Driving RV to Baja

[kbunning]

Anyone done this lately? Planning 3-4 week road trip. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Nemo2]

Not lately...in fact not for the better part of 19 years...but there used to be faucets by the roadside in Mulegé where you could get free/good drinking water.

Watch out for the hill at Santa Rosalia.

 

[dixonge]

Armor plating, kevlar, and a convoy

 

[audreyh1]

Anyone done this lately? Planning 3-4 week road trip. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

This is your first post? You might want to introduce yourself on the "Hi I Am" forum.

Otherwise folks might think you accidentally thought the Early Retirement Forums was an RV forum!

Driving my motorhome in Mexico would have voided my motorhome warranty, so I never did it.

 

[Bamaman]

I have little desire to step foot in that part of Mexico. Only place I go in Mexico is on the Yucatan and Cozumel, and I only go via cheap cruises from the U.S. Gulf Coast--and I'm only on land a short while.

The country doesn't have to be so lawless in every way.

 

[Gone4Good]

I have little desire to step foot in that part of Mexico. Only place I go in Mexico is on the Yucatan and Cozumel, and I only go via cheap cruises from the U.S. Gulf Coast--and I'm only on land a short while.

The country doesn't have to be so lawless in every way.

I love when people don't go places but are still somehow absolutely certain they know what it's like there.

 

[Fermion]

I love when people don't go places but are still absolutely certain they know what it's like there.

I haven't been inside an active volcano either but I am pretty certain I know what it would be like.

Also have not been to Somalia.

 

[Gone4Good]

I haven't been inside an active volcano either but I am pretty certain I know what it would be like.

Interesting. I've been in Mexico since January 1. Maybe you can tell me what it's like.

 

[Gone4Good]

On a related note, it's a bit unnerving how many non-Americans I meet overseas who are absolutely convinced that the U.S. is the most dangerous place in the world because they routinely see stories about mass shootings and other gun violence in the states.

 

[savory]

We bicycled the Baja from LA to Cabo. The people were great and very helpful. I would not have thought about telling you about water but there were many 'water stores'. Most people go there with 5 gallon bottles. We just asked if they would fill our water bottles. They were always gracious.

I also expected to see a poorer country. However, I thought the standard of living was fairly high. I do not know if that is true but by the number of cars and the quality of the retail stores made me feel that way.

 

[Dreaming of Freedom]

We are hoping to go to Baja next year for the first time, though we will be flying into the Cabo San Lucas area. It would be neat to drive down there and snow bird for a couple winters after we retire though. The main thing my friends tell me is don't drive after dark, mainly because the highways are dark, narrow, and don't usually have shoulders if you break down.

 

[r2021t]

I love when people don't go places but are still somehow absolutely certain they know what it's like there.

The negative sentiments you are deriding have some legitimacy. Our own government has issued a travel warning for Mexico. And members of our armed forces aren't allowed to travel to Mexico without permission. The services seem to view this country as being "at war" (my opinion).

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/mexico-travel-warning.html

 

[dixonge]

I have little desire to step foot in that part of Mexico. Only place I go in Mexico is on the Yucatan and Cozumel, and I only go via cheap cruises from the U.S. Gulf Coast--and I'm only on land a short while.

The country doesn't have to be so lawless in every way.

Personally I would be a bit uncomfortable driving across the border, but that's why they make planes.

Having spent the better part of 2012-2015 in Mexico, everywhere from Cancun to Guadalajara, I would never characterize the country as lawless. It's definitely different, but so is every country.

 

[savory]

The negative sentiments you are deriding have some legitimacy. Our own government has issued a travel warning for Mexico. And members of our armed forces aren't allowed to travel to Mexico without permission. The services seem to view this country as being "at war" (my opinion).

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/mexico-travel-warning.html

A few years ago, the State Department changed its approach for reporting on Mexico (and perhaps other countries). Previously, they provided a single warning. Now they break the country up by area. If you take a closer look at the link provided in your post, you will see the warning varies by area, even for military and non-essential travel..

Personally, I find the State Department to be very conservative. I would likely approach the issue the same way if I was in their shoes.

I have wondered how their warnings would read if done for the USA. Perhaps visitors would be be told no travel to Chicago, Detroit, NYC if the area was viewed as a whole and not in regions.

 

[Koogie]

Xenophobia is never an admirable trait.

OP: try this site... Drive the Americas

There are trip reports from people who have recently/are doing it. For instance:
Antonia and Jan | Drive the Americas
Josh Hall & Jenna Coker | Drive the Americas

 

[Gone4Good]

The negative sentiments you are deriding have some legitimacy. Our own government has issued a travel warning for Mexico. And members of our armed forces aren't allowed to travel to Mexico without permission. The services seem to view this country as being "at war" (my opinion).

https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/mexico-travel-warning.html

Personally, I find the State Department to be very conservative. I would likely approach the issue the same way if I was in their shoes.

I have wondered how their warnings would read if done for the USA. Perhaps visitors would be be told no travel to Chicago, Detroit, NYC if the area was viewed as a whole and not in regions.

+1

I'll just add and emphasize "very conservative" is a vast understatement. Here's the state department travel warning on France.

Credible information indicates terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in Europe. European governments are taking action to guard against terrorist attacks; however, all European countries remain potentially vulnerable to attacks from transnational terrorist organizations.

French authorities have spoken publicly about the heightened threat conditions for terrorist attacks in Europe.

- France’s Parliament overwhelmingly approved a three-month extension of the state of emergency imposed after the deadly attacks of November 13 despite opposition from rights groups that say it undermines civic freedoms.

- The state of emergency will now remain in effect until May 26, 2016. The state of emergency allows the government to prevent the circulation of individuals and to create zones of protection and security.

-The French government has re-established border controls and movement may be restricted in some areas.

The State Department has some useful information. But if you use it as a way to screen out potential travel destinations you'll likely decide you can't go anywhere - including where you already are.

 

[Whisper66]

Xenophobia is never an admirable trait. ]

Haven't seen that in the comments. I see folks impressions of risk to themselves based on data they've read, heard or experienced. People's experiences are different and shouldn't be belittled. I've been to Mexico a few times in life. Have found I prefer to stay I the US because I know / can recognize the dangers here and know where / how to get help when needed. I prefer to stay away from Mexico just like many sections of our own large cities for that reason. Glad others like Mexico and can share their knowledge. Thx for the links you provided to the op.



Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[r2021t]

A few years ago, the State Department changed its approach for reporting on Mexico (and perhaps other countries). Previously, they provided a single warning. Now they break the country up by area. If you take a closer look at the link provided in your post, you will see the warning varies by area, even for military and non-essential travel.

I was simply pointing out that a question/comment about safe travel was not out of line considering our own government provides a warning about travel to Mexico. You may be right that it is not as bad as it looks. I stand by my statement that the military must request permission to travel there only because my son, who is in the Army, had to do this very thing. His request was denied. I would add that my other son, also a soldier, was told "Don't ask" when he brought up vacationing in Mexico a couple years ago. Empirical evidence, to be sure, but I think there is merit in it.

I have wondered how their warnings would read if done for the USA. Perhaps visitors would be be told no travel to Chicago, Detroit, NYC if the area was viewed as a whole and not in regions.

You're probably right. And this has gotten maybe a tad OT since the OP was simply asking for advice about a day trip. But I will agree with you that visitors to the US have the same issues that I have traveling to Mexico. I don't know anything about the condition of Mexico, nor does the media do any meaningful reporting about it, which, I suspect, is on purpose. The travel warning has more information in it than I've seen on any news outlet about what is happening south of our border. As (I think) G4G pointed out in another post, US violence is reported pretty regularly in other countries. I suspect this, too, has an intended purpose.

I'll just add and emphasize "very conservative" is a vast understatement. Here's the state department notice on France............The State Department has some useful information. But if you use it as a way to screen out potential travel destinations you'll likely decide you can't go anywhere - including where you already are.

I fail to see the hyperbole in France's warning to travelers. It seems to be historically accurate, for the most part. I'll take it over something that has been sanitized so as not to negatively impact tourism or offend the natives. I'd rather have the warnings than not.

 

[Fermion]

I have wondered how their warnings would read if done for the USA. Perhaps visitors would be be told no travel to Chicago, Detroit, NYC if the area was viewed as a whole and not in regions.

I think for Chicago and Detroit that would actually not be bad advice!

Mexico just does not have good control right now. One big issue for me is being able to rely on authorities if there is a problem.

"There are several resulting effects of the blatant and widespread police corruption. Over 90% of crimes go unreported or are not investigated. Many Mexican citizens do not feel safe and protected by the police tasked with their safety and protection. 43% of Mexican citizens believe that corruption is the main obstacle facing successful law-enforcement. Many people have reported bribing the police, even for minor incidents such as illegal parking and other traffic violations. Mexico's business officials have noted that police corruption has had a severely negative influence on business and economic progress. Police corruption is also in part to blame for the widely accepted failure of the war on drugs and the continued spread of illicit narcotics and the growth of the drug-manufacturing and distribution industries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_corruption_in_Mexico

 

[Gone4Good]

I fail to see the hyperbole in France's warning to travelers.

It's a silly warning that gives the impression of a vastly higher risk than actually exists.

You're far more likely to be injured in an automobile accident on your taxi ride from the Airport than you are to encounter a terrorist event in France and yet no warning exists for this much higher threat.

People tend to have an irrational fear of both the unknown and the unlikely. These types of nonsense government warnings only legitimize those fears. Worse, they take what should be a useful resource for travelers and cry wolf so often as to render them virtually meaningless.

P.S. Last I heard the U.S. was also at risk for terrorist attacks. What is anyone supposed to do differently with that information?

 

[haha]

On a related note, it's a bit unnerving how many non-Americans I meet overseas who are absolutely convinced that the U.S. is the most dangerous place in the world because they routinely see stories about mass shootings and other gun violence in the states.

Whatever these misinformed people are convinced about, they are still wrong, as can be proven by statistics.

Ha

 

[r2021t]

It's a silly warning that gives the impression of a vastly higher risk than actually exists.

First, the bad thing about a forum is it seems like arguing with the back and forth. I hope you don't take it that way. I've read this forum for years and have enjoyed your posts........Having said that, let's get it on.

With the exception of this line in your post ".....all European countries remain potentially vulnerable to attacks from transnational terrorist organizations"......which is certainly subjective, what I read seems to be a statement of facts. What inferences are taken from this depends on the reader's age, experiences, travel history, current living arrangement and on and on. How would you write it? Would you make no reference to terrorism at all? I don't mean terrorism in general, I mean as it specifically relates to a country?

You're far more likely to be injured in an automobile accident on your taxi ride from the Airport than you are to encounter a terrorist event in France and yet no warning exists for this much higher threat.

Because I would assume most people understand accidents can happen anywhere. I guess a country could state the obvious but it would be silly. And it would be negligent for them to ignore recent criminal activity designed to kill multiple citizens in a single event. Had the Paris attack occurred 35 years ago, I would agree with you. But this event happened less than four months ago. You may be willing to rip the band-aid off and declare everything is back to normal but I don't think I am. Not just yet.

Last I heard the U.S. was also at risk for terrorist attacks. What is anyone supposed to do differently with that information?

It depends. I'll wager that after 9/11 there were some people who changed their travel plans to the US and even in the US. I would imagine those same people have now observed that the United States, to one degree or another, is being responsive to such threats which results in the prevention of criminal acts and potentially the detection and apprehension of terrorists, thus lowering the likelihood of being a victim.

I just don't view these warnings as meaningless or crying wolf. I doubt many travelers even look at them. Spring breakers certainly don't. But I do and I want them to be factual. We're probably smart enough to decipher fact from fiction when they aren't. Those that can't will either blindly march on or stay at home under the chair you keep posting.

 

[Meadbh]

Here's what the Government of Canada website says about Mexico. There is a travel advisory for the northern states and driving between cities is not recommended at this time.

Travel advice and advisories for Mexico

 

[tfudtuckerpucker]

I have an engineer coworker from Monterrey, and he told me he would never drive home to see his family, but only fly. He said it's very common to be stopped on the road a little ways across the border, and a "safe travel insurance" would be demanded. If you don't pay, you risk the consequences further on down the road, he said. I don't know how often this actually happens, but he's convinced the risks are too high.

 

[kcowan]

On a related note, it's a bit unnerving how many non-Americans I meet overseas who are absolutely convinced that the U.S. is the most dangerous place in the world because they routinely see stories about mass shootings and other gun violence in the states.

Well it is in certain areas. New Orleans is the murder capital of the US. The death rate in Chicago exceeds the death rate in all of Mexico. Southside even higher.

I enjoy the drive through northern Mexico (through Nogales), but I would not drive it at night. But I would not drive through Alabama either.