Not really, Chief, it's pretty well established scientific fact that technological illiteracy leads to cultural and economic divisions between those who understand and adapt to new technology and those who either through anti-intellectualism or financial inability find themselves not keeping pace.
Sometimes I wonder what people prefer "disconnecting" from more, their technology or the modern world's stubborn insistence that we think critically.
I do a lot of solo trips, and always carry an InReach. Although I've found it to be dependable, I generally assume it would fail if I needed to summon help. In other words, rather that placing trust in the device, I factor it out of my risk assessment, and act as if I DON'T have it. If it works, great, but I am not counting on being able to get a message out.
I don't know that this results in any real difference in my behavior: regardless of what safety gear I am carrying, I really don't want to get caught in a slide/take an unprotected fall/drown/burn to death/get mauled by a cougar/get hit by rockfall/etc.
As the aphorism states, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I think that applies to backcountry travel as well. That is where our emphasis should be placed and remain. I am not against people choosing to carry any of these emergency devices, but that is no substitute for learning the skills required for safe travel in the backcountry. And if one decides not to carry one of these electronic emergency signalling devices, that is OK as well. In either case, the ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure.
As I mentioned earlier, to my knowledge there have been no good studies about the net effect of carrying or not these devices. Conclusions have been reached based solely on personal opinion.
My experience has led me to continue to emphasize the prevention side of things. Looking at accidents in the backcountry, it is evident most of the root causes are poor decisions and/or skills. Yes, sometimes things happen that are completely beyond anticipation or avoidance, but those are relatively rare. Most of the time it is human error.
Personally when I go into the backcountry now, I am more cautious for several reason. I do rely on my past experience and skills to help keep me safe and make good decisions. I don't like checking in, even if it is turning on the breadcrumb feature each morning and hitting the I'm OK signal or whatever each evening. To me this is not a Luddite attitude towards technology but a backcountry aesthetic. If that seems trivial to others, so be it. It means a lot to me.
Rumi
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
0
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Not really, Chief, it's pretty well established scientific fact that technological illiteracy leads to cultural and economic divisions between those who understand and adapt to new technology and those who either through anti-intellectualism or financial inability find themselves not keeping pace.
Sometimes I wonder what people prefer "disconnecting" from more, their technology or the modern world's stubborn insistence that we think critically.
Tell that to Dick Proenneke...just because someone CHOOSES to not embrace and use all these new electronic gadgets does not imo make them ""anti-intellectual".
So, someone is "wrong" if they choose to drive a classic car without modern safety devices?
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
0
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
So, someone is "wrong" if they choose to drive a classic car without modern safety devices?
No one is saying that -- it's their choice. I think where there is a difference of opinion is with the assertion that driving for example a 1967 VW Bug is safer than a 2018 Honda Accord because your attention will be 100% focused all the time because you know you are in a death trap.
As far as the idea about risk compensation and other factors relating to unintended consequences, here is a video which look into a situation which upon first glance seems simple but is filled with nuances that are surprising. Since the effects of these electronic devices we are discussing here are not researched as far as I know, this video might be informative about possible repercussions.
Rumi
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
0
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
I am not against people choosing to carry any of these emergency devices, but that is no substitute for learning the skills required for safe travel in the backcountry.
Nobody ever suggested that. You've constructed a strawman argument.
I am not against people choosing to carry any of these emergency devices, but that is no substitute for learning the skills required for safe travel in the backcountry.
Nobody ever suggested that. You've constructed a strawman argument.
Dude, I ain't even constructing an argument, just making a statement. People telling me I "owe" it to my family and SAR to carry an electronic tether have the burden to demonstrate that is valid.
But to be clear, there are a lot out there in the backcountry who have almost no experience or skills but depend on inReach or SPOT as a sort of Ace-In-The-Hole to keep themselves safe. And many of those have no interest in even learning the skills to be safe in the wilderness.
Rumi
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
0
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
driving for example a 1967 VW Bug is safer than a 2018 Honda Accord because your attention will be 100% focused all the time because you know you are in a death trap
driving for example a 1967 VW Bug is safer than a 2018 Honda Accord because your attention will be 100% focused all the time because you know you are in a death trap
Nailed it, thank you!
Who cares? Good that his comment makes you feel somehow validated, but it still doesn't change my OPINION and my CHOICE to not purchase one of these items, but by all means, carry on.
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
0
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
People telling me I "owe" it to my family and SAR to carry an electronic tether have the burden to demonstrate that is valid.
I'm not sure who these people are. I can't speak for others, but I merely stated that carrying one of those devices is helpful for your family and for SAR, not for you necessarily. Nowhere did I see it stated by anyone in this discussion that you owe anything to anyone. Those are two very different things.
RumiDude wrote:
But to be clear, there are a lot out there in the backcountry who have almost no experience or skills but depend on inReach or SPOT as a sort of Ace-In-The-Hole to keep themselves safe.
I have seen no evidence of this, either presented in this or other threads, or through personal experience. In fact, a number of people in this thread have presented evidence to the contrary. So... what's your evidence for that assertion?
ETA: there are many inexperienced people that have the expectation of instant response/rescue, but this is not at all a new thing, and it is not associated with having an inReach, PLB, or SPOT. In fact less so as many of them don't even know those devices exist. That certainly speaks to your point about people expecting someone else to be responsible for their safety, but it has absolutely nothing to do with satellite communicators.
PLAY SAFE! SKI ONLY IN CLOCKWISE DIRECTION! LET'S ALL HAVE FUN TOGETHER!
0
PLAY SAFE! SKI ONLY IN CLOCKWISE DIRECTION! LET'S ALL HAVE FUN TOGETHER!
it's pretty well established scientific fact that technological illiteracy leads to cultural and economic divisions between those who understand and adapt to new technology and those who either through anti-intellectualism or financial inability find themselves not keeping pace.
I get the cultural and (possible) economic division. But saying that financial inability or lack of intellect are the reasons for not adapting to new technology seems a stretch. I know plenty of technologically literate people who demonstrate a lack of intellect in many other areas of academia and life.
I think where there is a difference of opinion is with the assertion that driving for example a 1967 VW Bug is safer than a 2018 Honda Accord because your attention will be 100% focused all the time because you know you are in a death trap.
If the person driving the death trap goes 55 because they know they are driving a death trap, while the person in the vehicle with airbags all around goes 95 due to over confidence in said safety devices, then yes the old jalopy driver would be safer...especially to the rest of us on the road.
Since I have no expectations of forgiveness, I don't do it in the first place. That loop hole needs to be closed to everyone.
0
Since I have no expectations of forgiveness, I don't do it in the first place. That loop hole needs to be closed to everyone.
Question.
I read the BPL review last night for the InReach Mini. They said clearly a few times that you need a subscription to press the SOS button. Is that really true?
I'm wondering about a situation where it winds up being useful 9 or 10 months out of the year. Would they really ignore a distress call if your service wasn't active that month? (Or is it such that it wouldn't go out in the first place?)
I'm still deciding whether to replace the battery in my PLB or to get something new. I'd probably get an annual subscription if I went that route, but, still, does anybody know?
ETA: there are many inexperienced people that have the expectation of instant response/rescue, but this is not at all a new thing, and it is not associated with having an inReach, PLB, or SPOT. In fact less so as many of them don't even know those devices exist. That certainly speaks to your point about people expecting someone else to be responsible for their safety, but it has absolutely nothing to do with satellite communicators.
These are generally the people who think their phone will work anywhere. I have coworkers who are still shocked they can't surf the mini web on their phones at Big Four.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s).
