But if a lone hiker with much experience can become neglectful of risk, so too can a leader who may not even be an experienced hiker. He may project confidence on his home turf yet not be well rehearsed in the concerns of managing a group in the wilds. Still, group members look up to him and assume he has taken all necessary precautions into consideration. He, true to the role he is accustomed to, will take for granted the respect given him is well deserved.

As we have seen for the individual, safety concerns take myriad forms. These are multiplied for a group. If safety precautions are not well thought out—and then followed—there will be hikers on the trail with little notion of how they got there or how to return. Many hikers increase their risks significantly by the sort of behavior that is customary in groups. Competitiveness, bravado on the trail, distracting conversations, playing the dating game, and forgetting who is keeping track of whom are behaviors that create risks.

Additionally, some regimentation or conformity to the group gestalt involves the individual in neglecting his or her own focus on personal needs. An individual may need to slow down to cool off, but the group hurries on. An individual may need to keep a steady pace to keep muscles warm and stretched, but group leaders call a break. An individual that is hurried, slowed, or distracted by a group is less focused on one of the most basic of safety precautions—where to place the next step. Rare is the group whose talents and physical abilities are compatible. A mismatched group lacks such cohesion and is therefore continually at risk of breaking apart on the trail, thus leaving inexperienced hikers to fend for themselves in unfamiliar territory.

Consider the common reasons why an individual may pause on the trail. Total those instances for all members of the group. And we see that the group might be drawing to a halt every five minutes if it did not persuade its members to continue hiking when they would otherwise pause to service the personal vehicle. Inevitably, groups may consist of subgroups of male and female, old and young, experienced and inexperienced, bold and cautious, and so on. Each subgroup may have its own inclinations, some of which it will perceive as needs, some of which may be frustrated or set aside for the sake of the larger group.

Suzie’s legs are cold. She risks pulling a muscle and needs to stop to put on another pair of sweatpants. Henry’s shoestrings are not tight enough. He risks developing blisters if he does not pause to adjust his boots. George needs a drink. Little Joe drank a quart of Gatorade before the hike and needs to leave the trail every half-hour, but someone placed him in a group of girls. He needs to go so bad that he can’t concentrate on anything else. Randy has been over this trail a dozen times. He wants everyone to know it, so he tries to stay thirty yards in front of the pack. Mary forgot her jacket and no one checked to see if she was prepared at the trailhead.

Sally and Sam, older adults, began a friendly debate on leather versus canvas footwear somewhere down the trail. It developed into an unconscious duel for supremacy in knowledge of outdoor sports. And one topic followed aimlessly upon another like a Garrison Keillor monologue. Now both are so consumed in their stories as to forget where some of the younger hikers have gone. Then there is Dorothy. She wants to venture away from the trail every few minutes to take photographs. After all, that is what she came for.

Who is watching the cloud buildup? Who is keeping track of time? How many of the hikers are even pausing occasionally to see what the trail looks like behind them? It may look entirely different on the way home—when everyone walks the opposite direction and perhaps after the weather has changed. How many group members carry a good map? Have all members seen a map? Does everyone even know how to read a topographic map?

When we are lacking in motivation, groups can provide us with that impetus to get off the couch and get some exercise. They provide us with companionship, with security in time of mishap, sometimes with a wider perspective on our surroundings, and with opportunities to employ our talents to the benefit of others. But by necessity, the interests of individuals in the group will be compromised or neglected in pursuit of the group activity. Decisions will be made to set aside an individual interest from time to time, and the insight or negligence with which those decisions are made will determine group and individual safety.

Do we risk Suzie pulling a muscle and limping along the rest of the day? Will Henry learn a valuable lesson if he gets a blister or two early in the hike? Does George drink too little water or little Joe drink too much? How do we conduct restroom breaks? Does everyone leave the trail at the same time to some random bush with neither a "Men" nor "Women" sign on it? Were we aware when we left the trailhead that Dorothy brought five rolls of film with her and planned to use them all? How much will she disrupt our plans if we don’t ask her to compromise?

And who is the leader anyhow? Is he the captain of the ship or just a scout who knows the way? How many leaders are there? What are their responsibilities? What happens when someone in the group challenges the leadership? What if one of the leaders didn’t show up for the hike? Who assumed his duties? And what happens when there is an accident or someone is missing? What happens when someone gets sick? Were these questions well thought out and rehearsed in advance? And by everyone concerned?

Too often the recipe for hazard is simply, "Let’s not worry about it. Let’s just get started and everything will work out." And with a few minor mishaps, perhaps usually it does. Such optimism is a necessary component of life, but if it overlooks substantial risks, it may perpetuate a false sense of security and even promote the very hazards it chose to overlook.

What may have been absent before the group hike began was careful planning and discussion of common goals. Each member may not have known of, or concurred with, what was expected of him or her throughout the hike. Perhaps there were no discussions of the interests that provide cohesion to the group, and of what sacrifices would need to be made on an individual basis to pursue those interests. That lack of communication also involved a lack of training and the lack of thorough preparation for what to do in case of emergency.

It appears obvious that the larger the group the less cohesive and organized it is likely to be and thus the greater are its safety risks. But if there are at least a few members of the group that have a thorough knowledge of what to do in time of emergency, the group offers some security at least to less-experienced members. But at what number do the risks inherent in a group hike outweigh the benefits associated with it? That number may vary with groups of varied experience, dedication, and discipline. A well-rehearsed scout troop may plan a group hike and need less preparation than the local book club that has never hiked before.

As surely as studies have shown that talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous practice, so it is that having company on the trail can also be a serious distraction. Those distractions can be costly in either situation.

Moreover, what begins as a group hike can devolve into a situation where some members must face the risks of hiking alone. If an accident happens or the group breaks apart, some of its members may still be on their own till help arrives, and they will likely be in greater danger than if they had planned the hike alone. Suppose in a group of three, one person becomes lost, one person decides to go looking for him, and the third decides to return to the trailhead to seek help. Each member is now alone, moving in stressful circumstances, and feeling he or she must keep moving no matter what the risk.

The cliché seems appropriate here: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Having help after an accident happens will not solve every problem. Avoiding the accident in the first place can be more important that the availability of help afterwards. Some hikers as individuals, and some groups, simply present a greater risk by their hiking habits than they do a potential source of help in time of trouble. And if it is impossible to thoroughly anticipate every hazard, it is also necessary to qualify our optimism by taking serious the risks of our endeavor. Put simply, everything may not work out. Therein lies our sense of adventure but also our sober attitude.

We can give no prescriptions for "how to" hike in groups. "Some people like to say, don't criticize unless you have the solution. Don't find fault unless you can do better." Considering the issue at hand, we find that attitude irresponsible. A critique of our own and others' behavior is a necessary component of life. A remedy is not likely to be found to a problem that we refuse to acknowledge.

Repression is unhealthy for an individual as well as for a group. To repress the fact that a group is not prepared for a hike is only to strengthen the possibility of mishap. To repress for the sake of social cohesion the acknowledgement that a group has a serious problem—that does little but strengthen the problem. Well documented are the cases of group members being lost in the Harney Peak Area.

Many sources recommend the ideal size for a group as three. In event of an injury, one hiker stays with the injured person while another goes for help. Clearly the security of this "ideally-sized" group rests upon each hiker being capable of, and knowledgeable in, hiking alone.

Group behavior and individual initiative each have a place in life. We are social animals but also unique individuals. Hiking, an activity as old as humankind, has always involved tribal movements and wandering individuals. The safety concerns of hiking are much the same whether we hike alone or in groups. But how those safety concerns are applied varies.

_ENext Section: Thunderstorms