Anyone thinking about hiking to the Into the Wild bus...

[Arctish]

... you're too late.

Alaska's 'Into the Wild' bus, known as a deadly tourist lure, has been removed by air

‘Into the Wild’ author torn over removal of iconic bus: ‘I wrote the book that ruined it’

People kept going out there unprepared and getting in serious trouble. A couple of them died and others had to be rescued.

The state conducted 15 bus-related rescues between 2009 and 2017, the Alaska Guard said in a statement, a figure that doesn’t include the hundreds who have become lost or injured on their way to the site, or the local effort to find hikers. A dozen people alone were rescued by the fire department in nearby Healy in the summer of 2013, Atavist reported.

I hope they put it on display right there at the parking area for the Stampede Trail so no one has to hike more than 10' to see it.

 

[Politesse]

Who would have thought that a long hike through rough country to a bus made famous by someone dying of in it might somehow be dangerous?

And yes, Jon Krakauer has a lot to answer for. It's telling that he seems to feel more guilt about the bus than the people who died trying to follow the rabbit hole he dug for them.

 

[Rhea]

And yes, Jon Krakauer has a lot to answer for. It's telling that he seems to feel more guilt about the bus than the people who died trying to follow the rabbit hole he dug for them.

Good point!

 

[Rhea]

In our town code, something like is a violation known as “an attractive nuisance”. A danger that seems to attract risktakers. Includes falling down barns that kids climb into.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In our town code, something like is a violation known as “an attractive nuisance”. A danger that seems to attract risktakers. Includes falling down barns that kids climb into.

Except this was on public lands.

I can understand the problem--the danger of the situation is variable, idiots without enough respect for the power of nature head out not realizing the threat. The length of the hike should be enough to discourage those who don't know what they're doing but obviously it wasn't.

 

[Rhea]

In our town code, something like is a violation known as “an attractive nuisance”. A danger that seems to attract risktakers. Includes falling down barns that kids climb into.

Except this was on public lands.

I can understand the problem--the danger of the situation is variable, idiots without enough respect for the power of nature head out not realizing the threat. The length of the hike should be enough to discourage those who don't know what they're doing but obviously it wasn't.

I get what you’re saying I was just describing the name for the situation.
Although the code still applies on public lands.

Sounds like a good thing that they moved it. People can stil see it in a visitor center type environment, without needing expensive rescues.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Thankfully I'm not dumb enough to do anything like that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thankfully I'm not dumb enough to do anything like that.

I think part of the problem is the standard problem of too many warnings.

I'm thinking of a sign in Death Valley warning about hiking past the sign because of the heat. A summer afternoon, take that sign with a lot of respect. A winter morning, it's meaningless. The problem is the sign doesn't in any way indicate what it's really applicable to. It's a permanent fixture, not something that's put up and taken down by need.

I've also found a similar sign out in the Valley of Fire (the "Fire" has to do with the rock color, not the temperature) that I found in the winter.

People get so used to such meaningless warnings (few people would go far enough to find the sign on a summer afternoon) that important warnings get tuned out.

I think we need a much better system for warnings about intermittent threats. They need to specifically include what controls the threat level.

 

[Politesse]

Thankfully I'm not dumb enough to do anything like that.

I think part of the problem is the standard problem of too many warnings.

I'm thinking of a sign in Death Valley warning about hiking past the sign because of the heat. A summer afternoon, take that sign with a lot of respect. A winter morning, it's meaningless. The problem is the sign doesn't in any way indicate what it's really applicable to. It's a permanent fixture, not something that's put up and taken down by need.

I've also found a similar sign out in the Valley of Fire (the "Fire" has to do with the rock color, not the temperature) that I found in the winter.

People get so used to such meaningless warnings (few people would go far enough to find the sign on a summer afternoon) that important warnings get tuned out.

I think we need a much better system for warnings about intermittent threats. They need to specifically include what controls the threat level.

Tricky to determine, though. Years of taking students out to both of the locations you specifically describe have taught me that one person's "beginner" hike is another person's "moderate", and one person's "uncomfortably hot" is another person's "heatstroke in 10, 9, 8...." Unfortunately, with hiking as with many things, there's no real substitute for experience.

 

[Politesse]

And man, any popular hike remotely close to Las Vegas is a danger magnet worse than the Magic Bus ever was! I wish less people would find their way up there, they're fucking up the springs and vandalizing the art, it's worse every time I go.

 

[Arctish]

Thankfully I'm not dumb enough to do anything like that.

I think part of the problem is the standard problem of too many warnings.

I'm thinking of a sign in Death Valley warning about hiking past the sign because of the heat. A summer afternoon, take that sign with a lot of respect. A winter morning, it's meaningless. The problem is the sign doesn't in any way indicate what it's really applicable to. It's a permanent fixture, not something that's put up and taken down by need.

I've also found a similar sign out in the Valley of Fire (the "Fire" has to do with the rock color, not the temperature) that I found in the winter.

People get so used to such meaningless warnings (few people would go far enough to find the sign on a summer afternoon) that important warnings get tuned out.

I think we need a much better system for warnings about intermittent threats. They need to specifically include what controls the threat level.

Tricky to determine, though. Years of taking students out to both of the locations you specifically describe have taught me that one person's "beginner" hike is another person's "moderate", and one person's "uncomfortably hot" is another person's "heatstroke in 10, 9, 8...." Unfortunately, with hiking as with many things, there's no real substitute for experience.

There is no "safe" time to hike the Stampede Trail. You have to be prepared for unsafe conditions anytime you set out on a trail like that. The tourists going out to see the bus rarely were.

 

[Politesse]

There is no "safe" time to hike the Stampede Trail. You have to be prepared for unsafe conditions anytime you set out on a trail like that. The tourists going out to see the bus rarely were.

I do not doubt it, I've met their type.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thankfully I'm not dumb enough to do anything like that.

I think part of the problem is the standard problem of too many warnings.

I'm thinking of a sign in Death Valley warning about hiking past the sign because of the heat. A summer afternoon, take that sign with a lot of respect. A winter morning, it's meaningless. The problem is the sign doesn't in any way indicate what it's really applicable to. It's a permanent fixture, not something that's put up and taken down by need.

I've also found a similar sign out in the Valley of Fire (the "Fire" has to do with the rock color, not the temperature) that I found in the winter.

People get so used to such meaningless warnings (few people would go far enough to find the sign on a summer afternoon) that important warnings get tuned out.

I think we need a much better system for warnings about intermittent threats. They need to specifically include what controls the threat level.

Tricky to determine, though. Years of taking students out to both of the locations you specifically describe have taught me that one person's "beginner" hike is another person's "moderate", and one person's "uncomfortably hot" is another person's "heatstroke in 10, 9, 8...." Unfortunately, with hiking as with many things, there's no real substitute for experience.

I'm not talking about difficulty, I'm talking about hazard level. In either location at summer heat running out of water is life threatening no matter how experienced you are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And man, any popular hike remotely close to Las Vegas is a danger magnet worse than the Magic Bus ever was! I wish less people would find their way up there, they're fucking up the springs and vandalizing the art, it's worse every time I go.

The only thing around here that I think is a danger magnet is the Arizona (aka Ringbolt) Hot Springs--and they shut down the trailhead for the summer season. Other than that nothing comes to mind where you are liable to get in too far without realizing you're doing so. People who die in the wilderness are mostly those who go out without enough water and those who fall while scrambling. We did have one earlier this year who went out without anything for diabetes management.

 

[Amelia]

first of all i enjoyed my reading by taking that much time, i would say it wasn't a waste. After reading about it i am going to make more searches on it and would love to have a safe journey with friends. Thanks everyone for sharing doubts and advises.