Hacker News Reader

Comment by overcast | Hacker News Reader

I envy this sense of adventure, but a lot of Africa is such a volatile place. The countries there are consistently in the top 20 most dangerous places to visit, and placed on do not go lists. Definitely takes a special person to deal with all of that, on top of all of the obstacles they ran into. Looks like they could have avoided most of the transportation issues, by investing in a true land rover type vehicle, instead of a heavy behemoth.

View on HN

> I envy this sense of adventure, but a lot of Africa is such a volatile place.

This generalization is so broad as to be useless (akin to "America is a racist, xenophobic place"). Africa is 54 countries and 1 billion people and countless cities and neighorhoods, painting with a broad brush is unhelpful. Only a handful of countries have active conflicts or instability, it is easy to avoid them on a trip such as this one.

[Edit] Here's a fun game that was featured on the Daily Show: see if you can you tell if a photograph was taken in Africa or the US[1]

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHO1a1kvZGo

Sure, you can cherry pick it however you like. They also circumnavigated the entire continent in an old truck. Which means the likelihood of running into something not so pleasant, much greater.

To be fair, this is about travelling across Africa rather than visiting a specific locale, that makes it more likely that you will need to pass through some of these "dangerous areas". Much as the other commenter here was mentioning getting robbed in Philly.

> To be fair, this is about travelling across Africa rather than visiting a specific locale

Africa is really, really huge - it has almost 4 times the landmass of the contiguous US. Avoiding specific locales is pretty easy.

Not when those places are the ones people want to be. Yes clearly driving out into the middle of the desert, or on top of the highest mountain, probably low risk from the populace.

I think it's almost tautological that places with active conflicts going on are not places people want to be.

When you are talking about a road trip around an entire continent, broad generalisations can be very useful. If two friends want to drive a truck to 20 countries, they will likely be much safer doing it in Europe than Africa - even with careful planning.

> they will likely be much safer doing it in Europe than Africa - even with careful planning.

Can you enumerate the dangers that the two friends will face in Africa - sudden malnutrition? If you are referring to armed conflict or the danger of being abducted by the local African warlord[1], then you might be happy to know that such dangers are highly localized and the high-risk areas easily avoided; after all, Africa is a large place (larger than the US, China and most of Europe. Combined[2].

1. Common trope

2. http://io9.gizmodo.com/africas-true-size-will-blow-you-away-...

A much safer alternative would be circumnavigating Australia. By land via Highway 1 (the world's longest continuous road at 15,000 km). Or by sea in a luxury super yacht ;)

https://www.roadscholar.org/find-an-adventure/21421/circumna...

Australia road trip has been on my list of a loooong time. When school is paid off in a year, it's going to the top.

I dunno man. The wildlife in Australia scares the shit out of me

There is very little to worry about there. Having your car break down or get bogged in a remote location is a much greater danger, but one that lots of tourists ignore.

Um, Australia is home to some of the most poisonous snakes and spiders on the planet. And outside of major cities, they crawl into people's homes and cars on occasion.

Australian here. What you say is true, but avoid long grass (snakes) when out walking and check under the toilet seat (spiders) before sitting and you'll be fine. More importantly, make sure you look up constantly when around gum trees to avoid sudden and violent drop-bear attacks. The exact number of deaths and injuries caused by drop-bears is keep secret by the Australian government to avoid putting off tourists, but could well be more than zero.

"Spiders under toilet seats" sounds terrifying.

i had to google 'drop-bear'... are spiders under the toilet seat also part of australian folklore or they are real?

Considering that I live in rural Minnesota and if my shoes are left outside in summer, I check them for wasps or snakes before putting them on, I'd go for them being real.

Mostly folklore - there's even a song: http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/redback-on-the-toilet-seat-ly...

A normal clean toilet is no danger, same as everywhere else in the world, but if you're going to the loo in one of those ramshackle open-to-the-elements rustic outhouses, you might want to check the seat.

They are real: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/27/venomous-spider-b...

Real, but usually only if you have an 'outside toilet'; I had one of these in a WWII-era home located in a country area of Australia, and there would often be red-back spiders + eggs under the seat. Still, easily checked for and destroyed.

If you smear toothpaste on the back of your neck when walking through forests, the dropbears will slide right off.

Apart from one or two snakes, the cassowary, and the crocodile, dangerous Australian wildlife is pretty shy and sleepy. Make noise when you walk through scrub and the snakes, if any, will avoid you. The only particularly deadly spider lives only around Sydney, you have to go hunting for it, and there's antivenin for it. I've also never heard about snakes getting into people's cars. Sure, it probably happens, but it's rare if it does.

Yes, the toxicity on paper of Australia's animals is sky-high, but that's not the full story. You're far more at risk of heatstroke than animal problems when travelling Australia.

I've never seen this site before but it looks really interesting. Can you recommend any other travel sites like it?

Yeah I don't understand doing it for scenery. I saw this on /r/overlanding and it's not appealing. The scenic density seems low and all the problems as well as the uncomfortable truck make it seem really stressful... Doing it for 19 months? I'd be bored after two weeks.

If I really wanted to understand Africa I'd pick a city and go work and live in it... Not drive through it in an army truck.

As someone who spent a lot of time in Congo -- you also don't get the full picture from the media or even State Department statuses. In the example of Congo, the problem area is limited to a couple towns versus a country that's the size of Western Europe combined, and even there it's pretty infrequent. To go by what you read, the whole country is in constant chaos.

I will agree the media like to blow a lot of things out of proportion. But you can not deny Africa has some serious problems that outsiders just aren't exposed to in any form daily. I'm glad you had a positive experience, but downplaying things has the opposite effect.

With your methid of thinking the US should never be visited because of Detroit, Baltimore and Chicago.

Right, because those cities have genocides and civil wars going on from time to time.

Well... I mean...

I know US media shoves propoganda down your throats, but you realize there are countries in Africa that are SAFER than the US right?

To quote Jules from Pulp Fiction.

"ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport."

Last time I ran the numbers, 70s Detroit was more dangerous than 70s Belfast, despite the ongoing low intensity civil war and frequent bombings of Belfast.

An old truck is a vastly more practical vehicle in Africa than a landrover - LRs need a lot of maintenance, whereas trucks generally just keep going.

The only major mechanical issue they had was caused by dirty diesel, and if they'd had some sort of pre-filtration setup they could have probably avoided this.

Their major issues were simply down to the weight of the vehicle and poor route selection.

> An old truck is a vastly more practical vehicle in Africa than a landrover - LRs need a lot of maintenance, whereas trucks generally just keep going.

This sounds like received wisdom. Is there any evidence to support it? Why would one believe that a land rover's engine requires more maintenance than the average engine found in all the aggregate "old trucks"?

There isn't much direct evidence, no. Publications like https://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/7A814B01-5B83-4C27-A1F9-8B0... stress types of vehicle which are recommended / not recommended.

The reason I made my original statement is that old, frequently ex-military trucks and old busses form the backbone of a lot of central and northern africa's transport networks, and the local mechanics are incredibly ingenious and experienced at performing "bush repairs" or fabricating spares to keep them going.

I would add that old vehicles aren't built to the same tight tolerances as newer vehicles. This makes it a lot easier to bodge together repairs for them, which makes them more maintainable by said bush mechanics.

They are the backbone, because they are cheap leftovers. They are very resourceful people for what they have access to. I'm guessing if they had modern trucks, and modern roads, for the same costs of the old hand me downs. They would probably use those instead. Cuba I'm sure is also ready to give up those old cars they've been keeping alive by now.

Top Gear is not by any means a reliable source of motoring journalism, but they do have a series of videos [1] which make a 1988 Toyota Hilux look very durable. At least if you have a mechanic with a "basic set of tools" on hand.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWKz7Cthkk

I've traveled a bit in Africa and in my experience the Land Rovers are temperamental and the well off locals all drive Toyotas, often Land Cruisers.

Beyond Top Gear, the hilux is the standard light cav for irregular armies around the world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)

http://www.newsweek.com/why-rebel-groups-love-toyota-hilux-7...

I can supply some anecdotally. I own two vehicles with reputations for running after neglected or minimal maintenance: a 1966 VW Beetle and a Land Rover.

The more correct way of characterising both would be that they will continue to run and function without ongoing maintenance (the proper level of which is way above a modern vehicle) until they break in a spectacular and often terminal way.

To attempt to answer your question, I think the general implication is that "old trucks" are designed for high maintenance intervals whereas Land Rovers, especially as used by the military, are designed to perform a function for short intervals with the long-term aid of a logistics chain.

> "old trucks" are designed for high maintenance intervals

I find this fascinating. To a layperson like me all combustion engines seem like they must be uniform. Thanks.

Nope. Not even close.

I have a 2001 Nissan Xterra that's been sitting in my driveway for almost 4 years with a blown head gasket because of the combination of lack of spare time, other available vehicles that I could drive, and the complexity of disassembling the engine to remove the heads. The seats and hatch area are now full of engine parts and I still have to finish taking off the passenger side head.

Contrast that with my 1987 Toyota pickup: I would have had the entire job done in a weekend with time to spare.

think notepad vs ms word. imagine if you had to debug one of them...

> until they break in a spectacular and often terminal way

One bloke had his Citroen die in such a way in Africa... and had to rebuild it into a motorcycle to get out of where he was

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2168061/French-elect...

https://m.thevintagenews.com/2016/05/18/emile-leray-built-wo...

While I agree that more evidence on the claim that LRs are needy, the truck they bought wasn't an average one.

>Their major issues were simply down to the weight of the vehicle and poor route selection.

Which could have been solved by using a landrover instead.

So all of those national geographic shows I see, where they are tearing through the jungle in land rover type vehicles, they should trade it in for a giant military diesel?

Well I am not sure how comfortable they would be to live in for 19 months...

I'm willing to bet that those shows have logistics teams, tooling and engineers on site.

The large variety and number of Land Rovers in daily use all over Africa would directly contradict you.

With Africa and I guess a number of other places around the world, being white helps. You can feel a difference of how they'll treat a white person. It can be the opposite too, being overcharged. I know I'll probably get bashed with comments.

According to several friends who travel or do charity work in Africa, being white makes you more of a target for robbery. It makes sense; they know you probably have note money than the locals, so they're going to approach you accordingly, whether that means being nicer to you or targeting you.

You seem to have missed the point here. A Landrover does not a mobile home make. How are they supposed to live in a Landrover comfortably for 19 months?

Camping up top. Google landrover camping.

Camping in Africa sounds amazing, right up until there's a hyena sniffing around the other side of the tent canvas.

Then it's not so much fun any more.

You've missed their meaning.

https://www.drivesouthafrica.co.za/images/home/slides/landy-...

No, I know what it looks like. A hyena will hop up onto the bonnet of that landrover and sniff / gnaw at the canvas up front, and if there's something inside it wants good luck.

Hiding a 12ga inside a car bodywork is easy peasy lemon squeezy and slugs from that reliably put down grizzly bears, which are I believe the toughest land predator currently in existence.

Trying to cross international borders legally with a firearm for self-defense is really difficult if not impossible. If you talk to Overlanders or international ocean cruisers, almost none of them carry weapons. Trying to sneak or bribe your way across a border with a weapon is a pretty serious crime.

[1] http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-65646.html

I doubt buying a shotgun in Africa when you land is a difficult situation.

You would be wrong.

Seeing that just makes me imagine someone stealing the truck and driving away with you still in the tent on top.

They were worried about safety, so they wanted to sleep in something more secure than a tent.

My dad had a custom-made LR and two people could very comfortably live out of it for any length of time. It even had a water tank with a heated shower head if you were feeling lavish.

The tent was on the roof so it should have been safe from most animals:

http://imgur.com/a/tUrAX

Is that a Camel Trophy Discovery?

I wish, but no - it was a replica made by a specialist LR garage in Poland. My dad bought it for an expedition to Kazakhstan in 2014, but unfortunately, cancer had other plans. I've inherited the LR but sold it shortly after because I had no use for it.

This is in the "adventure" category not in tourism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com