West Coast of USA

[Lor]

Is anyone here a seasoned traveller (or resident) of the West Coast? The reason for me asking is because 8 of us are doing a 19 day roadtrip and need a few suggestions/tips on places to visit? Oh and also tourist traps I should know about and thus avoid.

The route will be (set in stone I believe):

San Francisco x 2 days
Yosemite National Park x 2 Days
Carmel x 2 Days
Santa Barbara x 2 Days
LA x 4 Days
San Diego x 2 Days
Las Vegas x 5 Days

We've got the usual tourist destinations in -

San Francisco - Golden Gate Bridge/Alcatraz/China Town
Yosemite National Park -
Carmel - Monterey Bay and 17 Mile Drive
Santa Barbara -
LA - Disney Land and Universal Studios
San Diego - USS Midway and Sea world
Las Vegas - Death Valley, Hoover Dam & various shows.

Oh and before some miserable bastard decides to chime in, A) This isn't Dread going on another vacation and B) I know this place isn't Trip Advisor and thank **** for that.

[Dreadnaught]

No, you fuck. I always get yelled at for taking trips, so you're gonna get fucking yelled at for taking one. You fucking capitalist swine. You piece of shit. How dare you enjoy anything, anywhere. Stay out of our country, keep your damn Zio-money to yourself.



Just looking over this -- I don't know you/your group well enough, but in general I think you're spending way too much time in Vegas. Unless you have a few thousand dollars per person to spend on some epic experience, I think Vegas sorta blows. If you want to avoid tourist traps...well, the whole city of Las Vegas is a tourist trip.

Is your group looking for some more nature/beauty? Seeing weird American lifestyles (Portland is worth looking into...)?

[Timbuk2]

Not that I've been, but I'd thought that was the entire point of visiting Vegas; that it is a tourist trap. A great big glitzy, chintzy, tacky, overblown, over the top statement of ridiculousness. The ultimate tourist trap.

[Dreadnaught]

That is indeed a good reason to go, but I think five days seems like a lot. They're planning to spend more time in Vegas than anywhere else, when there's much more to do/see in every other place on his list.

Obviously it really depends on what all of the people in this group want. But I'm willing to go on a limb and suggest that five days in Vegas is too much.

[Timbuk2]

5 days would be too much for me, aye. But I suspect this trip is something of a pre-marriage final blow-out for young Lor here with a bunch of his boys .... Vegas being the party town 'n all.

[Dreadnaught]

Indeed, I'm curious to hear more. Though I would also argue Vegas is a terrible party down for a normal person. As much as I hate San Francisco, it's a better place to go out at night.

[Veldan Rath]

I found Santa Barbara beautiful and San Diego relaxing (may want to skip Blacks Beach...it partially a nude beach)

[Flixy]

I found Santa Barbara beautiful and San Diego relaxing (may want to skip visit Blacks Beach...it partially a nude beach)

[Lor]

No, you fuck. I always get yelled at for taking trips, so you're gonna get fucking yelled at for taking one. You fucking capitalist swine. You piece of shit. How dare you enjoy anything, anywhere. Stay out of our country, keep your damn Zio-money to yourself.

Just looking over this -- I don't know you/your group well enough, but in general I think you're spending way too much time in Vegas. Unless you have a few thousand dollars per person to spend on some epic experience, I think Vegas sorta blows. If you want to avoid tourist traps...well, the whole city of Las Vegas is a tourist trip.

Is your group looking for some more nature/beauty? Seeing weird American lifestyles (Portland is worth looking into...)?

The group is very much a mixed one and of various ages so the holiday caters to everyone and their "requirements". Hence why you've got the likes of 5 days in Vegas and less in others - although I can say that just because we're in Vegas it doesn't mean will stay on the strip. We've already thought about going to a ranch in the Grand Canyon and I know I'll be venturing to Death Valley for example, with or without the others.

Not that I've been, but I'd thought that was the entire point of visiting Vegas; that it is a tourist trap. A great big glitzy, chintzy, tacky, overblown, over the top statement of ridiculousness. The ultimate tourist trap.

I thought this too. It's not my ideal holiday but it's an experience so I'll go with the flow. I'm more interested in the history of things, nature/beauty etc etc. I'd rather stare at a piece of architecture than blow £££ on alcohol and remember nothing the day after.

That is indeed a good reason to go, but I think five days seems like a lot. They're planning to spend more time in Vegas than anywhere else, when there's much more to do/see in every other place on his list.

Obviously it really depends on what all of the people in this group want. But I'm willing to go on a limb and suggest that five days in Vegas is too much.

Where would you spend more time?

5 days would be too much for me, aye. But I suspect this trip is something of a pre-marriage final blow-out for young Lor here with a bunch of his boys .... Vegas being the party town 'n all.

Indeed, I'm curious to hear more. Though I would also argue Vegas is a terrible party down for a normal person. As much as I hate San Francisco, it's a better place to go out at night.

This trip isn't a pre-marriage final blow out. Just a chance to have a road trip to be perfectly honest, with a group of people that have future plans (kids etc etc) and will not get the chance in the near future.

I found Santa Barbara beautiful and San Diego relaxing (may want to skip Blacks Beach...it partially a nude beach)

I'd be up for a nude beach, not sure people would be keen to see my figure though. May as well look at a stick!

[Veldan Rath]

Now you have my attention.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'd rather stare at a piece of architecture than blow £££ on alcohol and remember nothing the day after.

Vegas shouldn't be to dissappointing in this department

[LittleFuzzy]

I like most of the destinations you've got. Is this just Southern and Central CA? Because there are some interesting places further north too, like Lassen National Park.

Ok, for concrit: I love Yosemite but it can get a bit crowded depending on when you're going. If you're willing to do a lot of hiking then Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks might be better, they're adjacent to each other a bit further south. They're not quite as scenic from the bottom but if you're willing to engage in some of the tougher hikes they'd be worth your while.

For the Central Coast San Francisco sounds fine but I'm not as sure about Carmel. And it's not the place I'd stay if I wanted to explore the area for a few days, it'd be cheaper to stay in Monterey. I love that bay, and you should drop by the aquarium. 17 mile drive is ok but I'd suggest spending some time further south in Big Sur. That's the best coastline the Central Coast has.

For San Diego I loved Sea World, but I also really like the Wild Animal Park.

[Dreadnaught]

The group is very much a mixed one and of various ages so the holiday caters to everyone and their "requirements". Hence why you've got the likes of 5 days in Vegas and less in others - although I can say that just because we're in Vegas it doesn't mean will stay on the strip. We've already thought about going to a ranch in the Grand Canyon and I know I'll be venturing to Death Valley for example, with or without the others.

I thought this too. It's not my ideal holiday but it's an experience so I'll go with the flow. I'm more interested in the history of things, nature/beauty etc etc. I'd rather stare at a piece of architecture than blow £££ on alcohol and remember nothing the day after.

Where would you spend more time?

Part of the "problem" with the West is half the land out is comprised of federally protected national parks that are about the size of Wales. Which means there is literally too much to choose from on a trip like this.

I think Fuzzy's suggestion of Big Sur is a good idea, and I think his skepticism on Carmel is also warranted.

I also think you should consider a few more days in San Francisco. Besides being a fun place to wander around and enjoy some top-notch food, it's a good base to get to other areas with some nice nature-esque things. Not epic things like Grand Staircase or the national parks, but solid day trips that a lot of people in your group could probably get on-board for like Half Moon Bay, wine country, etc.


That said, if your plan is to totally leave the group for 2-3 days while they are in Vegas to pursue nature, I suggest being ambitious and trying something like Bryce Canyon National Park. Just Google Image Search it and you'll see why.

[earthJoker]

That said, if your plan is to totally leave the group for 2-3 days while they are in Vegas to pursue nature, I suggest being ambitious and trying something like Bryce Canyon National Park. Just Google Image Search it and you'll see why.

I wanted to suggest that too. Stunningly beatiful. And you can easily hicke down into the valley and back up. Really not that hard, just the height of 2500 Meters can be a problem.

Because there are some interesting places further north too, like Lassen National Park.

I wasn't that impressed by Lassen, and it was... well ...smelly.

I totally loved Crater Lake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crater_Lake) but it is a bit hard to reach.

[Lor]

Now you have my attention.

I thought I might!

I like most of the destinations you've got. Is this just Southern and Central CA? Because there are some interesting places further north too, like Lassen National Park.

It is just Southern/Central unfortunately (confirmed only a few minutes ago). I would venture up north but the others were not to keen.

Ok, for concrit: I love Yosemite but it can get a bit crowded depending on when you're going. If you're willing to do a lot of hiking then Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks might be better, they're adjacent to each other a bit further south. They're not quite as scenic from the bottom but if you're willing to engage in some of the tougher hikes they'd be worth your while.

For the Central Coast San Francisco sounds fine but I'm not as sure about Carmel. And it's not the place I'd stay if I wanted to explore the area for a few days, it'd be cheaper to stay in Monterey.

For Yosemite we're having to look around for places to stay as the cabin we all wanted no longer caters to large parties. It was a struggle to find that but if you guys can recommend somewhere I'd be more than grateful. Can I just ask, what's it like driving around Yosemite? Being one of the designated drivers and also not having any experience driving on the 'wrong side' of the road I have no idea what to expect. The closest I've been to driving up/down a mountainous environment is Snowdonia in Wales .

Carmel is one of my mothers favourite places, being she's one of the party members we're taking out there and also being it's her 50th birthday while there, we couldn't say no.

I love that bay, and you should drop by the aquarium. 17 mile drive is ok but I'd suggest spending some time further south in Big Sur. That's the best coastline the Central Coast has.

For San Diego I loved Sea World, but I also really like the Wild Animal Park.

Big Sur, I'll let the others know about that and look into it myself. We've already got the aquarium at the bay on the list, another one of my mothers favourite places. I've also got to visit San Luis Obispo as a friend I went to high school with moved back there (he moved to the UK at a young tender age and then went back again). This may tie in nicely with Big Sur judging by Google Maps.

(...) That said, if your plan is to totally leave the group for 2-3 days while they are in Vegas to pursue nature, I suggest being ambitious and trying something like Bryce Canyon National Park. Just Google Image Search it and you'll see why.

Oh you bastard, that place looks beautiful.

Thank you all for your thoughts/suggestions by the way, I really appreciate it.

[GGT]

Wow, sounds like a fantastic trip!

Agreed on the Big Sur and Crater Lake suggestions.

Golden Gate bridge isn't really a "destination", but do visit Fisherman's Wharf, Chinatown, and the Presidio.

Santa Barbara is simply beautiful. San Diego is too, try and visit the Balboa Park area.

Vegas is a pretty good spot to "home base", and venture outward on day trips. That can fill up 5 days easily. Between the top notch shows, seeing all the casinos, fine dining and shopping....don't forget the Spas. Every major hotel has one, not limited to hotel guests. The Bellagio has great services (pricey but worth every penny) that your fiancee and mom might enjoy that during that 19 day roadtrip. Seriously, even if it's just a pedicure, they'll feel pampered. Afterward, treat them to a 4 star dinner, then watch the Bellagio water fountain nighttime display, set to music. Very romantic *hint*

[LittleFuzzy]

Can I just ask, what's it like driving around Yosemite? Being one of the designated drivers and also not having any experience driving on the 'wrong side' of the road I have no idea what to expect. The closest I've been to driving up/down a mountainous environment is Snowdonia in Wales .

It's easy, you won't have any problems beyond the standard cross-continent issues.

[Dreadnaught]

Also, all the rental cars here are automatic transmissions. Which may hopefully give you more ability to focus on driving on "our" side of the road.

[earthJoker]

Can I just ask, what's it like driving around Yosemite? Being one of the designated drivers and also not having any experience driving on the 'wrong side' of the road I have no idea what to expect. The closest I've been to driving up/down a mountainous environment is Snowdonia in Wales .

You get used to driving on the other side fast, because the wheel is also on the other side, you always have a nice reminder where to drive. I was too young to drive when I was in Yosemite, but from what I know the valley is quite easy, and the Tioga road is not that hard. Just remember to shift down when you drive downhill. Even an automatic will let you shift down, it just depends on the car how you do that, so you might want to find out how, before you hit a mountain road.

[Timbuk2]

Lor, you'll get used to driving on the right in no time at all.

The one thing that feels a little unnatural is shifting gears with the right hand rather than the left, but as Dread indicated you'll most certainly have a slushbox auto.

Driving in the States, you'll love the big wide open roads and the amount of sheer space you have around your car when you drive. If you've only driven UK roads you'll find this really refreshing.

Also you can overtake and undertake traffic in any lane on the highways which is a big plus. The really need to introduce this to the UK (though more and more people are undertaking on motorways here now anyway ... discussions on pistonheads indicates its becoming more acceptable, whatever the BiB may make of it )

[Lor]

Lor, you'll get used to driving on the right in no time at all.

That's what I want to hear.

The one thing that feels a little unnatural is shifting gears with the right hand rather than the left, but as Dread indicated you'll most certainly have a slushbox auto.

Most of the SUV's we've looked at all have the gadgetry required thankfully.

Driving in the States, you'll love the big wide open roads and the amount of sheer space you have around your car when you drive. If you've only driven UK roads you'll find this really refreshing.

Also you can overtake and undertake traffic in any lane on the highways which is a big plus. The really need to introduce this to the UK (though more and more people are undertaking on motorways here now anyway ... discussions on pistonheads indicates its becoming more acceptable, whatever the BiB may make of it )

Interesting! I've been told about the size of the roads, especially in places like Vegas where each way has 4/5 lanes. I've also been told, while slightly teased, about driving in San Francisco. I Google Mapped a particular street a colleagued mentioned and it looks pretty awesome to me. Really looking forward to doing a lot of driving.

[Flixy]

Also you can overtake and undertake traffic in any lane on the highways which is a big plus. The really need to introduce this to the UK (though more and more people are undertaking on motorways here now anyway ... discussions on pistonheads indicates its becoming more acceptable, whatever the BiB may make of it )

Isn't it safer if you have faster on the inside, slower on the outside of roads? During rush hours I think trucks aren't even allowed in the inside lanes here, to keep the traffic flowing better and decrease accidents.

[Ominous Gamer]

Florida has interstates and highways with the same rules, no trucks in the left lanes. Its generally safer to overtake on the side the driver sits on, plus our on and off ramps are generally on the right making overtaking from the right a generally bad idea.

[Timbuk2]

Isn't it safer if you have faster on the inside, slower on the outside of roads? During rush hours I think trucks aren't even allowed in the inside lanes here, to keep the traffic flowing better and decrease accidents.

Safer, perhaps - that's up for debate.

The reason this is (or has become) an issue here is since it is an illegal manouvre to undertake, one is stuck behind a slow moving car in the middle (or offside lane) who refuses to move into the nearside (or middle lane) when that becomes clear.

Such people have been assigned the moniker "Middle-lane morons" or MLMs, and there are entire websites dedicated to them. *

The issue is greater for trucks and coaches, because as you say they are strictly not allowed into the offside lane, so if they become stuck behind an MLM, they can't move into offside lane to overtake, their only option is to take to the nearside lane and undertake, illegally.

Now through various examples which have surfaced in recent years, the BiB take a dimmer view of someone not moving into the nearer-side lane when it is clear, than someone being obliged to undertake them in frustration. More and more people here are therefore now more comfortable with undertaking, and rightfully so. The law needs to change to follow suit.

Since this is already legal in the States, there isn't a problem.

As 'Minous says, it is generally safer to overtake on the 'correct' side (driver's side), but when slow idiot in front won't move over for whatever reason, it should be acceptable to undertake.

~

* from Urban dictionary ... MLM
acronym for Middle Lane Moron: a driver who does not keep to the inside lane unless overtaking on a multi-lane highway, in countries where this rule applies (mostly used in the uk), sticking religiously to the middle lane instead. MLM's cause frustration or even road rage to other drivers who are driving faster (for typical MLM's, this is most drivers), as passing them requires superfluous lane changes and inefficient use of the road (passing on an inside lane, or 'undertaking', is illegal), causing congestion. Also known as members of the MLOC (middle lane owner's club). Related - and even worse - are OLM's (outside lane morons), who stick to the outside lane, as legally passing is impossible.

[earthJoker]

I think overtaking on the left (for countries who drive on the right) is a good idea for 2 lane motorways. For 4 and more lanes I think it doesn't add safety, because you need to do so many lane changes if you want to keep your tempo. 3 lane is a bit on the edge, depends on the speed, on 3 lanes 100 km/h I would like to overtake on the right, 120km/h or more I don't think it's good because the speed differences get higher. In Germany I think it would be extremely dangerous if overtaking on the right was allowed.

[Hazir]

Then again what is the maximum speed on highways in California 15 ? 25 ? (I know it' s not that low but it' s still lowish AFAIK) and I bet most of the time it' s a speed most people can only dream of driving.

[Flixy]

Unnecessary lingering in the wrong lane is a traffic violation here.

[Hazir]

Unnecessary lingering in the wrong lane is a traffic violation here.

Long long time ago I spent a lot of time on the road. I made it my habit to drive as far to the right as I could. I WOULD at sometimes take over on the right just to give off a clear signal do middle lane assholes. Driving like that really made me arrive earlier at my destinations. Not by much but 5 minutes shorter wasn' t an exception.

Of course I haven' t driven since god knows how long now, as I got rid of my car a year after moving to Amsterdam.

[LittleFuzzy]

Then again what is the maximum speed on highways in California 15 ? 25 ? (I know it' s not that low but it' s still lowish AFAIK) and I bet most of the time it' s a speed most people can only dream of driving.

Generally it's 65mph.

[earthJoker]

That's a little more than 100 km/h. That's what we have around cities or at interchanges. As I said, overtaking on the right seems OK for me at that speed.