Safety gear conundrum.

[Neil]

Ever noticed lots of people on the trail with very small packs and less than appropriate clothing? I used to wonder what their secret was, considering I eschew overnight gear almost all the time and still seem to have a huge pack compared to them.

The difference might be that they only go on a couple of hikes per year and therefore the probability of being in an emergency situation is much lower than someone who goes out 25-50 times a year or more.

This seems like a paradox: the more experienced you are, the more you go out. Therefore the more likely it is that something untoward will eventually happen to you. As a result it behooves you to carry a heavy pack with sufficient gear to deal with the various case scenarios that you read about.

But, the heavier your pack the more likely you are to get injured or become benighted. What happens when you take this to the extreme? Do you stay home and increase your odds of coming down with vascular disease?

 

[Little Rickie]

Ever noticed lots of people

Are fat smokers and live a long life while healthy people die of heart disease and cancer?

It's befuddling. That is the paradox.

Do you stay home

No you live life and take what it gives you.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

This seems like a paradox: the more experienced you are, the more you go out. Therefore the more likely it is that something untoward will eventually happen to you. As a result it behooves you to carry a heavy pack with sufficient gear to deal with the various case scenarios that you read about.

I sometimes carry items which I needed in a previous jam which I've wished I'd had but didn't, only to find that I've not been in that particular jam since (yet), and have not used that item, so ... one of life's conundrums.

 

[DougPaul]

The difference might be that they only go on a couple of hikes per year and therefore the probability of being in an emergency situation is much lower than someone who goes out 25-50 times a year or more.

But the probability of an emergency per hike is probably greater.

I think it is more an issue of serious hikers think about these issues, realize that they may be involved in an emergency, and prepare for it. In contrast, causal hikers often don't think about such issues, may not realize that the weather is worse up high, it gets dark at night, etc.

Anecdote: I invited a friend (not a serious hiker) on a hike of Franconia Ridge. When I listed gear such as rain gear, her response was "Why be so pessimistic?"...

This seems like a paradox: the more experienced you are, the more you go out. Therefore the more likely it is that something untoward will eventually happen to you. As a result it behooves you to carry a heavy pack with sufficient gear to deal with the various case scenarios that you read about.

But, the heavier your pack the more likely you are to get injured or become benighted. What happens when you take this to the extreme? Do you stay home and increase your odds of coming down with vascular disease?

Not really a paradox.
total_risk=number_of_exposures * risk_per_exposure

Since the total risk is higher among those who go out often, such people pay attention to the issue. And weight penalty vs having the gear available is a trade-off. Anyone who thinks about it seriously tries to find a good point on the trade-off. (And that "good point" is highly subjective.)

Doug

 

[Craig]

It’s about risk/reward

There is a theory that folks accept a curtain level of risk.

If the risk is perceived as being less than the accepted level, folks will take more risks.
If the risk is perceived as being more than the accepted level, folks will take less risk.

This is to maintain their risk tolerance reward.

Some may even say that flowery conditions reports contribute to riskier behavior.

 

[DougPaul]

There is a theory that folks accept a curtain level of risk.

If the risk is perceived as being less than the accepted level, folks will take more risks.
If the risk is perceived as being more than the accepted level, folks will take less risk.

This is to maintain their risk tolerance reward.

Some may even say that flowery conditions reports contribute to riskier behavior.

And competition tends to push people toward riskier behavior.

Doug

 

[Little Rickie]

There is a theory that folks accept a curtain level of risk.

If the risk is perceived as being less than the accepted level, folks will take more risks.
If the risk is perceived as being more than the accepted level, folks will take less risk.

This is to maintain their risk tolerance reward.

.

Absolutely! Just do what you're comfortable doing. Have fun.

Some may even say that flowery conditions reports contribute to riskier behavior

People do that!

 

[TCD]

Another factor that is a big contributor to risky behavior, especially in men, is showing off. As in "I don't need to carry a (fill in the blank). What are you, a sissy?" (Or whatever term is used in the local dialect, such as "pussy," "sally," "nancy" or "pansy".)

 

[adkayaker]

This has a similar parallel to the kayaking groups I have gone out with on big water day trips. (think Lake George or Champlain) The casual kayaker typically doesn't use a sprayskirt, leave alone a PFD, and usually has limited gear. The experienced kayaking enthusiasts load up boats with VHF radios, smoke and mirrors, towing ropes, extra clothes, bivy, mega-first aid kits, tents, spare paddles, water filter. All these extras don't make paddling more risky but surely slow down the boat! But I've seen a need for this stuff many times. My own paddle broke on one trip.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Some may even say that flowery conditions reports contribute to riskier behavior.

That's an interesting one, to be sure. Reading reports of the exact same hike on the exact same day by different parties really shows how differently we interpret terms like; long, hard, difficult, cold, steep, dangerous, impassible, impossible, etc.

To some extent, we all have our own Separate Realities, and none of them are "wrong", just vastly different interpretations rooted in our own experiences, beliefs, strengths, and weaknesses.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Another factor that is a big contributor to risky behavior, especially in men, is showing off. As in "I don't need to carry a (fill in the blank). What are you, a sissy?" (Or whatever term is used in the local dialect, such as "pussy," "sally," "nancy" or "pansy".)

Paging IceNSnow...

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Another factor that is a big contributor to risky behavior, especially in men, is showing off. As in "I don't need to carry a (fill in the blank). What are you, a sissy?" (Or whatever term is used in the local dialect, such as "pussy," "sally," "nancy" or "pansy".)

Yup. One of my friends broke an anke, another a wrist, as in "we don't need no stinkin' crampons!".

 

[Neil]

Lets say the probability of having an an accident requiring evacuation assitance is .001. For someone who hikes twice a year for 10 years p=.02 for the entire the decade.

For someone hiking 25 times a year for 10 years p=.25. If they hike for 20 years p=.5.

But I think p=.00001, which puts p at .05 for the regular hiker, which is still pretty high.

Also, the frequent hiker will tend to go out in all sorts of conditions and on more adventurous , higher risk hikes, which more than off-sets the advantages conferred upon him by his experience and fitness.

All this tells us is that if you hike 25 times a year then you can leave all the gear at home twice with no risk.

 

[cbcbd]

Oh the numbers...
What about throwing in the lessened probability of catching yourself in a bad situation because over time you learn how to make better decisions regarding your outdoor plans. Big difference if everytime I head out (out of my 25) it's into a storm, -40 temps and I start all my programs at noon vs picking the better weather days, reasonable programs for that day, and getting a good early start to prevent being stuck in the dark.

I would hope that with experience one would learn to minimize risk out there and plan for success - my last two trips these past weeks I decided we turn back because of unexpected slow conditions and realizing we wouldn't have enough time for our intended plan. I might have chosen differently a couple years ago with less experience, putting me in a crappy situation with greater risk of injury, benighting, fatigue, etc.

You know it's not the best day to be out there when even the locals aren't out.

This seems like a paradox: the more experienced you are, the more you go out. Therefore the more likely it is that something untoward will eventually happen to you. As a result it behooves you to carry a heavy pack with sufficient gear to deal with the various case scenarios that you read about.

If you read Ed Viesturs' No Shortcuts to the Top and David Roberts' On The Ridge Between Life and Death you will see some well-mannered banter in Ed's book between both authors (Roberts helped Ed with his book) regarding the subject of probability in the mountains. Roberts, probably trying to justify to himself why he is not climbing hard mega routes anymore, goes with the view that eventually your number will come up simply based on the numbers. Ed fights this, with more numbers, but in reality the game each of them play is completely different and Ed just seems like an extremely cautious, smart, experienced, and risk-averse guy - just watch Vertical Limit and you'll see

Btw, Ed leaves his pack on the col, the South Col

 

[sardog1]

it's fairly well-documented that the people (I really should say guys in this instance) who are most likely to be caught in an avalanche are the people with very substantial backcountry experience. And yes, it is bound up with risk taking and the ways in which we fool ourselves into thinking we know more than we actually do about any number of subjects.

 

[paul ron]

Perhaps we have it all wrong, the people you are seeing with small packs know what they are doing. They once did exactly what you are doing till they finally realized thier mistake. They are depending on you to carry everything they might need in an emergency. Of course, you will stop n help a needy hiker in trouble?

 

[Craig]

That's an interesting one, to be sure. Reading reports of the exact same hike on the exact same day by different parties really shows how differently we interpret terms like; long, hard, difficult, cold, steep, dangerous, impassible, impossible, etc.

To some extent, we all have our own Separate Realities, and none of them are "wrong", just vastly different interpretations rooted in our own experiences, beliefs, strengths, and weaknesses.

Perhaps we should explore this a little more.

Lets say:

That there is something to this Risk Homeostasis. Lets say that if someone perceives the activity as less risky then they will take more risk.

Now lets say we have this Trip Report:

It was a wonderful day full of sunshine and good cheer on the lovely stroll in/out of Owls Head. We took the multiple bushwhack routes afforded us through this lovely terrain. We held hands the whole way and there were many hugs and kisses. Look at these pictures showing us frolicking through the woods, gay and happy.

Folks that are reading this trip report may perceive this hike as a fairly low risk endeavor.
Because they feel it is low risk, based upon the latest trip report, they may decide to take more risk, i.e. take less food, water, clothing, traction etc.

Risk/Reward – The individual is taking a greater risk to reap the reward of a lighter load and a more pleasant stroll.

Don't misunderstand, this is not dis-ing anyone. Just something to think about.

 

[Maddy]

Perhaps we have it all wrong, the people you are seeing with small packs know what they are doing. They once did exactly what you are doing till they finally realized thier mistake. They are depending on you to carry everything they might need in an emergency. Of course, you will stop n help a needy hiker in trouble?

I would stop, lend a hand as best I could, but would apply the "two victim" rule. One of the SAR folks on the boards cleared this up for me during our last discussion on this very topic.
What you want to avoid is to give all your gear to the victim, go running off to get help, sustain an injury,get lost, fall in tree well, etc. and have nothing available to save your own bacon.
I always believed that doing that would be very selfish, but once it was explained it made perfect sense. Being in a caring profession, we always want to save everyone, but we must come to terms with the fact that this is not always the wisest course of action.

 

[John H Swanson]

I would stop, lend a hand as best I could, but would apply the "two victim" rule. One of the SAR folks on the boards cleared this up for me during our last discussion on this very topic.
What you want to avoid is to give all your gear to the victim, go running off to get help, sustain an injury,get lost, fall in tree well, etc. and have nothing available to save your own bacon.
I always believed that doing that would be very selfish, but once it was explained it made perfect sense. Being in a caring profession, we always want to save everyone, but we must come to terms with the fact that this is not always the wisest course of action.

I carry a large garage bag as a give away for this purpose.
Cheap so I won't even hesitiate to pull it out if it is needed.
Quite effective - probably one ofthe most efficient items in reducing heat loss.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

My pack for winter dayhikes has become smaller (15-20 pounds) with time and I accept that a forced bivi will be a miserable, stand-up, stay-awake, all-night affair if or when it happens. But, I feel that I am at less risk with a smaller pack, as I can move more quickly and am more sure-footed.

On one of my solo hikes in the Presi's this February, I encountered another solo hiker with a 60+ pound pack post-holing his way north on the west side of Clay. He had lost a pin for a MSR snowshoe binding, which I was able to replace for him (I carry a couple extras of these with me, as they weigh only a few grams). I also showed him where he was located on a map, as he carried neither map nor compass, but planned to camp "somewhere north of Jefferson". I never heard a SAR report for this guy, so I surmise that he survived. However, the extra time that I took helping him with his snowshoe binding resulted in almost losing my cached stuff sack at the top of Jewell Trail (my "pack" at the col) on my return from Jefferson. Two skiers had "collected" it (despite seeing my name and note that "my life depends on this cache"); they had already transferred the water from my only bottle into one of theirs, repacked my pair of crampons, and stuffed my remaining gear into their packs.