I imagine hiking alone is a lot safer than driving down the average freeway. It's just that hiking, since it's in a "wild" place is a associated with danger.

Having said that, I think it's generally safer to hike in groups of two or more. If I get in a jam, I'd for dang sure want other people to be there.

I fell and broke my rt. femur in the Canadian backcountry in 2001. I was well equipped and well prepared. I went into shock, didn't think straight, and was just sitting there. Thank God that there were other people. Someone said, "hey, Jim, maybe you should put your extra clothes on to stay warm." I was so out of it that I hadn't thought of putting on my extra clothing even though it was -9C out at the time.

All of my survival thinking is usually based on the assumption that my brain will be functioning in a rational fashion. Given injury, hypo, or hyper thermia, rational thinking is a poor assumption. It's safer to go with someone else.

Still, I do go out hiking alone once in a while. Risk can be mitigated as mentioned in other posts in this thread and by:
1. Sticking to trails
2. Going out in decent conditions
3. Staying in more popular areas

Of course, I love going out in the snow, doing cross country routes, and getting away from it all, but the more one goes toward the more adventurous, the more risk one assumes. You'd better know what you're getting in to.

Personally, I don't think that solo hiking is an automatic "no, no" but rather is something to be done judiciously. I particularly object to the line of thinking that when something bad happens to someone who was out solo that they somehow deserved it since they were out alone. I don't buy it that anyone who goes out alone is a complete idiot. Read the writings of John Muir some time. Are these beautiful poetic passages the musings of an idiot? I think not.

HJ