Security while Boondocking

[rowiebowie]

Originally Posted by hbn7hj

The interesting thing about these comments is most of you have a plan and options. Those that don't, need to get a plan and options. I'm sure solo females have given it a lot more thought.

Exactly the point. Things don't always go as planned, but having a plan and options let's you use the most appropriate (and minimal) means to protect yourself if a situation requires.
.

[LindaK]

Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread or not, but loud personal alarms can be part of the arsenal plan. I used to have a "Screaming Meanie" which was incredibly loud (up to 120 dB). There are lots of other very loud personal alarms available as well. Thanks for all of the suggestions for being prepared. Too bad we have to worry about these things so much these days.

[rowiebowie]

Welcome to the forum LindaK!

Great first post. Something that could be carried while away from the rv would be good for discouraging suspicious types or for summoning aid in any other type of emergency situation. Like an "I've fallen and I can't get up" trail accident.
.

[avanti]

To try to add some balance to this rather depressing thread:

Every crime victim represents a tragedy. And perceptions matter. But perceptions and reality are not the same thing.

The simple fact is that, averaged over the occasional blip, violent crime in the USA is at an all time low:



Statistically, you are safer than you have ever been.

People consistently report the perception that crime is up, but it simply isn’t true.

5 facts about crime in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

People with political agendas routinely play on such fears. Don’t let them spoil your trips. Take reasonable precautions and enjoy the solitude.

[Alec]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

I am proud to say that I am smart, in fact very smart, while working on solar panels I was smart enough to allow enough room for the future installation of the machine gun turret, this installation is on my to do list, unfortunately it is in last position. I am leaning towards AK47 but didn’t decided yet.

I am kind of stuck on getting approval from my wife, her choice is a cheap WWII Russian tank converted to our new B-Class RV, in fact it could be easier to add a bed or hot water instead adding a turret, but gas mileage would be terrible.

These decisions are difficult, easy way out would be stay in state or national parks or hope.

Cheers to all.

You might want to rethink staying in national or state parks, George; "On February 22nd, 2010 Congress approved a new law allowing loaded firearms in national parks." Particular states may require concealed carry permits, but if I recall, even in Kalifornia guns in state and national parks are tolerated, https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/h...ational-parks/.
Hope this helps.

[DUTCH in Atlanta]

Originally Posted by avanti

The simple fact is that, averaged over the occasional blip, violent crime in the USA is at an all time low:

Statistically, you are safer than you have ever been.

I wonder if that might be due to more and more states easing their concealed and open carry laws; i.e. more good guys carrying than before!

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by avanti

To try to add some balance to this rather depressing thread....
Statistically, you are safer than you have ever been.
....

Not exactly. Statistically, *THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE* is safer than it has ever been.

This says little, if anything, about YOUR individual risk. There are a myriad factors that go into the latter, and it's a much tougher calculation to make. The very fact that you are out there:

(1) traveling alone,
(2) in a high-target vehicle,
(3) living an unconventional life intentionally unmoored from mainstream society,
(4) staying in places where almost nobody overnights (if you boondock)...

...all of those things set you apart, and warp your effective probabilities beyond recognition.

That's the part that I've been trying to emphasize, albeit less explicitly than in this post. We cannot take average crime probabilities and apply them to non-average scenarios. We'll end up making all kinds of erroneous attributions if we do that. There are additional STEM people on this forum who might be able to express this construct in clearer words than I can.

Let me give you an anecdote from a lifestyle scenario that is arguably a better comparison to boondocking than the average stick-and-brick suburban reality.

I have a close girlfriend who is an experienced long-haul trucker. She complains about members of the public who, in turn, complain about rig owners who idle their engines while standing. Even in cool weather, those engines are always running, polluting the air and making a racket. "Why don't you just open the damned window if you need fresh air?" an exasperated public asks. "Because you'll get your throat cut," my girlfriend explains.

It's accepted wisdom among truckers that such behavior is unacceptably risky. They have to keep their trucks buttoned up and running, in case they need to respond to a threat.

And someone might reply, "Well, not too many big rigs in National Forests." Granted - but those who boondock don't always restrict themselves to perfect venues, by definition. For one thing, there's the business of getting to and from desirable destinations. I posted this overnighting pic on IG late last year, and someone replied along the lines of, "Yeah, there's a lot more of those kinds of pics than there are of pretty beaches."

[InterBlog]

OK, on the issue of probabilities, how about this for an analogy.

For the sake of argument, let's say that 5% of children are severely bullied in school. We don't know what the actual figure is, but we can say with confidence that severe bullying IS a thing. It does occur.

We cannot then line up 10 children, and go down the line pointing and saying to each one of them, "Your risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%."

It doesn't work that way. The first kid's INDIVIDUAL risk might actually be 0.5%. The next kid's individual risk might be 50%.

Why? Because kids are not targeted randomly. And they are not targeted randomly because they do not manifest indistinguishable characteristics.

Overwhelmingly, they are chosen on the basis of psychological factors, although situational factors can become important in some instances (because even the strongest person becomes vulnerable if isolated). Bullies (and criminals) do not target assertive individuals preferentially. They focus on weaker targets. Criminals and bullies are both masters of the art of identifying paths of least resistance.

People generally accept this probability distinction as self-evident when dealing with familiar settings, such as children in a schoolyard. Now, take that same common-sense awareness and scale it up to a boondocking context.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

OK, on the issue of probabilities, how about this for an analogy.

For the sake of argument, let's say that 5% of children are severely bullied in school. We don't know what the actual figure is, but we can say with confidence that severe bullying IS a thing. It does occur.

We cannot then line up 10 children, and go down the line pointing and saying to each one of them, "Your risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%, and YOUR risk of being bullied is 5%."

It doesn't work that way. The first kid's INDIVIDUAL risk might actually be 0.5%. The next kid's individual risk might be 50%.

Why? Because kids are not targeted randomly. And they are not targeted randomly because they do not manifest indistinguishable characteristics.

Overwhelmingly, they are chosen on the basis of psychological factors, although situational factors can become important in some instances (because even the strongest person becomes vulnerable if isolated). Bullies (and criminals) do not target assertive individuals preferentially. They focus on weaker targets. Criminals and bullies are both masters of the art of identifying paths of least resistance.

People generally accept this probability distinction as self-evident when dealing with familiar settings, such as children in a schoolyard. Now, take that same common-sense awareness and scale it up to a boondocking context.

A couple of questions about what seem (to me) to be unwarranted assumptions.

1. If the average risk rate significantly goes down over time, why would you posit that it means some folks risk goes WAY down in order to imply other other folks risk stays the same? If there is no actual risk data breakdown by victim type, wouldn't the first approximation be that all risk trends downward?


2. If you are boondocking away from popular areas, it means that the risk of someone coming by to rob you is lower. Simply because there is lower profit in looking for victims where there are few people. So your risk of encountering a problem is lower.
From what I've read and experienced, the thieves will target vehicles at trailheads and campgrounds. Not some way back road that gets 2 vehicles a week.
The response time of authorities MAY be higher on that back road, but that is certainly not a given. Campgrounds and trailheads often have no regular LE patrolling. So why do you think boondocking is more dangerous?


Now I generally carry. Because it is an extra precaution that doesn't have much impact on storage. So why not? In over 40 years of back-country camping, foot or vehicle, I have never needed to pull a weapon in self-defense.

On two occasions, I've had to put down an animal someone else left suffering. Once, a deer by the roadside, the other a deer with an arrow gut shot that ran who knows how far before collapsing. No hunters to be seen.
Those instances, for me, pretty much validated the idea of having a firearm available.

[ClassB4Me]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

Not exactly. Statistically, *THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE* is safer than it has ever been.

This says little, if anything, about YOUR individual risk. There are a myriad factors that go into the latter, and it's a much tougher calculation to make.

Maybe... Just maybe.... you are better suited for the suburban brick-and-mortar fortress house lifestyle. How's your blood pressure doing?


The Hold-Your-Hand Guide To Boondocking Without Fear
By: Kelly BeasleyLast Updated: July 15, 2017

[gregmchugh]

First, we should be glad that we can have a civil discussion of this topic on this forum which is pretty rare these days on social media (probably due to the fact that this forum is pretty much a limited group of Class B van enthusiasts an not a large Facebook group).

Second, the feelings on the actual level of risks for travel in the US in an RV seem to be divided into those who see lots of significant risks that require significant measures and those that see few significant risks and take specific measures for the risks they see as more likely to occur. Those who came here with either of these views were probably not persuaded much to change their view but since they are satisfied with what they do to deal with security issues this is not really a problem.

Third, hopefully, those who came to this to try to decide what they should be doing for security while traveling have gotten some useful information to help with their decision. It probably always comes back to their perception of the real risks they are facing. Do a Google search on “perceptions are reality” to see various perspectives on this...

[booster]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

First, we should be glad that we can have a civil discussion of this topic on this forum which is pretty rare these days on social media (probably due to the fact that this forum is pretty much a limited group of Class B van enthusiasts an not a large Facebook group).

Second, the feelings on the actual level of risks for travel in the US in an RV seem to be divided into those who see lots of significant risks that require significant measures and those that see few significant risks and take specific measures for the risks they see as more likely to occur. Those who came here with either of these views were probably not persuaded much to change their view but since they are satisfied with what they do to deal with security issues this is not really a problem.

Third, hopefully, those who came to this to try to decide what they should be doing for security while traveling have gotten some useful information to help with their decision. It probably always comes back to their perception of the real risks they are facing. Do a Google search on “perceptions are reality” to see various perspectives on this...

While I completely agree with this statement, a lot of the logic of it seems to evaporate when guns are involved. People who like guns seem to be able to easily justify their value in nearly every circumstance. Those who don't like guns can just as easily do the opposite.


If the item was something other than guns, these statistical and risk discussions would be a lot more viable, especially at the very low risk levels we are talking about. This probably would have been a very short discussion if the product was "pogo sticks" instead of guns, at the same risk levels, given the extremely low risk levels of both for or against.

[ClassB4Me]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

First, we should be glad that we can have a civil discussion of this topic on this forum which is pretty rare these days on social media (probably due to the fact that this forum is pretty much a limited group of Class B van enthusiasts an not a large Facebook group).

I love the freedom that camping with a Class B RV provides. The ease of movement and the ability to decide on a whim where to stay. I may represent a contrarian point of view in that RV crime becomes more prevalent when criminals see it as an easy opportunity.

Leaving things outside of campsites unguarded while away, leaving doors unlocked, not using minimal safety lighting / alarms, and not having a safety plan before you travel send a clear message to the criminals.

We have a firm promise that we plan before the trip and review our safety net then don't discuss it when traveling. We want our hearts open and minds on the journey and not focused on what could go wrong.

Thanks to all the voices in this forum.

[rowiebowie]

Originally Posted by avanti

To try to add some balance to this rather depressing thread:

Every crime victim represents a tragedy. And perceptions matter. But perceptions and reality are not the same thing.

The simple fact is that, averaged over the occasional blip, violent crime in the USA is at an all time low:



Statistically, you are safer than you have ever been.

People consistently report the perception that crime is up, but it simply isn’t true.

5 facts about crime in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

People with political agendas routinely play on such fears. Don’t let them spoil your trips. Take reasonable precautions and enjoy the solitude.

Originally Posted by DUTCH in Atlanta

I wonder if that might be due to more and more states easing their concealed and open carry laws; i.e. more good guys carrying than before!

Dutch, you could be on to something. Here's a chart from the ATF website of firearms processed from 2005-2017. Shows and inverse relationship to crime drop. Cause and effect is always difficult to prove, but just throwing this out there.

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

...
2. If you are boondocking away from popular areas, it means that the risk of someone coming by to rob you is lower. Simply because there is lower profit in looking for victims where there are few people. So your risk of encountering a problem is lower. ....

There's a lot in your comment, but let me focus on just this one assumption.

I do not believe this is true. Time and time again, I've seen it not be true, and in a variety of independent contexts.

The reason is simple - the farther you are from civilization, the lower the chances of law enforcement being available to help you. There are fewer POTENTIAL victims in remote areas - yes. But the chances of a criminal GETTING AWAY with robbing those fewer people is much, much higher. THAT is what makes it so attractive.

Let me say it another way.

The days of "rich urban" vs. "poor rural" are behind us. By this time in our social evolution, pretty much everyone is carrying cash, credit cards, laptop computers and iPads, $1,000 iPhones, cameras, GoPros, drones, firearms, etc. This is true whether individuals are located in dense urban areas where law enforcement permeation is high, or rural areas where there is no hope of bringing a law enforcement officer to the scene.

That individual resource equivalency being the case, WHICH becomes the more attractive and safer option for criminals? Robbing someone who is close to law enforcement, or robbing someone who is far less protected?

Duh.

The example I gave in the thread above was of my off-grid property in Canada. It is 25 slow miles from what could be described as "civilization". And it has been targeted over, and over, and over again - all 3 of us local owners employ multiple security measures as a result.

Same thing here in Texas. Do you have a 4-wheel Class B and are you in the mood to take your very life into your hands?? Then my suggestion is that you go out to the middle of nowhere on the central Texas coast. Go visit the long undeveloped portions of Matagorda Island. Rather than finding security and isolation out there, what you'll find is an astonishing number of drug cookers, traffickers, and drug users. A lot of illegal beach landings of watercraft, too. It is grand central station for crime -- specifically because those people know that law enforcement does not patrol out there.

Been there, done that, had my mind utterly blown. It was like walking onto the surface of an alien planet.

Same thing with Angelina National Forest in east Texas. The workampers have told me stories about how remote and unattended forest service areas were literally on the verge of being lost forever, taken over and ruined by criminals. They were cooking drugs in the toilets, for God's sake. Only after the establishment of the workamper program could that element be driven back out.

Same thing with our coastal National Wildlife Refuges in Texas. A year or so ago, I attempted to secure "off-label" permission to boondock in one of them. I pitched my proposal to the people in charge - sometimes if they get to know you, exceptions to rules can be made. I was told, "Absolutely no way. Of course we would trust you personally, but it's just too dangerous for us to allow. The very worst people in society congregate down there specifically because they know that it is so hard for us to reach them. So we have no choice but to lock it down at sunset and keep everyone out."

[rboegh]

A Winchester Jr. 20 Gauge Pump Shot Gun ($250-275) is a great tool in the wild. Once you chamber one, and they see or hear the loading action, you wont have to use it. Also, being a Jr. it is handy to put anywhere in the RV as it is 3/4 size.

[Phoebe3]

Originally Posted by avanti

To try to add some balance to this rather depressing thread:

As someone who works with statistics, I feel compelled to point out that the stats quoted above include reported and unreported crimes. How do they know there was a crime if it was unreported? Further, did they "pad" earlier numbers with more unreported crimes? What was the "change in methodology" that occurred in 2006?

The government used to exclude military in unemployment statistics. Then, when unemployment looked bad, they decided to start including military members in the calculations. Since, by definition, all military members are employed, it made the overall picture look better. More recently, people who have given up looking for work and don't collect unemployment are not counted as unemployed even though they don't have jobs.

In my neighborhood, mail and package theft is rampant and has increased greatly over the past few years from zero to weekly. But the police say they can't catch the criminals, it's hard to provide evidence even if they catch them, and since it is a petty crime, the perpetrators often go free. Most folk don't even bother reporting it anymore. So I'm not sure if property crimes have really decreased or if, like unemployment, they are merely under-reported.

In any case, there are two aspects to risk: 1. the statistical likelihood; and, 2. the gravity of the consequences. From personal experience, I can tell you that the likelihood of me stubbing my toe when I go barefoot is much greater than catching the live chamber if I played Russian Roulette, but I'm willing to risk one more than the other.

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

.... Second, the feelings on the actual level of risks for travel in the US in an RV seem to be divided into those who see lots of significant risks that require significant measures and those that see few significant risks and take specific measures for the risks they see as more likely to occur. ......

Which it is why it is especially important to articulate the bases of those perceptions.

It is easy to overlook the fact that boondocking experience is not the same across the board. Just for openers, the technical capacity of different vans - there are profound differences in those configurations. My van can (and does) stay off-grid indefinitely, and in some really wild places. The next poster might do an occasional overnight in Wallyworld and call it "boondocking". These experiential bases are fundamentally different and so will be the perceptions associated with each.

And the difficulty is that it's not possible to assemble rigorous comparable statistics. It's not possible to assemble [subsets of all boondockers whose systems look like -this- and who have spent -this- many weeks boondocking in -these- kinds of locations in -these- portions of North America].

If we COULD do something like that ^^, divide up the community into comparable sub-sets of experience, I bet we would see opinions converging in a helluva hurry.

But given that it's not feasible, I recommend that boondockers of lesser experience at least contemplate the conveyed observations of those with more extreme situational experience. YMMV, but if you start traversing different realms, your mileage will actually grow to resemble those who already occupy those realms.

[rowiebowie]

Originally Posted by Phoebe3

As someone who works with statistics

Things must drive you crazy nearly every day as it does me (and I do work in that field).

Cause and effect are highly neglected because they are hard to prove. Nearly daily, I hear claims on the news saying things like "New study shows Seniors who are active and get regular exercise suffer less from dementia". Leaving the impression that perhaps exercise alone prevents onset. They ignore the fact that seniors with poor health or dementia are likely to be less active and therefore exercise less.

Anyway, my post above was to show (as you state) charts can show any direction and can be used to imply any result you wish.
.

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

...
Cause and effect are highly neglected because they are hard to prove. ...

Statistics are extremely powerful, but quite a bit hinges on exactly how we pose the question. And then quite a bit more hinges on not over-interpreting the results. Strict context must be maintained.

My undergrad and grad degrees are in the natural sciences. My undergrad minor was math, with an emphasis on statistics. Part of my Master's thesis involved the development of a new application for the binomial probability equation. I was attempting to show that binomial probability calculations, properly iterated, are capable of pointing to some essential truths, even if they cannot prove quantitatively those same truths. My Principal Investigator refused to put his name on my resulting academic paper, because he didn't feel sufficiently comfortable with the math. That was OK, though, because I did. And it passed academic review.