you'd have a horrible time.

I put off international travel this year as I'm a naturalized US citizen and the increased chance of being delayed on re-entry makes me very uncomfortable.

[Fermion]

I am not scared of terrorists I am scared of the 9+ hour airplane flight from the west coast to London in economy class at 6'7"

But we did Ireland for 3 months and London for week a few years back. I would go again right now if someone springs for my first class ticket

[Danmar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldShooter Statistically speaking the risk is probably much higher for getting injured in a traffic accident, maybe getting hit by an American who can't figure out a left-hand roundabout. Seriously, the rest of the world thinks every street corner in the US features battling drug gangs with assault rifles. It's the press that gets people spun up, not the reality of the risk. I don't think I'd head for Syria or Sudan right now but if we hadn't already been to Egypt I'd be considering it and looking for the bargains that are undoubtedly available. London, with the weak pound, is more attractive than it has been in years. We've already been there a couple of times, though.

Agree. No high risk Middle East countries for me but Europe is certainly a go. When we travel, we tend to stay away from big crowds anyway, so that might reduce the minimal risk even further. Been to London many times but would certainly consider going back.

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dash man I lived in England in the 80s for three years and never felt crowded in London. Now when I lived in Tokyo in the early 90s...that's crowded!!!

It was not crowded then but it is now. I miss the old London, it was a joy to go shopping at Oxford street and Bond street. Now there is mall just like USA.

[FUEGO]

Sweet. Less crowds, shorter lines, lower demand, lower prices.

Of the 8,500,000 folks living in the greater London area, 8,499,993 are still alive today did not die from terrorism.

We're a week away from spending 9 weeks in Europe and this doesn't phase me a bit. I'm more worried about food poisoning, slipping and falling while hiking and caving, getting hit by a bus while crossing the street, messing up while driving the rental car, and various other transportation-related risks.

[MRG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby This is London on December 29, 1940, during what was the 114th straight night of being bombed during the Blitz. Londoners did not cower or cringe then, they aren't now and won't anytime in the foreseeable future. They keep calm and carry on. So should you.

I've been to the museum in St. Pauls, very impressive. IIRC there was a modified "rules of golf" in there. It talked about getting a free drop from around unexploded ordnance. Tough people.

When I was travelling there the IRA was still very active. I personally pay attention, but I refuse to give in. If it's my time it is.

I spent a lot of time in Manchester too, lovely place. Walking around by myself and felt quite comfortable. I do remember a bombing there around a mall after I'd left. It was odd seeing the news reports, my mind flashed back to walking down the street where the bombing occured and the conversation I'd had.

I would agree, you're in more danger because of traffic than anything else.

[AllDone]

The first time that I went to London was just after the IRA bombing of Harrods. If DH didn't have PTSD from his earlier marriage to an English woman, I'd visit more frequently.

Britain is still safer than the US with an intentional murder rate that is 25% of the US murder rate.

[Sojourner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO Of the 8,500,000 folks living in the greater London area, 8,499,993 are still alive today did not die from terrorism. We're a week away from spending 9 weeks in Europe and this doesn't phase me a bit. I'm more worried about food poisoning, slipping and falling while hiking and caving, getting hit by a bus while crossing the street, messing up while driving the rental car, and various other transportation-related risks.

+1

In big cities like London and Paris, you are at least 2,000 times more likely to die in a travel-related accident than from terrorism. I think if you're going to avoid London due to the infinitesimal risk of a fatal terrorist attack, you'd need to cross off many other places, too, like: New York City; Washington D.C.; Orlando; Boston; Chattanooga; San Bernardino; Columbus, Ohio; Little Rock, Arkansas; and numerous other cities, large and small, in Germany, France, Turkey, Belgium, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Egypt, Israel, China, the Philippines, Malaysia, India... and many others.

[gerntz]

I'd go tomorrow. Still safer than Chicago & Baltimore & probably many other US cities.

[Fedup]

I think it's added risk on top of other travel related accident. Of course it's a concern, not so much for old people like us, but for younger people who still have a whole life in front of them. It's terrible if something happens to them.

[Chuckanut]

If this works and London sees a drop in tourism expect to see 'fake' news stories about crime, terrorism, disease in Venice very soon. They are desperate to cut down the number of tourists. One of the latest ideas is to charge people to be in St. Marks square. And banning wheeled roller bags because of the noise they make. Then there is the long running issue of cruise ships dropping of thousands of people for a short amount of time.

Tourism overwhelms vanishing Venice | Europe | DW | 09.11.2012

Death of German Tourist Prompts Venice to Consider Limits - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Quote:

The real problem, says the port director, is the total number of visitors. In a 1988 study, none other than Costa himself concluded that the ideal number of annual visitors was 7.5 million. Today, about 30 million people visit the city each year.

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerntz I'd go tomorrow. Still safer than Chicago & Baltimore & probably many other US cities.

Right on - it's not that rare to have a weekend with 7+ dead bodies from a little murdering right here in our own US of A medium to large cities.