Security while Boondocking

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

As a fellow engineer, you probably understand the importance of "starting somewhere". The same arguments you made against using those data as a jumping off point for this discussion could also be made for breast cancer - along the lines of, "Well, we can't just say 1 out of 8 because that number doesn't account for [this] and [this] and [this]."

Of course it doesn't - it wasn't designed to. It's a substantial generalization the purpose of which is to serve as a mechanism of motivation. We start with the fact that 1 out of 8 American women will get breast cancer. And from there, we can make effective logical arguments that encourage women to control the factors that lower their individual risks.

It becomes very difficult to frame that same issue in these terms if many people erroneously believe that their lifetime risk of violent crime is somewhere around 1.2%. It's as if all the 30-year-old women in the crowd are piping up and claiming, "Hey, breast cancer prevention is not worth talking about because our risk is only 0.4%!"

Which is true - for that briefest of instant of time when women are exactly 30 years old, the incidence of breast cancer is about 1 in 227 - but that's not where the whole story ends. Not even remotely.

I realize that this is a new way of viewing the issue, hence my heavy use of analogy.

My issue is that it's not particularly useful, even as a first approximation. A somewhat more useful statistic would be the rate of violent and property crimes against campers. And then start digging down from there. What the risk in campgrounds? Is it a seasonal risk? What was mean time length of stay before an incident? Etc. Etc.

But a lifetime 24/7 risk, anywhere, any activity, any sample population, doesn't seem all that useful.

Let's continue analogizing.
I'll bet that pretty close to 100% of people, over their lifetime, catch a cold.
But what does that tell us?
That high lifetime rate of getting colds doesn't tell us anything about how we might minimize catching one in our daily activity. All it says is yes, people catch colds.

It says nothing about modes of transmission, what activities to avoid, where we are more likely to get infected, who is likely to infect us, length of contact before infection, or anything else to mitigate risk while not becoming a boy-in-a-bubble.

Life is taking risks. I think we all agree that we try to minimize risk without becoming stuck in place.
Our individual risk tolerance varies. Some think a firearm is a good protection. Others of us suspect it will cause more problems than it will solve. Some think being surround by others is good protection, others of us feel safer away from the madding hordes.

But just knowing that, sometime, somewhere, over the course of my life, something unpleasant is likely to happen, does not (for me, at least) provide new useful data.

[rowiebowie]

It all comes down to personal choice as to what precautions we take, and we only take those that we are comfortable with.

I've never been the victim of a violent crime, nor have I been in a violent collision. I plan to do all I can to avoid both by being aware of my situations and being cautious. But knowing both are possible, I could not live with the fact if I had not taken reasonable precautions to prevent them.

Our Garmin once mistakenly took our class "b" into the Bronx at mid-afternoon. It's a miracle our van escaped the traffic unscathed. While I did not feel personally threatened in that case, it pointed out we could also find ourselves inadvertently in dangerous situation not of our intent. Therefore, a means of personal protection is/has been part of my routine.
.

[Alec]

In support of InterBlog's position, recall John Maynard Keynes – “it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.”

[Bud]

Originally Posted by Alec

In support of InterBlog's position, recall John Maynard Keynes – “it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.”

Yes, but that guy was in a different world in terms of right, wrong or otherwise - also known as the 'Dismal Science'.

Bud

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by Alec

In support of InterBlog's position, recall John Maynard Keynes – “it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.”

No idea what that means in respect to this discussion.

[Davydd]

We boondocked and slept on a one way three lane wide street in Queens Village, NY City just a block north of Jamaica Avenue for three days. If you know the area it is kind of iffy. My wife’s aunt had lived in her house since 1947 and at 96+ is not about to move despite the changing neighborhood.

We boondocked in a dead end alley in Newport, RI because we wanted to see our house, which was a carriage house when I was stationed there in the US Navy.

Probably the only place where we felt uncomfortable was in the Sabine National Forest in East Texas. We got there in the dark on about a 10 mile road and found there were no other campers but there was a rowdy party going on. Those people eventually left but it set the stage of fear knowing we were the only ones at the end of a 10 mile dead end road and there were at least a few people that could take note of that. We left in the middle of the night about 2-3 AM. We couldn’t sleep anyway.

[skagitstan]

In January, we drove out to Spokane to pick up Tana, our new rescue dog. Drove out Saturday to pick her up early Sunday.

It was the first time we ever slept in a Walmart lot. Or camped in a city.

Sleep is really not the right word.


It was the worst night we've ever spend "camping". Noisy, people yelling all night, rolling coal around the lot, deicer truck coming by every 20 minutes, etc.
I hope it will be the last time we ever need to "sleep" at a Walmart.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

In January, we drove out to Spokane to pick up Tana, our new rescue dog. Drove out Saturday to pick her up early Sunday.

It was the first time we ever slept in a Walmart lot. Or camped in a city.

Sleep is really not the right word.


It was the worst night we've ever spend "camping". Noisy, people yelling all night, rolling coal around the lot, deicer truck coming by every 20 minutes, etc.
I hope it will be the last time we ever need to "sleep" at a Walmart.

We recently travel via the southern route from Oregon to Key West and back. We had the same experience in our first and the last overnighter on a Walmart parking lot. It was late and after 750 miles day we were too tired to look. It was good to park, not to sleep. We tend to stay almost exclusively on NF, County, State or National campgrounds and we never had safety issues. But we are just a single data point with 42 years of camping experience.

[gregmchugh]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

In January, we drove out to Spokane to pick up Tana, our new rescue dog. Drove out Saturday to pick her up early Sunday.

It was the first time we ever slept in a Walmart lot. Or camped in a city.

Sleep is really not the right word.


It was the worst night we've ever spend "camping". Noisy, people yelling all night, rolling coal around the lot, deicer truck coming by every 20 minutes, etc.
I hope it will be the last time we ever need to "sleep" at a Walmart.

Try Cracker Barrel or Cabela’s if available, always preferable to Walmart if you need a quick overnight spot...

[Davydd]

We sleep in Walmart parking lots all the time. We have a well insulated Sprinter for soundproofing and curtains that block out all light. Our previous two Class Bs didn’t block sound or light very well so I know how it can go.

[GallenH]

I’ve been reading this thread from the beginning. Got some good ideas. Thought I’d add a story.

Several years back a good friend of mine found himself walking in a very bad part of town at 2:00am. Deserted street. A guy appeared from the shadows and demanded his wallet. He gave it to him and the guy disappeared in a flash; almost magically, my friend recalled. He could have avoided losing his wallet if (1) he was carrying and drew his weapon, or (2) he could have not been walking in a bad part of town in the middle of the night. You might argue that he could have been walking in a good part of town in the day and gotten robbed. Lower probability but possible. One could also argue that as he was pulling his gun, the guy could have stabbed him, taken his wallet…and his gun…and left him bleeding on the sidewalk.

Everyone has and is entitled to their own view on where they camp, what risks exist as a result and what precautions they believe they need to take.

[rowiebowie]

"That doesn't work for me." - Denny Crane

But seriously, I'm not fighting back just to keep my stuff. But to protect my life or that of a loved-one, the sky's the limit as they say.
.

[GallenH]

rowiebowie: Is your post a response to mine? if so, my last sentence clearly covers what you're saying. Just sayin.

[rowiebowie]

Originally Posted by GallenH

rowiebowie: Is your post a response to mine? if so, my last sentence clearly covers what you're saying. Just sayin.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The Denny Crane (Boston Legal character played by William Shatner) reference came to mind as an attempt at a humorous alternative to your example of the guy who was robbed. Just popped into my head.

My comment below that was just my opinion and not intended as a response to your post. But I do agree.
.

[GallenH]

And I with yours: I'm going down fighting.

[InterBlog]

I've been the victim of violent crime perhaps four times (and non-violent crime perhaps a dozen times). I say "perhaps" because the count depends on the perspective of whether individual felonies should be considered jointly or severally.

There are various reasons why I was targeted, and I won't get into all of them because we'd be here all day. But one of the reasons definitely had to do with me drinking the Kool-Aid that was delivered to me by others. I accepted at face value the rainbows and butterflies claims that crime is so rare that its not worth being concerned about.

We live in a caveat emptor world where people are responsible for their own actions. I was responsible for drinking that Kool-Aid, but I was young and inexperienced and looking to others for guidance. My fault - but the people who spun tales of societal BS also have a level of culpability. And that's why I take exception to people making generalities about crime. If an inexperienced person looks at someone and judges them to have good life experience such that it makes sense to give weight to their perspective, they could end up injured or maybe even killed. IMO, it's unconscionable to lead people that way. It's simply unconscionable.

And no, we will never know the true incidence of boondocking crime - the data are not collected.

But here's another example that occurred within the past 36 hours or so. It's from a male who is boondocking in a remote location and it comes from Instagram.

Some numbers: I am a forumnivore and also a "gramnivore". I follow a lot of different people who post in different and unrelated topical areas.

If I break down my own IG account and separate out just those who are individual vanners (most of them engage in some level of boondocking - otherwise they would not be interesting enough to follow), I come up with about 48.

But of those, only about 10 are regular posters - especially in the winter when so many people are idle due to the weather.

Of those 10 active IGers, one of them had stuff stripped off his rig in a fairly remote boondocking scenario just within the past 36 hours. And this crime was committed by someone who HAD to know that there was a person in the vehicle being burglarized (had to know because of the context), so they were brazen enough to risk a direct encounter. And if he had to know, then he was probably prepared to deal with that possibility. The rig owner stuck his head outside to see what was happening, but did not come face to face with the thief (edit - it was a modified camper truck, about the size of a van). That situation thankfully did not escalate.

And someone may look at this, yet another anecdotal example, and they may say, "Oh it was just a simple theft - no big deal."

At which point I'd then ask the next obvious question - how bad does it have to get?! Do we have to see bloodshed before something "counts" as a crime indicator?

[skagitstan]

A few thoughts on some of what you write:

"I accepted at face value the rainbows and butterflies claims that crime is so rare that its not worth being concerned about."

I don't think that any in this thread has said "crime is so rare..."
What has been said is that you need to decide where you, as an individual, feel safer, and what you, as an individual, think you should do to protect yourself.

Some may think carrying a firearm makes them feel safer in a boondocking situation. Others, including me, think there are better ways of handling the risk of violent threats. Even more-so with non-violent threats.
But we are not telling you not to do what you want, or attempting to mislead the inexperienced and impressionable.

"We live in a caveat emptor world where people are responsible for their own actions. I was responsible for drinking that Kool-Aid, but I was young and inexperienced and looking to others for guidance. My fault - but the people who spun tales of societal BS also have a level of culpability. And that's why I take exception to people making generalities about crime. If an inexperienced person looks at someone and judges them to have good life experience such that it makes sense to give weight to their perspective, they could end up injured or maybe even killed. IMO, it's unconscionable to lead people that way. It's simply unconscionable."

Statistics is a tool to make intelligent generalizations. When you bring up general crime statistics in an argument about a very specific issue (boondocking), I agree that is an inappropriate use of statistics. A use of statistics that should be critiqued.


So if statistics don't give a meaningful view of the risks of boondocking, we are pretty much limited to personal anecdote and the activity of our amygdala.

I've been the victim of violent crime a few times when I was young and innocent, as well as older and not so innocent. One was having my head split open by a cop during the Chicago police riots in '68.
Also have been assaulted by a neoNazi when protesting a march they were holding.
And by the spittle of red-baiting prowar folks screaming I was unAmerican when I organized & marched against GWB's Iraq war.
Not to mention the occasional bar fight...
Every single incident in the midst of "civilization".


In no case did I ever feel carrying a gun would have helped me. Rather, it would, IMO, have put more people at risk.

My feeling is it is no more unconscionable to explain risks as I've seen and understand them, as to advise and prime folks to react to every situation as if it is likely to present mortal danger.

Once again, situational awareness is always important. There are indeed folks who would lie, cheat, steal, and injure, to take advantage of you.
Learn to avoid them. Take what you personally feel are appropriate precautions.

IMHO, there are far fewer of those sociopaths stalking boondockers than there are in the halls of power.
So I personally feel safer in the boonies than I ever would in a city. It would be "simply unconscionable" to not point that out.
YMMV.

As a side note, the number of sites one visits is not a great metric to judge the validity of posts. Sort of like trusting the user reviews on a shopping site.

For example, there may well be reasons some folks find this site more valuable than others. I joined this site and the TransitUSA site at about the same time, but ended up posting and commenting there far more often than here. In fact, my "building Annie" thread is currently the most viewed conversion thread, with the 4th most comments, in their Van Conversion subforum.
The reasons I hang out there more?

1. They have a much better picture linking policy, and I have a lot of pictures in my build thread.
2. This forum is much more oriented to manufactured B's, especially RT. Not a topic I have specific insight on.

Interestingly, I'm just not seeing lots of reports of boondocking crime reported there or here.
And yeah, if I camped at a surfing site, I would try to hide boards and suits hanging off my rig. You just can't trust those surfer dudes.

[rowiebowie]

Ok, we got it. No worries while boondocking for you and no guns.

Wasn't that a lot more concise?
.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

Ok, we got it. No worries while boondocking for you and no guns.

Wasn't that a lot more concise?
.

Just about as concise as is the "worried while boondocking, and guns make me feel safer", Readers Digest abridged version, of the post I quoted from and responded to.


BTW, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, I do usually carry while boondocking. Just that personal protection from hoomans is not my primary, or even secondary reason.
^Simply an example of how "concise" can lead to misunderstandings, and be inaccurate.

[rowiebowie]

Good thing you're here to parse (to examine in a minute way : analyze critically) others' responses. My point is that I just never found reading that type of writing style enjoyable. Perhaps fitting for a technical journal where such preciseness is critical.

I stand corrected on my "no guns for you" comment. Glad to hear it, in fact.
.