Cycling UK Forum

francovendee wrote:Maybe they have a place for those who want a holiday that is not taxing in anyway.

Most people don't want taxing holidays - why on earth would they? That's why beach holidays are by far and away the most popular.

But it's as taxing as you want it to be.
If it suits you hire a bike at each destination and peddle around, few coastal places are flat, they nearly always go uphill inland so you could really knock yourself out.

I was persuaded to go on a cruise this year, never having done it before. Since the scheduled departure was in May, it didn't happen of course. And, I managed to get the money back from TUI, which, based on stories one reads about their slowness to provide refunds, is quite an achievement.

I have done 3. First one was Falklands, South Georgia and the Antarctic Peninsular, fabulous, with a wonderful crew of every ologist you can think of giving wonderful lectures and more on the places we stepped ashore. Would do it again if I could.
Second was in the now famous Diamond Princess, a great ship. After a week in Biejing we had a day in Korea, Japan (Nagasaki) Shanghai, Hong Kong, Da Nang in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh City, Bangkok, and Singapore. A stress free way of seeing bits of Asia.
The third was on a ship doing the inshore passage on the West Coast of Canada visiting Alaska. 1/3 of the ship was a Casino and there were plenty of people in shorts with flip flops and baseball caps on backwards. Pretty naff but saved by awesome scenery and shore excursions that turned out to be interesting.

Wouldnt rush to go on everyday cruises but something different appeals .

Al

Chum of mine has been over to New York a few times on the QM2 and loves it. She loves the whole deal, with everything you can think of being on tap - entertainment, food etc.etc. she loves the dressing up and the whole Captains' table, uniform and hierarchy palaver. She says it's impossible to be stuck for things to do - it's all laid on, multiple layers of the stuff, from deck quoits and swimming pools, to bars & cafes of all persuasions, experts running lectures and how-to classes, on and on and on. I like the sound of it, but wouldn't do it myself.
She's always manages to find deals somehow, with the consequence that although its a lot for 5 days away, for the level of comfort it sounds like a good deal to me, specially if only a lifetime's one off (not in her case, as she keeps on going!)
Nearest I got to that, is BF's self described cruise-quality cross channel ferries - back about 15 years ago they were good value - a sample of cruise quality travel albeit for only 24 hours... silver service dining was excellent, although Ricky Stein always bigged up the steakNfrites in the self-service...

sjs wrote:I was persuaded to go on a cruise this year, never having done it before. Since the scheduled departure was in May, it didn't happen of course. And, I managed to get the money back from TUI, which, based on stories one reads about their slowness to provide refunds, is quite an achievement.

My first cruise was similar, it was a birthday present from the inlaws for my wife who arranged it whilst we were over at their place in Vancouver.
I wasn't keen although 'new experience' and all that.

TBH the first couple of days I felt a bit bored, I didn't know how they worked, what there was to do and it was sailing up to Alaska so they were at sea.
Once I'd got it figured out I was fine and really started to enjoy it, made use of the library, went to the lectures, used the gym, played some of the games they organised, the shows were great, went to the cinema and there's some good live acts dotted around the bars too, plus there was even a (slightly rubbish) climbing wall.
I still treat them as hotels with a new place to see each day - it suits me. Some folk though do just go for the cruise - they're the people you never see leave the boat. Just sit by the pool(s) drinking, having massages etc but then I know folk who behave like that at any resort/hotel.

I only just received the money back for the cruise I booked this month. They promised it in 60 days, actually took them 90.

My own reasons for not wanting to cruise.
1. They are heavy polluters burning fairly inefficient fuel oil.
2.The cruise industry is destroying the artic seas that once were the realm of the polar bear ,and many species of whales and other marine life their piece is being destroyed.
3. They are destroying places like Venice by over crowding them.
4. They are generally over crowded breeding grounds for any disease going brfore Corona virus it was Nora virus.
5. They dump most of their rubbish at sea

And to top all that I don’t like boats I would rather be on dry land, the 2 hour ferry journey to see the in-laws is more than enough time at sea.

I particularly don't get cruise ships going to fragile environments like the Antarctic. And seeing such trips advertised in the RSPB and other wildlife magazines alongside adverts for green energy.

Oldjohnw wrote:I particularly don't get cruise ships going to fragile environments like the Antarctic. And seeing such trips advertised in the RSPB and other wildlife magazines alongside adverts for green energy.

That's a tricky one.

I'm probably with you in that I think there are environments that should be left alone.
Trouble is they're not - and it's nothing to do with cruise ships.

The counter argument of course is that if people go they'll have more awareness but lets be honest not that many people actually go which is both good and bad.

What we should be grateful for is that the protections in place are better now than we me and thee were kids - at least the past "anything goes if there's money to be made" mentality has reached the "requires considerable backhanders" stage and as environmental awareness continues to increase this can only improve.

In the end the ecology will be destroyed not because a ship threw some rubbish overboard but because nobody cared and so the real question is how do we get people to care?

I think one can get enough awareness of polar regions by watching tivi programmes by the likes of Mr Attenborough, no need to go there. Besides, even on a big fancy ship, things can go wrong down there, one might have to spend a winter in the eternal ice with porridge every day

5. They dump most of their rubbish at sea

I'm pretty sure they don't do that anymore. Marine pollution regulations are quite stringent now. They burn it in a diesel fired incinerator instead, much more environmentally friendly .
I spent many years at sea and although we did used to dump plenty of stuff 'over the wall' there wasn't much choice. Try asking the port authorities in the Middle East (for example) to accept all your festering garbage from a 2 week voyage through the tropics!!

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environme ... ex%20V.pdf

If cruisers were run by,and for more intelligent caring customers-yes a big ask-they would reduce packaging and install anaerobic digesters on board to provide a supplementary,green source of energy.The capacity might be reduces but sensitive thoughtful pasengers(there must be a few) would have to pay a small surcharge.

mumbojumbo wrote:If cruisers were run by,and for more intelligent caring customers-yes a big ask-they would reduce packaging and install anaerobic digesters on board to provide a supplementary,green source of energy.The capacity might be reduces but sensitive thoughtful pasengers(there must be a few) would have to pay a small surcharge.

Cruise companies are just companies. Bottom line is everything.

People are just people, most of them don't actually care and those that do are pretty selective in their caring.

That's why you need government action for pretty much anything to do with ecology, waste, efficiency etc.
Trouble is governments are voted for by the same people that don't care (especially this one) and so there's little incentive other than gradual, creeping, social change.

SimonCelsa wrote:

5. They dump most of their rubbish at sea

I'm pretty sure they don't do that anymore. Marine pollution regulations are quite stringent now. They burn it in a diesel fired incinerator instead, much more environmentally friendly .
I spent many years at sea and although we did used to dump plenty of stuff 'over the wall' there wasn't much choice. Try asking the port authorities in the Middle East (for example) to accept all your festering garbage from a 2 week voyage through the tropics!!

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environme ... ex%20V.pdf

Given the filth left behind on beaches and camping spots these last few weeks I suspect dumping at sea does happen. I witnessed it last weekend in the Southern Uplands: people with £50,000 campers dumping their trash. So not just the benefit yobs

Oldjohnw wrote:Given the filth left behind on beaches and camping spots these last few weeks I suspect dumping at sea does happen. I witnessed it last weekend in the Southern Uplands: people with £50,000 campers dumping their trash. So not just the benefit yobs

You can't seriously compare companies facing huge fines and poor public relations with normal folk who risk nothing and don't give a sh.t

Because "A" is true doesn't mean "B" is also true.
That's a classic logical fallacy.

Oldjohnw wrote:Given the filth left behind on beaches and camping spots these last few weeks I suspect dumping at sea does happen. I witnessed it last weekend in the Southern Uplands: people with £50,000 campers dumping their trash. So not just the benefit yobs

I read that Police Scotland have had to stop 'wild camping' in several locations where it was no longer really 'wild' and damage and littering could no longer be tolerated - and that was pre-Covid.