i don't think this question has a yes-or-no answer, but i'd like to know some of the varied thinking that you all carry around.

it's my contention that hiking with another person may or may not have a slight advantage over hiking solo.

i will assume that the solo hiker carries the necessary tools to stay out overnight.

i will assume that the solo hiker leaves with another person or two the who, what, where, and when of the day's planned hike.

i will assume the solo hiker travels and does not deviate from the planned hike.

as mentioned in another post, many misadventures carry immediate consequences - falls, drownings, extreme medical events (heart attacks, etc), animal encounters. not much can be done by another person or plb about those.

as an example, hiking with another they fall and have a serious head injury. do you go for help or stick around to keep the person safe and to keep predators away? how is either decision any better than the outcome for a solo hiker who suffers the same injury?

i'm thinking - perhaps incorrectly - if you are missed after not checking in, help should find you w/i 24 - 48 hrs. and that if none of the major events have occurred you will be rescued. cold, maybe. uncomfortable, maybe. hungry, maybe. but not dead.

your thoughts?