Thoughts on solo hiking. Is it wise to or not?

In another thread, it ws mentioned that "hiking solo is dangerous". The purpose of this post is to discuss a couple common questions/concerns. Do you think that solo hiking is wise and safe? Or do you think that solo hiking is dumb and dangerous?

Also is a female hiking solo more at risk then a male hiking solo.

These topics have been discussed many times on other dedicated hiking/backpacking forums we participate in and be interesting to read the discussions here.


I'll start....I know from much personal experience and the experience of many other people that solo hiking can be safe. As I mentioned in a previous post, while hiking alone, you need to be prepared, mentally, physically and gear wise. If you meet and continuously follow all three of these requirements. Furthermore, hiking solo also imparts more importance on leaving friends and family comple and exact details of your hike....this applies regardless of gender.

As to wisdom of females hiking solo, I posed this question to my G/F tonight. Her response was:

Although I am female and have done many solo hiking and running training sessions (note: she is an ex adventure racer and speaking in this context) over all kinds of wilderness and I have never feared for my safety whether it be human or animals. In fact, the only time I have ever been approached by anyone in an ill manner is when I am in the city. I fear more for my safety in a city then I do out in the woods.

Thoughts on all the above?

I like going out by myself, if for no other reasons that I set my pace, no one else does. I don't think I'm am significantly less safe alone than I am with most of my hiking friends simply becuase if something goes wrong and I'm out of it, most of them can't carry me. (Most of my friends are a lot smaller than I am.) So... they can run and get help while I take care of myself, or I can take care of myself and they can send out the call if I'm overdue as they are my safety people. *shrugs* Yes, there is a slight safety edge by going out in a group, I don't think it is enough for me to NOT solo.

As for the gender based issue, snot, dirty ears, and other comments. The male vs female threat issues are no different off than on the black top, and are due more to the popular conception of femininity vs masculinity in society. Woman don't have the potential upper body of men, they have higher potential stamina, it all evens out in the wash. I'd rather keep it free of certain prejudices and say lets compare people, regardless of gender, based on body size and degree of fitness when it comes to non-human hazards.

Then again, my grandmother was a competitive shooter in college, and "held the fort" when my grandfather was in the hills when they lived in Liberia. My mother taught me to throw knives. And my little sister is a better medic and a MUCH better mechanic than I am. :P The whole dainty, shy, shrinking violet kind of girl really was culture shock for me when I got to grade school, and still not the kind of girl I'm interested in. I'm pretty sure Ben's daughters fit into the same class, and in 12-15 years, any boy breaking the heart of one of Blast's daughters might be best off just going into witness protection.

I'm an active canoer, and as you can imagine, this topic gets a lot of attention on canoeing forums. The bottom line is that while, yes, it may be a little more dangerous, aficianados find it so much more enjoyable that the modest increase in danger is well worth it.

P.S. The above does not apply to whitewater canoeing of class III or above. Here, there are so many ways for a single person to get in trouble that a partner can cure, that it's not considered to be worth it. In the hiking world, maybe this would be analogous to steep trails where falls are a major danger.

To each his own. I would not choose to go solo without exigent circumstances being involved. I knew my spotter would either drag my corpse back, or mark the map where he buried it.

I’ve pondered this on and off and have mixed thoughts. Having a friend(s) along can help keep a minor event from turning into something more serious, that’s an important fact. But…hiking alone lets you keep a distance from the influence of your rowdy friends to do something foolish (approaching storm???-it’ll blow over) and makes it a little easier to be prudent. Cleaning windows at home can be as dangerous as a solo day hike. You prepare, try to be smart about the activity at hand and resign yourself to the fact that life can be a crapshoot, gender notwithstanding.

i'm more of a walker than hiker.i don't like to carry a load on my back all day.like bilojax i canoe,lots of solos over the years..a month a year over 25 or so years.solo is almost a Zen sort of art to alot of people,like taking to the big trails out east for the summer.as to the question --wise or not--i'll say that having done your basic homework it would be foolish not to take to the woods on your own if the spirit struck you so.

Almost all of my hiking and backpacking has been solo. I honestly prefer it that way; I wouldn't get the same depth of cleansing, meditation, renewal, call it what you want, in amongst a gaggle of geese. If I want a crowd, I'll go to the mall.

I have always accepted that there is an increased degree of risk in walking solo.

But: when the nearest help is at least 48-72 hours away, you act differently. You prepare a bit more deeply. And a solo walker tends to be much more conservative in taking risks than a group.

And to be realistic, it is considerably more dangerous to drive to a hiking trail than to hike on that trail. That puts it in some perspective. So does that fact that a downtown parkade makes me much more edgy, spidey-sense-wise, than an open trail.

That's my take anyway. I see no good reason to change.

- - - - - - - - -

Pleasant quotes on the subject:

"Although "solitude" and "loneliness" describe identical physical conditions, the mental states stand poles apart."
-Colin Fletcher

"The man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another must wait till that other is ready, and it may be a long time before they get off."
- H.D. Thoreau

"A bore is a person who deprives you of solitude without providing you with company."
- John MacDonald (?)

Assuming that you are talking backpacking in the boonies type hiking, I don't think that solo is all that great an idea, just 'cuz it is sooo easy to hurt yourself to the point that you need help. No partner, help might be a long time coming. As far as bad guys go, it is my experience that they are lazy SOB's. They might break into your car while it is parked at the trailhead, or try to jump you near the parking lot, but they ain't gonna hump ten or so miles back into the boonies to work their trade...

Most injuries occur inside homes.
Never stay home alone.

---
Lifeview's comment about that is right.

As long as you're experienced, physically fit and know what you're doing hiking solo shouldn't be too much of a risk. However, you need to let somebody know exactly where you're going and you should carry some reliable means of communication if at all possible.

That said, traveling in a group makes life a LOT easier on the trail. First, you can distribute heavier gear among several people. Second, it's easier to set up a proper camp: you can prepare shelter while your buddy gathers firewood. Your companions watch your back, you have someone to talk to and different people bring different gear and skills, all of which can be put to good use.

Going solo, there are many things you can't do and many risks you can't afford to take. Hiking with somebody you trust you can negotiate difficult terrain with more confidence and go to places that might be off-bounds otherwise. I know I would never try to do any serious climbing or winter trekking in deep snow alone. Just too dangerous.

So all in all, while I enjoy a short trek solo every now and then I prefer hiking in a small group (2-3 people). YMMV,

I go solo pretty much exclusively. I prefer it save for the absence of companionship of a kindred spirit. I try to be prepared for eventualities and am willing to take the risks (which are, I believe, small).

I think that it's like anything in life. "It depends ...." Contrary to what my forum name implies, I'm not really a loner. One of my favorite things to do is day hike with my wife. It's terrific quality time together. Other times I'm perfectly content to go off alone while she has dinner with her sisters.

I personally believe that if you are well prepared, you are just as safe alone as you are with a group and in some ways, maybe a little bit safer. We make preparations as best as we can but you just can't cover every contingency. Accidents do happen. It's kind of the price we pay for doing the things outdoors that we do.

One thing to keep in mind, and this is probably not too much of an issue in here, but I've been on hikes with a group and one of the group is a much stronger hiker. They tend to want to push the pace and if the weaker ones try to keep up, it can cause someone to go past their own personal safe limits and get hurt. I have seen that happen.

LW

I solo hikie almost exclusively. I like to dawdle on the trail. I hike well used trails though, so, the arrival of help wouldnt be an issue.
As to gender issue, I dont think it comes down to a woman being any less physically capable of defending herself; I think it is the predatory nature of the male perp. Remember a couple years back, that guy that killed the woman hiker on part of the AT? She was a black belt, he was an older man, who appeared, to her, harmless. However, he overpowered her (in his words, he felt he was losing, and feared her escaping & him being caught, until she gassed out). She fought back, and lost. This had nothing to do with her ability, or her gender; she was taken completely by surprise by someone that didnt appear threatening to her; a fellow hiker. He spent a week with her, before killing her. He bonded with her; then murdered her. The man has no moral compass; his only thought was that "I cannot let her go, she will tell on me". So, even though he told her he was going to, and she believed him (she attempted bonding, but, as is illustrated, someone who is morally flat, you cannot bond with), he murdered her, in cold blood.
Then, about 10 years ago, there was ANOTHER murder on the AT; a double shooting; a man & his girlfriend. Someone just walked up to them & shot them (I dont believe the killer was ever found).
This illustrates that, the people who will do this, will do it. They develop a predator instinct; know how to lure someone into a sense of security, then strike. Sadly, they dont ever appear as a "criminal", they appear normal, and functional, just like any one of us. This is their camoflauge; we are their prey. Sadly, most of these predators are men, and their prey are women. They KNOW women hike alone on popular trails when its warm. Thats easy for them; no police, easy ambush site, you can disappear into the woods. The best advice one can give is to be on your guard at ALL times. Its sad, but this is reality.

It's fun to read postings by so many people who say that hiking alone isn't wise and then do it anyway. As do I :-)

Some people shouldn't hike alone. They are disasters waiting to occur. Others become much, much more careful and therefore possibly safer than if they were in a group. I think I'm in this group.

And there is the effect, already mentioned, of the group being willing to do something much more dangerous than any would attempt alone.

Over the last 20 years I figure if I hadn't been willing to go alone, I wouldn't have done 80% of the hikes I've done.
I prefer camping alone to camping with a group bigger than 4. It's really difficult to find a truly compatible partner in fitness, interest and caution. I'm blessed to have had a great buddy for many years before job losses and soccer-dad duties broke us up.

It should be noted that the predators hunt the popular trails because of the abundance of prey. If I were a concerned female, I would be armed, and I wouldn't go to the popular places. In this case there is more danger in the crowd rather than less. The only safety in numbers is if you can maneuver to be on the inside of the herd when the attack comes.

Excellent point. For instance, here in the middle of Phoenix is a small mountain (Camelback). There is a 'trail' to the top, with the entire trip being 1.2 miles with about 1200-1400ft of elevation change that is a popular workout. Phoenix Fire Dept gets called several times a year to do rescues on this trail. I talked with one of the squad leaders and he mentioned that a large demographic for people needing rescue was guy hiking with a girl with the girl being the more fit of the two. They would just be doing their normal pace and the guy would be too proud to ask them to slow down and collapse. Women tend to be much more sensible about that sort of thing I have found.

I think it is safer to hike in a group than to hike alone.

Especially for a woman.

I -- a woman -- carry bear spray while hiking (with friends) in the Shenandoah Mountains not because I worry about a bear attacking. I carry bear spray in the mountains and Mace in the city because I'd like some measure of legal defense against human predators.

I'd rather my daughter hiked with a group. I'd worry if she hiked solo. I'd be less concerned about a son hiking solo but would also prefer that he hiked with a group.

There is safety in numbers.

Especially for women.

I doubt "most rapists" stalk the Appalachian Trail but two women backpackers were savagely murdered on the AT about a decade ago. Not far from the campground I frequent.

There are plenty of creepy people on the AT but that trail is far more populated than most I hike on. There are criminal cases where the suspect "disappeared" by hiking the AT.

It is more dangerous to be in the city (where I live and have been attacked walking home from work at 7:00p -- and so I commuted by car afterward). I laugh when people say it's nuts for me to go alone to a 200-campsite ranger-patrolled campground.

But hiking trails are not always safe, especially for women.

And hiking solo -- from a safety perspective -- is not optimal.

LOL I guess that sums it up nicely.

There are definite advantages to hiking solo. I can generally move faster on my own and for the most part, I'm better equipped and more experienced than my hiking buddies (by a significant margin, to be honest).

Still, it's good to have company at least every now and then. Not just as far as safety is concerned. Time passes faster and treks tend to be more enjoyable if you have a good buddy or two. But I dislike bigger groups (3 is pushing it, 4 is probably too many IME) simply because too many people make too much noise and it's hard to find lots of compatible hiking companions.

Does anyone know how many people have been struck by lightning on the Appalachian Trail in the past decade?

I'm not being facetious. Whenever you look at emergency preparedness, you run into this problem with people worrying about high-profile, low-probability scenarios. I think this is one.

Yes, I understand that many, or most, women fear for their safety when doing things like hiking alone. But fearing for your safety and being at risk are two different things.

I think a lot of the worries about murders and rapists on trails are leaving out one factor: they are often crimes of opportunity in that the victim of choice was not selected carefully ahead of time and stalked, rather, they are "encountered" and decided on a whim. This makes determining the safety factor on a hiking trail much harder concerning the human element.

as for the nature and group factors, i would say that from personal experience, sometimes it's much better to hike alone as long as you prepare well.

The last long hike I did in a group, we split up some of the equipment so that we reduced weight from excessive redundancy. This would have worked well if everyone had the same pace. Needless to say, at the end of the day, it was a disaster because the "group" was split by pace and impatience and necessary items were not available because they were with the other "group" who were running ahead and never stopped to look back.

Biggest group hike I've been on involved 8 hikers. We had walkie-talkies at the front and back and re-grouped at breaks. Was a lot of fun.

Typically there are three of us and one or two dogs. That's about right.

Safety aside, solo hiking holds no appeal to me.

Met a woman last summer at the campground who had just come off the AT from her first night backpacking alone. She'd planned for a long while to do the Shenandoah National Park portion of the AT. Her family dropped her off and she spent the night in her hammock-tent.

She said she was so creeped out by the experience she was going back to car camping and day hikes.

I gave her a lot of credit for even attempting that trek.

Certainly a fair question. As with many things, it depends on many factors and details. But I think it is fair to say this: when soloing the dangers are about the same but the consequences are more grave. Twisting an ankle while solo, versus the same injury when in a group has very different potential costs.

I used to do a lot of roped solo rock climbing up to about 5.9 and A3+. The moves were what they were, but the potential cost of taking a fall was higher. It made me think very thoroughly at every juncture.

The upside is that after soloing the rock or the trail, going with a partner felt like cheating.

I have a passion for camping, hiking. 90-95% of my camping is solo (read me and my dog). The last 3-4 years I have thought hard about solo. At age 69 a lot more things can happen to me. One of the things I fear most is going out on the trail and not coming back, what would happen to my trusted companion? I have given a lot of thought to this. I go out to see, smell, hear, and feel the forest without intrusion. My campmate/companion of 10 great years passed away xmas of 07. Now I have a 1 year old German Shepard. His 1st camping trip was last Nov. for 7 days ( I usually go 7-14 days at a time about 10 times a year) I over extended myself cutting and carring firewood back to camp and started having a asthma attack. I had to sit down in my chair to try to regroup. My trusted companion saw me gasping for breath and came over and climbed up on my chair and put both of his front legs completly over my shoulders and laid his head against mine as if to say " its ok I am here". It helped me relax and I got myself back together. Also on our 1st long hike at the point I wanted to return as a "whim" I said to him, let's go back to camp, come on boy find camp. One year old that puppy turned around and went step for step exactly back to camp just like we had came. I will continue going solo (dog) as long as I think I can. BTW I second old soldier's post. I have been there!

I have a passion for camping, hiking. 90-95% of my camping is solo (read me and my dog). The last 3-4 years I have thought hard about solo. At age 69 a lot more things can happen to me. One of the things I fear most is going out on the trail and not coming back, what would happen to my trusted companion? I have given a lot of thought to this. I go out to see, smell, hear, and feel the forest without intrusion. My campmate/companion of 10 great years passed away xmas of 07. Now I have a 1 year old German Shepard. His 1st camping trip was last Nov. for 7 days ( I usually go 7-14 days at a time about 10 times a year) I over extended myself cutting and carring firewood back to camp and started having a asthma attack. I had to sit down in my chair to try to regroup. My trusted companion saw me gasping for breath and came over and climbed up on my chair and put both of his front legs completly over my shoulders and laid his head against mine as if to say " its ok I am here". It helped me relax and I got myself back together. Also on our 1st long hike at the point I wanted to return as a "whim" I said to him, let's go back to camp, come on boy find camp. One year old that puppy turned around and went step for step exactly back to camp just like we had came. I will continue going solo (dog) as long as I think I can. BTW I second old soldier's post. I have been there!

Juggerss -- what a great pup you have!

Love hiking, bikejoring and camping with my dog.

I guess I still always try to have a group of 4 when in the wilderness. I was trained back when there weren't cell phones, sat phones, PLB's, etc. You were responsible for yourself, and if something bad happened, you were going to take care of it yourself, or someone had to walk out for help. There was no pushing a button and your location is sent to a satellite and you hear a Jolly Green overhead in an hour or two.

Why 4 people in your group? It's not too big a group for disturbing primitive campsites, or trails, but, enough to deal with contingencies because if someone was injured, we'd either have enough manpower to self evac, or if we needed more assistance, one person stayed with the guy that was hurt, and 2 others walked out for help. This way, a couple good things happen. Nobody is alone, you typically would have 2 tents so both groups would have shelter if you are multiple days away. You would also have 2 stoves, etc. 4 people can carry their own gear, but, each can also carry a little extra group gear, so you probably have better cooking, first aid, and shelter than the spartan amount you tend to take solo.

I have also hiked alone, and feel fortunate that I never had a bad injury doing that, it was always very enjoyable. I agree that there's a peace and solitude doing that; it's great mental floss. Having said that, I haven't solo hiked since I got married and had a kid. I guess I just won't take that risk with the responsibilities I have now. When I was doing SAR in college and beyond, I saw examples of too many ways that solo hiking could put you in a very bad scenario. I would hate to have my wife or son try to figure out after the fact why Dad would ever take that kind of risk when he had seen so many people get into trouble first hand. It means I don't have the solo solitude, but, I think the trade off is appropriate for where I'm at in life right now.

Being with others is a fine experience.

Being alone with nature is a fine experience.

Do them both as you are comfortable.

Find what works for you. Do that.

For me, solo is great for experimenting, dawdling, and letting answers to my questions somehow arrive in my brain. I need to do that.

Group stuff is also fine but very different. I look to get to know people, share laughs, and learn from others. I enjoy all of that, too.

I think it is as wise to try solo hiking, starting modestly, as it is to do most things in life.

According to sources I've checked, no one has ever been killed by lightning on the AT.

Having said that, I am in full agreement with what dweste wrote above.

No one is forcing anyone to hike alone or with a group unless you're in the military.

Do what you will and don't hurt anyone else.

JohnE

Heh, 15 years back, I couldve been the first!!!

"Many experienced outdoormen—and all reasonable hiking organizations—contend that one of the greatest dangers in wilderness travel is a practice that permeates this book: walking alone.
They may have something, too. But once you have discovered solitude—the gigantic, enveloping, including, renewing solitude of wild and silent places—and have learned to put it to creative use, you are likely to accept without a second thought such small additional dangers as the solitude imposes. Naturally, you are careful. You make darned sure that someone always knows where you are, and when you will be “out.” You leave broad margins of safety in everything you do: hurrying (or not hurrying) over rough country to make up time; crossing (or not crossing) the creek on that narrow log; inching past (or not inching past) that perilously perched boulder. And when it comes to the all-important matter of luck you keep firmly in mind the Persian proverb that I have already quoted “Fortune is infatuated with the efficient.”
But if you judge safety to be the paramount consideration in life you should never, under any circumstances, go on long hikes alone. Don’t take short hikes either—or, for that matter, go anywhere alone. And avoid at all costs such foolhardy activities as driving, falling in love or inhaling air that is almost certainly riddled with deadly germs. Wear wool next to the skin. Insure every good and chattel you possess against every conceivable contingency the future might bring, even if the premiums half-cripple the present. Never cross an intersection against a red light, even when you can see that all roads are clear for miles. And never, of course, explore the guts of an idea that seems as if it might threaten one of your more cherished beliefs. In your wisdom you will probably live to a ripe old age. But you may discover, just before you die, that you have been dead for a long, long time."

--Colin Fletcher, _The Complete Walker III_

I don't think it is a matter of safe vs. unsafe. It is certainly safer to hike with a companion than to hike alone, and a female hiking alone is less safe than a male. Of course if she has a Glock and a couple of spare mags maybe not so much!

Dangerous - as in lack of a backup to assist you if you break a leg, twist an ankle or some other injury? Dangerous as in the lack of having the extra person who can communicate with others if you have a problem? Dangerous as is solo hikers tend to be attacked by wildlife more often than small groups? Dangerous as if you are pinch locked in a crevasse and have to cut your arm off to get free? Yes, yes, yes, yes.... and yet NO.

As often as I go out solo on a hike, I've found that even on fairly remote trails, I usually see at least one other person out there who either passed me or we meet along the trail. In some very popular areas, you simply cannot get away from the others for too long (Mount Robson Berg Trail for example). I've never had a violent wildlife encounter even though I've seen plenty of wildlife up close and almost personal. I hike a lot in bear country - not the wussy little black bears but sizeable hungry grizzly bears. Had a lone wolf walk past my camp with not so much as a "how do you do?" And moose/elk that were just plain curious to see me out on the trail even the moose that I could have reached out and touched!

Do I worry about an injury? No, not worry, but at least I have some concerns. The most common type of injury or likelihood of me experiencing is a twisted/broken angle or a banged up knee! So I am a slow hiker, slower than most people because I like to enjoy nature. I can walk and sniff and listen and photograph and contemplate with much more efficiency and enjoyment than I ever could with partners or with a group. There are certain benefits of hiking alone, plus the knowledge of being self reliant that simply outweigh the negatives about being out by myself. The alone factor can be partially compensated for by having proper support equipment and first aid knowledge.

Not that I don't like company - no I really do. I enjoy group hiking as well and being able to chat, share the experience and snuggle up with a partner in a confined tent is also enjoyable. But I am not afraid of being alone or by myself in the least and in fact relish it.

When I hear people question the sanity of solo hiking I really question whether their concern is for the lack of a safety cushion or the fact that the person is by themselves? Are they themselves afraid of independence and being alone and is that the real reason why they question the sanity of solo hiking? Is it because they themselves have never been alone much less camped/hiked alone that is driving their understanding of a soloist? Before one can criticize hiking alone, "walk a mile in my shoes" in the most literal of senses.

As for this particular gal who was out on a day hike by herself - more power to her. Yes she made some mistakes but she also made some good decisions and kept her head. I hope she continues her quest for solo adventures. Female vs. male soloists - I would think we've matured past our sexist Tarzan attitudes haven't we? The dangers to a female in the woods are only marginally more dangerous than for a male, IF AT ALL. Women tend to me more conservative and are less at risk taking than men and therefore I think they are safer than most people give them credit for. Less likely for them to chose to boldly and blindly walk in circles and more likely to sit and pause for a while to figure out how to resolve being lost as one example.

Better to be the solo gal in the mentioned article than to be a dumbass like Bear Gryllis who has a backup team and sleeps in hotel rooms at night.

I almost mentioned this on the thread about the delayed hiker, but I was afraid it wasn't exactly on topic. Maybe it would fit better here.

I not only like to hike and canoe alone, but I also tell the people who know where I am not to call for rescue on the first day I'm missing. I would absolutely hate to be rescued unless I really, REALLY needed it. Worst of all would be to come walking out fit to find a rescue going on, like that girl did.

I like to explore when I go in the woods, and I always carry enough extra gear to spend the night if I have to. To me, the risk of getting lost and spending that night is just one of the hazards that I willfully accept. To tell the truth, I would feel embarassed to be rescued. I guess you could call it a "macho" thing, although I don't consider myself a particularly macho person. It's just that it would seem an insult to my judgment and woodcraft skills if anybody thought I needed to be rescued.

I realize it's kind of foolish in a way, since there are various kinds of emergencies that could happen that aren't my fault and that could kill me before the second day comes around. But it makes me feel more comfortable and makes my trips more pleasant - I don't rush to keep to any schedule or worry about a delay if something keeps me in one place for longer than I expected, or fret if I get lost. I guess I gain a little safety back by never hurrying and never making rushed decisions.

Does anybody else feel like that?

(Note: I'm not recommending this to others and I don't look down on people who do prefer to be rescued right away - and I'm always willing to help look for anybody that's overdue. This is just a personal preference that applies only to myself, and a few of my friends who I know feel the same.)

The most negative thing I have experienced due to hiking alone has been loneliness.

On the other hand, stay within your limits...and if the presence of another bothers you, stay out of its way.

Common sense is a good guide.


I am confident enough in my skills that I don't fear needing assistance.
I only wish to like people more so I can carry a more complete expeditionary "kit".
I really do like the team idea, but it is yet only a dream.

You beat me to it. :-)

Fletcher pretty well sums up my thoughts on the subject.

Walk softly and carry a big stick.

I say if you are comfortable out there and enjoy doing it, then go for it. Trust your gut.

from reading this first-hand account on another thread here - about the bear attack and escape - it makes me wonder whether two people, as opposed to the solo hiker in this case, would have fared as well. obviously the spray made the difference here. but w/o the spray, and two people? makes you wonder..

then again, when it comes to hiking with a buddy, i don't have to run faster than the bear, i just have to run faster than my hiking buddy!

Probably would have been the same, one guy would have survived

Is hiking alone safe? No. Is driving a car safe? No. Is walking into a school filled with germ-infested children safe? No.

It depends on what level of "un-safe-ness" you are willing to tolerate and still enjoy life.

I've been solo hiking for about 24 years now, I take extra gear and am a little more careful than when I'm with others. But I thought about it long ago, and would rather die alone in the middle of nowhere than in a bed surrounded by people. Of course I might think differently lying at the bottom of a ravine with a broken leg. :-)

Hiking alone is like any other experience that carries some measure of danger, one must do a little risk mitigation analysis.

List the obvious risks.

Apply a value to each. (breaking a leg carries a higher value than turning an ankle, as an example)

Assign a probability to each (meteor shower is less likely than a rain shower)

Multiply the risk value by the probability and you'll get a list of risks in a rank order of impact. You just need to mitigate those risks through training, equipment, practice, etc.

If you can mitigate the negative potential of the risk to the point of being comfortable for you, go for it.

There's no universal answer, of coure. But it will make you think ahead of time before you venture out. My guess is that the experienced solo hiker has done this sort of analysis, perhaps not even know that he or she was doing it.

Depends on what was going on in that bed. Might not be a bad way to go at all! ;-)