#213180 - 12/16/10 05:59 PM
Re: Hiking solo - Yes or No? - your thoughts
[Re: unimogbert]
|
Geezer in Chief
Geezer
Registered: 08/26/06
Posts: 7705
Loc: southern Cal
|
Groups of three is ideal. Three gives you one down, one to take care of the victim, and one to go for help. Of course the anal-retentive will then question whether the 3rd person going for help solo is thus increasing the danger because they are now hiking alone..... (but I'm just pulling your chain) My take on this is that a party of four is optimum; this leaves two to go for assistance, or whatever, while one tends the victim. This all depends on circumstances.
_________________________
Geezer in Chief
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#213188 - 12/16/10 07:34 PM
Re: Hiking solo - Yes or No? - your thoughts
[Re: bsmith]
|
Old Hand
Registered: 05/29/10
Posts: 863
Loc: Southern California
|
For low and low moderate risk hikes and backpacks, I have no problem taking off solo. Trails, popular areas, and cell coverage all are low risk. I have turned around on both solo day hikes and backpacks where I felt the risk was too great.
Safety with hiking partners are dependent entirely upon the skill and common sense of your partner(s). A partner skilled in land navigation, camp skills, first aid, and having their head firmly planted on their shoulders is a blessing to hike with. I've hiked with others that either been blithering idiots (toted more alcohol then water into the desert) or yahoos that were as likely to end killing themselves as getting you killed trying to rescue them (free climbing up the side of a waterfall).
_________________________
Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#213192 - 12/16/10 07:59 PM
Re: Hiking solo - Yes or No? - your thoughts
[Re: Art_in_FL]
|
Sheriff
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 10/12/07
Posts: 1804
Loc: Southern California
|
We received a call late in the evening from two hikers who had hiked out from the Galiuro Mountains, AZ, stating that their companion was hypothermic and had been left behind...
...we found the body of the victim - frozen stiff by the side of the trail where his companions had left him. No sign of any attempt at assistance (tent erected, fire built, etc). When he became distressed, his companions stopped, turned around, and departed ... Wow. Just that is just so unbelievable. AND what bad judgment they had all made not to put up any shelter which got them wet in the first place. I hope that poor guy's companions did have a touch of hypothermia. If not, they're the just really poor examples of humanity with whom I'm embarrassed to share the gene pool with. HJ
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#213193 - 12/16/10 08:10 PM
Re: Hiking solo - Yes or No? - your thoughts
[Re: Hikin_Jim]
|
Sheriff
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 10/12/07
Posts: 1804
Loc: Southern California
|
I counsel others to take all the standard advice: ... Stick to trails. Booooring. Safety with hiking partners are dependent entirely upon the skill and common sense of your partner(s). I've hiked with others that either been blithering idiots (toted more alcohol then water into the desert) or yahoos that were as likely to end killing themselves as getting you killed trying to rescue them (free climbing up the side of a waterfall). Oh, you've hiked with Bear Grylls? HJ
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#213199 - 12/16/10 10:26 PM
Re: Hiking solo - Yes or No? - your thoughts
[Re: hikermor]
|
Old Hand
Registered: 06/03/09
Posts: 982
Loc: Norway
|
Groups of three is ideal. Three gives you one down, one to take care of the victim, and one to go for help. Of course the anal-retentive will then question whether the 3rd person going for help solo is thus increasing the danger because they are now hiking alone..... (but I'm just pulling your chain) My take on this is that a party of four is optimum; this leaves two to go for assistance, or whatever, while one tends the victim. This all depends on circumstances. Whatever is optimum really depends on the group and less dependent on the numbers. I'd say anywhere from 3 to 5. More than five and it's get harder to get everyone syncronized. I am surprised there aren't anymore "never-go-alone" advocates here. It seems we all share the same basic views about risk awareness and risk tolerance. You all said it so well I can't think of anything further to add
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#213202 - 12/16/10 10:42 PM
Re: Hiking solo - Yes or No? - your thoughts
[Re: bsmith]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 02/16/08
Posts: 2463
Loc: Central California
|
One is none, two is one, three is a spare?
Going solo is a different, often profound experience of the wild and your place in it. I say be safe, be prepared, but do it.
Besides other people do annoying things like talk, or get injured ....
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#213212 - 12/17/10 03:10 AM
Re: Hiking solo - Yes or No? - your thoughts
[Re: Hikin_Jim]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/28/10
Posts: 3165
Loc: Big Sky Country
|
We received a call late in the evening from two hikers who had hiked out from the Galiuro Mountains, AZ, stating that their companion was hypothermic and had been left behind...
...we found the body of the victim - frozen stiff by the side of the trail where his companions had left him. No sign of any attempt at assistance (tent erected, fire built, etc). When he became distressed, his companions stopped, turned around, and departed ... Wow. Just that is just so unbelievable. AND what bad judgment they had all made not to put up any shelter which got them wet in the first place. I hope that poor guy's companions did have a touch of hypothermia. If not, they're the just really poor examples of humanity with whom I'm embarrassed to share the gene pool with. HJ Okay, one more comment and I'll leave this alone just so as not to veer any further OT. In a way I agree & hope they were somewhat hypothermic, just because that means they weren't just despicable people. But even so what possessed them to sleep in the rain/wet when they all had tents? That's just baffling to me. Especially if two of them had winter survival training! They had no excuse for not knowing the risks of getting cold and wet and not taking steps to stay out of trouble. Okay, rant off![/rant!]
_________________________
“I'd rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” —Richard Feynman
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#213219 - 12/17/10 03:41 AM
Re: Hiking solo - Yes or No? - your thoughts
[Re: bsmith]
|
Crazy Canuck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 02/03/07
Posts: 3241
Loc: Alberta, Canada
|
I can't add a whole lot to the thoughtful comments already made.
I have done most of my hiking solo, dayhiking and backpacking. I don't think it's for everyone, but in some ways I prefer it. There is a meditative aspect and a rhythm to moving through a landscape that I can rarely find when being pushed/pulled by a group.
I do find that I am extra conservative and walk with greater awareness when travelling solo. I also move a bit slower, since I'm carrying a bit more weight. I don't push quite as hard to make the hard target of a destination on a map; if I need to stop and make a rough camp where there's water and a view, I will. The destination is a place in my head as much as anything. I will also turn back if there's a creek crossing that's just a little too wild or a little too much fresh evidence of wildlife or I smell snow on the wind. No heroics, and no social pressure to push on when prudence suggests otherwise.
I learned my craft before cell phones, sat phones, and PLBs had coverage in my wild places. Though as I get a bit older, I might consider throwing a rental PLB in my pack if I'm going off the beaten path. The idea still seems invasive somehow, but I accept that there are situations that cannot be fully anticipated no matter how careful I might be.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#213222 - 12/17/10 05:23 AM
Re: Hiking solo - Yes or No? - your thoughts
[Re: bsmith]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 04/01/10
Posts: 1629
Loc: Northern California
|
I don't know about hiking, but I do know that snowboarding with a buddy is probably about 10 times safer than snowboarding alone. If you have a serious crash in the back country, you can have all the best equipment in the world, but a snowboarding budding is most likely going to be able to keep you alive. A buddy can go get rescuers, help you move out of powder snow if you physically can't, etc. - been there, done that, have the T-shirt.
_________________________
If you're reading this, it's too late.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#213223 - 12/17/10 05:53 AM
Re: Hiking solo - Yes or No? - your thoughts
[Re: ireckon]
|
Sheriff
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 10/12/07
Posts: 1804
Loc: Southern California
|
I don't know about hiking, but I do know that snowboarding with a buddy is probably about 10 times safer than snowboarding alone. If you have a serious crash in the back country, you can have all the best equipment in the world, but a snowboarding budding is most likely going to be able to keep you alive. A buddy can go get rescuers, help you move out of powder snow if you physically can't, etc. - been there, done that, have the T-shirt. Yeah, winter conditions really up the ante, particularly if you're in avvy country. HJ
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 registered (SRMC),
811
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|