"Solo Hiker" Syndrome

[catbirdseat]

I'm reading a book about accidental death in Grand Canyon National Park. The author made note of the fact that a greater proportion of those who die in the park are what he terms solo hikers. He asserts that without a partner to act as the "voice of reason", people are more likely to make rash decisions. For example, if you started to go down a really steep downclimb, your partner might say, "dude, that looks really sketch", and you might change your mind and look for a different way down.

 

So assuming that solo climbers or hikers are indeed taking greater risks and making poorer decisions, then the question I have is whether the greater risk is from being solo per se, that is lack of a partner, or are you more more likely to be a risk taker to start with?

 

I think that with experience soloists can develop the same good judgement that is excercised in groups. Look at guys like Colin. It just seems like it would take more mental discipline sometimes to stop and consider things rather than just do it.

[selkirk]

An interesing side bar is that groups don't always make better decisions. With increases in group size the dynamics of the group can lead to riskier behaviour. As memory serves the optimal size is something like parties of 2 or 3.

 

Too many people can lead to too large a percieved loss of face for backing down (at least for guys).

 

My impression is that people who are thoughtful, focused and very aware are probably just fine doing solo stuff, though it certainly is inherently more risky than small parties. For the inexperienced/deluded/unthinking that voice of reason by others may be the only thing that keeps them alive.

 

Speaking of which did anybody read the article in the last Alpinist about the moron who unbuckled his harness from 15 ft off the deck, immediately after taking a 40 ft sans gear and having a miraculous rope snag. I feel sorry for the guy, but some people are too dumb to climb.

[thelawgoddess]

He asserts that without a partner to act as the "voice of reason", people are more likely to make rash decisions.

well, if your own voice lacks reason then this is likely the case, but his statement isn't going to apply to everybody. i think it really depends on the person. some people will make the same decisions alone or with others -- good or bad; whereas some people are more likely to go with the status quo when not alone -- good or bad. i know that for myself, when i am "solo" i am much more aware of what's going on around me and what i am doing.

[Kitergal]

Yup..I agree with TLG. I'm actually some-what wussie when I'm by myself. But with others I act all brave and strong. I'm definately less of a risk taker when I'm solo.

[chucK]

The obvious reason solo hiking is related to higher mortality is because death is more likely in many mishaps that one might otherwise survive if accompanied For example, if you're with a competent partner you probably won't die from an immobilizing injury (broken leg, arm trapped under boulder, inadvertent straying into terrain that requires assistance to get out of) whereas if you were alone, this complication is much more serious. Other reasons for safety in numbers too: less likely both people will have forgotten their water, strength in numbers versus backwoods psychopathic red-staters or animals, more?

 

So anyway, it seems obvious to me that solo-hiking is associated with greater mortality because of the inherently increased exposure, not because there is some siren of soloists beckoning them to do stupid stuff.

 

I guess you could make a better judgement if you had a tabulation of the causes of death for soloists versus group-burdened unfortunates.

 

p.s. From the title I thought this thread was going to be about those solo thru-hikers who glom onto you in the wilderness and won't shut up because they're so starved for human interaction.

Edited June 21, 2005 by chucK

[Dr_Crash]

Groups are not necessarily better as far as risk taking goes. This is an intro article to human factors in avalanche accidents. There is more and more data pointing to human being the main risk in avalanche fatalities (in most accidents, at least 2 or 3 objective warning signs were present and not taken as the clues they were to the danger).

 

Once the accident happens, groups are definitely at an advantage as far as self-rescue goes...

 

drC

[Alpinfox]

 

p.s. From the title I thought this thread was going to be about those solo thru-hikers who glom onto you in the wilderness and won't shut up because they're so starved for human interaction.

 

Have you read "A Walk In The Woods" by Bill Bryson?

[cj001f]

So anyway, it seems obvious to me that solo-hiking is associated with greater mortality because of the inherently increased exposure, not because there is some siren of soloists beckoning them to do stupid stuff.

 

Then there are datapoints like Fred Frauens(and others like him) who do go out and do stupid things.

[catbirdseat]

Have you read "A Walk In The Woods" by Bill Bryson?

It was the funniest book I have ever read.

[ashw_justin]

He asserts that without a partner to act as the "voice of reason", people are more likely to make rash decisions.

 

He's obviously never been on a hike with any of my partners or probably the majority of cc.comers. I do WAY more stupid things when there are other people around.

[barjor]

"Hold my beer and watch this"

If I don't have anyone to hold my beer I will not do anything stupid. I think his conclusions are wrong. My opinions are in line with chucK.

Edited June 21, 2005 by barjor

[knelson]

I was traversing a talus slope one time, on a quasi-trail, when one rock wasn't quite as stable as it appeared. We've all been there... you start surfing that one rock, hopping to the next rock which begins to slide, etc etc etc. By the time I got to stable ground and emptied my shorts (after removing my polypro) I realized that while the injury I almost sustained (broken leg or ankle) wouldn't have killed me, the exposure while trying to get to civilization or waiting for someone to report me overdue, might have. It's not like that was a revelation to me or anything - but it was definitely brought in focus.

 

So... another vote for chucK's thoughts. It's the "what happens after the accident" that is the major contributor I think.

[catbirdseat]

In the context of the Grand Canyon, we're talking about falling usually 200 ft off a cliff and sometimes 1000 ft. So it comes down to avoiding a 100% fatal fall, not surviving one with aid of a partner.

[chucK]

Well if that's really all that kills solo hikers in the Grand Canyon, I'm quite surprised... Nevertheless, if we restrict ourselves to this scenario, I would posit that many people who fall off of 200-1000 foot cliff in the Grand Canyon might have actually been saved if they had a partner with them.

 

Specific example which probably describes a large percentage of falling fatalities: many times you can accidentally get yourself in a bad situation by climbing up or down to someplace from which it is difficult to reverse your course (I did this twice just the other day while on a solo outing ). If you are with somebody else, then they can help you out of your jam, possibly by calling in the cavalry. If you are alone, you're already dead if you just sit there and expire due to exposure so you may be more likely to attempt to climb out, and fail. The record will only show a falling fatality.

 

I don't think this is voluntarily taking a bigger risk.

 

Now I guess there is some moderating factor of a big group of people. The risk-taking behavior of single people is much more variable, while a big group may have the lowest common denominator effect. Probbably not though when it comes to parties composed of both genders trying to impress each other .

[Alpine_Tom]

One of the big drawbacks to soloing is the lack of a sanity check – often I’ll wimp out when I’m by myself, but sometimes I’ll make a stupid decision and keep going when a prudent partner might say “are you sure you want to be doing this?” There have been a couple of really irresponsible decisions I’ve made that really I had no business surviving.

But I suspect the biggest reason that solo hikers die more frequently is that there’s no one to go for help, provide first aid, or help the injured hiker out. After all, you may be no more likely to fall into a crevasse unroped than roped up, but the consequences are much greater.

[Couloir]

Interesting topic given this ongoing John Zazzara incident.

Edited June 21, 2005 by Couloir

[Paul_K]

If you are looking at people hiking at the Grand Canyon you are probably looking at a high percentage of inexperienced people who are unaware of objective hazards.

 

Go up to the Big Four Ice Caves some sunny summer weekend and you will see lots of carnage from people who have no clue about the hazards of steep hard snow. One time I was up there and watched a mother and a couple of young kids in tennis shoes start off traversing a 25% hard snow slope. There route would have taken them above a long twenty foot deep moat filled with sharp rocks. If they had continued on I'm sure at least some of them would have slipped and fallen in. I talked her out of it.

[fishstick]

I think I'm probably safer on solo trips. I'll argue that the bigger the group, the harder it is to make decisions. The ability to make an accurate, timely decision is critical in dynamic environments (mtns) where weather, temperature, snow, etc are always changing. Another factor associated with groups is ego. "I" don't want to be the one who pulls the pin (in a group) due to lack of courage or an over active spidey sense. Finally, when I'm travelling solo, I tend to travel faster. When travelling in groups I'll be quick for bursts, but solo I'm able to pace myself so that it might be hours between breaks of any sort. I'm more likely up and out of there before the slopes cut lose. Finally, especially on ice, my brain is simply bolted on harder when alone. Less noise. More focus. Usually.

 

Otherwise I simply wander home without a care in the world.

 

GB

[catbirdseat]

Another remark made by the author is that the Canyon is the reverse of a mountain. When people climb a mountain and going get's tough, they turn around and go down hill. It is easier to retreat than it is to go on. In the Grand Canyon, it's easy going down, so people don't have a clue how hard it is to hike back out until they reach the bottom and turn around.

[Dru]

Dear cbs

 

Maybe you should go for a solo hike!

[Ducknut]

Have you read "A Walk In The Woods" by Bill Bryson?

It was the funniest book I have ever read.

 

It was one of the stupidest books about being outdoors I have read, although it was funny. I was surprised that Bryson or his brother in law lasted 1 day.

[catbirdseat]

Dear cbs

 

Maybe you should go for a solo hike!

Dru, that is not very nice.

[chirp]

Is that the book about various deaths in the Grand Canyon? If so thats a great read!

[layton]

i had to carry someone out of the canyon over my shoulder until i found help when i visited it back in '95. i know what ya mean.

 

group mentality can also be a source of trouble though!

[catbirdseat]

Speaking of solo hikers, I was wondering when you'd weigh in, Michael.

 

Last night I read about some boyscouts who picked the hottest day of the year to hike to Phantom Ranch and back in one day carrying only 1 gallon of water each, lead by a 71 year old man on an expert only route that only he had done years before and almost died on that trip.

 

Only one of the boys made it to the river where he was able to carry water back to some of the others and then flag down a group of rafters. In the end one of them died and several others were helicoptered to the hospital.

 

Had they all been successful in reaching the river, it is almost certain that all of them would have died on the return trip.