Yes
My opposition to bicycles in wilderness is not grounded on my wilderness experience. You made that up.
I often drink out of snowmelt streams, but I don't justify it as "enhancing my wilderness experience." You fabricated that attribution.
I don't think anyone has studied this in any formal manner. I have read comments from State, sheriff departments, SAR supervisors, and other emergency personnel that reflects both sides of this argument. I suppose everyone has their own take which seems logical at least to themselves. And the net effect might be a wash with some risking more and others becoming more conservative, though I doubt that is the case.
Seems like a good topic for some enterprising grad student to explore!
There are studies surrounding risk homeostasis as a whole though and man, that rabbit hole goes deep. I found this post surrounding avy beacons and airbags and whether or not they increase risk in the backcountry. The author cites some great studies that both support and refute the idea.
https://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog/26852
One study cited that I found really interesting is James Hedlund's "Risky business: safety regulations, risk compensation, and individual behavior" paper.
Avy Blog Post wrote:
He found that the amount of risk compensation that occurs with safety equipment depends on several criteria: visibility, effect, motivation and control. To paraphrase his criteria: safety equipment encourages more risky behavior when:
1) It reminds us regularly that we’re using it
2) We’re doing an activity where we’re motivated to increase risk by having more fun and/or gaining more utility.
3) We have control over our actions, for instance, a recreation setting instead of on the job where rules are inflexible.
Anecdote: I'm a backcountry splitboarder. I haven't always been, but years ago I purchased an avy beacon, probe, shovel, learned how to use the tools, took avy education classes to learn terrain, rescue, etc. and began to explore riskier places to snowboard. One could posit that because of my safety gear and training, I now take more risks. In this case, it seems to fall in to #2 and #3 up there. Interesting to think about.
edit: just saw joker's post about avy gear
MyCrookedPath.com
The light at the end of my tunnel is a police car.
0
MyCrookedPath.com
The light at the end of my tunnel is a police car.
Risk compensation is an interesting theory -- with proponents of the theory often citing that when various safety measures an enacted that the total number of fatalities doesn't go down -- However when measured by number of fatalities per mile traveled the trend is clearly down over the decades.
Evaluating the safety effect of gadgets in a objective manner is complex -- We have much greater awareness of when troubles arise now -- but less reliable data about the total number of people wandering around in the mountains.
To me it seems the true measure is the number of injuries/fatalities per person mile traveled in the mountains.
I'm certain that the raw numbers of "safety incidents" in the mountains now are more than in the '60s -- but the number people has also vastly increased.
It would be illuminating if we had some sort of meaningful measure of the number of person miles hiked per decade to objectively measure the rate at which people are being injured/killed in the mountains now vs prior decades.
I have NEVER used my inReach as a breadcrumb device
without it being used as a breadcrumb device, how would an InReach help in locating an incapacitated or dead solo traveller in the back country?
I have an Inreach SE. When I travel solo I put it in breadcrumb mode if I go off trail. If I'm on trail I just check in occasionally.
To claim it has no impact on the "experience" is just not true. Knowing that you are 2 full days of hiking and then 3-5 hours driving from a phone (Big Horns in WY in 1987) makes every single step you take a step in the no-fall zone. Zero room for error puts the mind on extreme high alert.
Like leading a rock climb as opposed to being top roped.
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.
I read that a couple years ago. It's a rational take, although I'm a bit bothered by his "Avalanche Fatalities by Avalanche Year Graph" with markers re the introduction of safety gear because - if viewed in isolation -- it's quite misleading. He tempers this:
braincloud wrote:
But to test the theory, it’s unfair to just look at the total number of fatalities because population in western resort communities has exploded in the past 40 years, plus, better equipment allows more people to easily access avalanche terrain. No one argues that there are many more people in avalanche terrain these days. The number we really want to know is avalanche fatalities per capita, or better yet, the number of fatalities per user day. Then, we would have a better idea whether riskier behavior diminishes the effectiveness of safety devices.
I would bet good money that the trend is towards fewer avalanche deaths per ski tourist and per miles traveled.
To claim it has no impact on the "experience" is just not true. Knowing that you are 2 full days of hiking and then 3-5 hours driving from a phone (Big Horns in WY in 1987) makes every single step you take a step in the no-fall zone. Zero room for error puts the mind on extreme high alert.
I am unpersuaded by this argument. Maybe carrying inReach makes you more careless, but I dispute that is the general rule. In 30+ years of mountain travel, whenever I've been exposed terrain, every step was no-fall zone whether or not I had a PLB or inReach.
I cannot imagine a climber thinking "Gee, I have a PLB in my pack therefore I'll be careless here." That makes no sense. Exposure requires focus. The last thing in an experienced climber's mind is what's in his pack.
As I said above, my routes have trended towards being more mellow since I got a PLB and, later, an inReach SE. Carrying those devices is part of a bigger trend towards being more cautious.
It seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who claim that safety devices make us less safe.
To claim it has no impact on the "experience" is just not true. Knowing that you are 2 full days of hiking and then 3-5 hours driving from a phone (Big Horns in WY in 1987) makes every single step you take a step in the no-fall zone. Zero room for error puts the mind on extreme high alert.
That's basically the "Tullock Spike" theory -- the idea that instead of seat belts that the government should mandate that a dagger be installed in the center of the steering wheel to ensure that drivers pay close attention to every move.
I have two troubles with this line of thinking:
1) The human brain can't maintain a "high alert" status indefinitely.
2) There are objective hazards in the mountains over which we have no control.
ETA: Additionally the idea that
coldrain108 wrote:
Knowing that you are 2 full days of hiking
should affect your risk taking behavior is questionable to me -- I know someone that stumbled in a London Tube station and struck their temple on the sharp edge of a marble bench with fatal results -- despite being in a huge city and close to a hospital.
So I think two days from the trailhead or at the trailhead -- you've got to watch your step. This is not a new idea.
Edward Whymper wrote:
Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are naught without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste, look well to each step, and from the beginning think what may be the end.
To claim it has no impact on the "experience" is just not true. Knowing that you are 2 full days of hiking and then 3-5 hours driving from a phone (Big Horns in WY in 1987) makes every single step you take a step in the no-fall zone. Zero room for error puts the mind on extreme high alert.
Here are some things I know, as the owner of a PLB:
* It could fail, like any electronic device.
* Tomorrow is the soonest I can reasonably hope for anyone to arrive if I press the button.
* There may be scenarios where I can't press the button, if I get separated from my gear or break my hands
* I'm not completely stupid, and am averse to pain
So no, I don't go playing jump off the cliff and poke the bear because I have a beacon.
How does that idea make sense to anybody?
2) There are objective hazards in the mountains over which we have no control
yes this is true, but knowing that fact and knowing that no matter what happens you will have to deal with the all circumstances yourself, no emergency help is coming, changes the mind set. That is what I said. That change in mind set changes the experience. No value placed, just a statement.
In the example I gave, every single step was "exposed" travel, just a statement that the experience is different. Like saying the experience wasn't different in 1920 w/o any modern gear, when of course it was.
And really we are talking about hikers here, not climbers. They are playing a different game with much higher risks and much higher acceptances of those risks. To conflate the two is not really useful, climbing is not the gold standard that hikers should be striving to emulate, far from it...and part of the issue with people getting in over their heads trying to be a big stud instead of just a pleasure hiker...which is what I am these days.
I think that repeat reckless drivers should have their seat belts removed and airbags disabled.
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.
Yeah. When I get home, my wife is in a good mood because she didn't worry about me because I checked in with my SPOT. The anticipation changed my wilderness experience.
Seriously guys, lighten up.
Not keeping up with/being scared of new technology is not a good look for anyone.
So this whole thing is a fashion statement! I'd buy that.
Anyone who is not terrified of the world technology may soon bring us to isn't paying attention. It seems like the purpose of humanity is to replace itself with something "better" - more efficient, stronger, smarter. Less and less does the drive for survival require us to think, plan, and build skills. Now the one percent can afford to subscribe to a proprietary satellite network that can pluck us out of danger at the press of a button. How many people in countries torn by war, corruption, and economic disaster would love to have that! We groom the egos of the individual ants, not noticing or caring that the colonies around us are being destroyed by an unconscious but merciless external force with us as its next target. Whatever damage it does to our subconscious can be repaired by some carefully supervised forest bathing.
The reality is I'll probably be investing in a PLB in the near future and will then forever sing its praises, just like I recently became a smartphone convert and advocate. But I'm not happy about it. The robots will win, for they are ultimately a force of nature - but not without a fight.
Any good deals going on right now?
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).
There are studies surrounding risk homeostasis as a whole though and man, that rabbit hole goes deep. I found this post surrounding avy beacons and airbags and whether or not they increase risk in the backcountry. The author cites some great studies that both support and refute the idea.
