Hacker News Reader

Comment by grumple | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sold on this guy's conviction. I know the internet loves seeing people punished, but this guy needed his life saved.

I've been hiking plenty, and these mistakes he made are very common (except for going 50 miles off to start... that's wild). Rarely do we bring lighting or GPS beyond our phones. We never bring enough water. Trails are often overgrown and it's tough to tell where one begins and another ends, sometimes you end up on the wrong trail for a bit. Trail ratings are often off. Even on easy trails, a misstep can mean serious injury or death. It is a much more dangerous activity than most think.

I'm glad he didn't end up as another dead hiker.

View on HN

You never bring enough water?

Is hyperbole something nobody on HN can understand? Are we really so tech brained?

I apologize, never was a gross exaggeration. I almost always bring enough water. But then there are times you don't... I've obviously never misstepped enough to die or suffer serious dehydration. But for safety you'd need far more than enough, right? If you go off trail suddenly enough becomes half what you need. Or you get hurt and can't move well. This is where the water typically becomes not nearly enough.

you think you bring enough water, and then you find out oh damn.

Not a mistake I can see a hiker regularly making. It's like a driver who regularly runs out of gas and is stranded on the freeway every week. Something is really wrong with their self-assessments if this is an activity they've done "plenty of times."

If you're really that bad at estimating water needs bring 2x as much as you think, dump out the extra half way into the hike.

I agree that it's not a regular mistake, and I sort of think that the context of the comment we never bring enough water was hyperbole, but it's I think a common enough mistake WHEN things turn problematic to find out oh damn, I don't have enough water for this problematic situation.

Had more than enough for things going good, not enough now.

Water is heavy, people don’t want to bring 2x the water they need on a 14 mile hike.

I'm sorry that attempting to not enter a survival situation is considered too hard.

This is the attitude that causes people to burn down forests in panic mode.

If you're constantly out of water on trail, I heavily recommend taking up another hobby, like crocheting.

The amount of water required for a 17 mile easy/moderate hike and an 18 mile or more much harder hike that includes getting lost may be quite different.

Tone is not really necessary, I am mostly arguing with the point that it is not a common mistake. It is pretty obvious if you run out of water that it is a mistake.

In the article, it says it is a mistake a hiker regularly makes.

I go hiking 50+ times a year and never have found myself with too little water. For longer trips I'll bring a filter. There's really no excuse here.

water is heavy, and I'm usually planning to gather some on the trail (small streams and whatnot). But I'm not hiking in deserts, so...

I'm going to disagree here. He started a signal fire which he left unattended in the desert which ignited a 230-acre blaze. Hiking in the desert is quite dangerous and his actions could have easily endangered others. He's lucky that no one else died as a result of his actions and I can easily see why this kind of penalty would be made in this case.

It was "100°F and bone-dry", according to the article. He had no chance of putting the fire out. And he would have died if he hadn't started the fire.

We don't typically punish people so harshly when they damage property out of carelessness. This punishment also doesn't work as deterrence. This guy thought he was prepared, after all. He packed an axe and other junk, but that won't do you any good if you lack basic navigation skills. This guy didn't intend to do something immensely stupid. He was just so out of his depth that he didn't even realize he started on the wrong trail.

I don't think ignorance is that excusable in this case. I grew up in the desert and in cases where it's "100°F and bone-dry" it's extremely dangerous to undertake a long hike without proper preparation, especially if you don't even know where you are.

If someone accidentally kills someone there's a punishment involved, even if they didn't intend to do something immensely stupid. It's one thing to be ignorant, but it's another thing entirely to be ignorant to the point of endangering others.

The penalty serves as a strong deterrent for other hikers making half-assed plans and imposing their rescue costs on taxpayers.

Any penalty that "makes an example out of someone" is by definition not fair and not justice

If it wasn't for the unprepared going off and getting lost, search and rescue teams would have to pay people to get lost. Airplanes sometimes crash and other things that are not the fault of the unprepared, so we need those teams and we need them practiced.

This is cheaper than planning realistic training, and the unprepared is better training as well.

Look up "broken window economics."

That doesn't apply here.

I don't really think that kind of deferred deterrent works against stupid or desperate. The guy decided to burn a whole tree. In an arid setting.

So the lesson is just die instead of take the chance? That's what this "deterrent" will get you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com