Even worse is how it can be self-perpetuating in situations like this - because hitching is so stigmatized, much fewer normal people are doing it on both sides, making the chances of getting somebody crazy higher.
http://freakonomics.com/2011/10/10/where-have-all-the-hitchh...
There were several periods when hitchhiking was widely accepted, and they usually coincided with large groups of otherwise respectable people having to hit the road. The Depression was one of those times. Post-war periods, when soldiers are returning home, have been others.
These days car ownership is so common that you have to be young and crazy, desperately poor, or criminal to hitch hike, and drivers know that.
It's still surprising how many drivers will pick you up. There's a lot of lonely people looking for conversation on the road.
That depends entirely where you live. Move to a ski or rock climbing town and you'll find hundreds of people hitching every day.
I did it for years, and now I have a car, I pickup everyone I see.
Yup, that's why Uber can't find investors anymore.
> that you have to be young and crazy, desperately poor, or criminal to hitch hike, and drivers know that.
Obviously it just needs an app with driver/hitcher ratings. "Out of my last 10 passengers, 9 have reported in as Not Murdered! You can feel safe riding with me and my 90% survival rate."
I'd gladly pick up pre-verified people for free. Plus, en masse, it would knock a few tens of billions off other transportation startup valuations just for the fun of it.
The following year, I was riding to the same destination with an uncle and cousin, when my uncle pulled over for a hitchhiker. My uncle had served in the Navy in WW II, and had certainly hitchhiked in those days.
From the 1950s and into the 1960s, cars were the thing. They were an adventure. You were some moronic kid with nothing exciting to do and, all of a sudden, you had freedom - you could kiss the parents good-bye and hightail it out to have some fun. V8 engines, lots of power waiting to be unleashed, booze in the back seat, a girlfriend or boyfriend to play with, no seatbelts, lots of cigaretts, drive-ins to go to, streets to cruise, etc., etc.
That world is gone now. Of course, any of its elements can be re-created. All the pieces are still there. But the spirit of the thing is gone. Cool people don't waste their time on Saturday nights driving around to impress people with how hot their muscle car is (though they probably do equally silly things as a substitute).
Hitchhiking in its fad sense - i.e., when "everybody" was doing it - was part and parcel of that culture. As noted in this piece, it was probably even more likely that something bad might happen to you back then than it is now for driving around with strangers. So why did vastly greater numbers of people hitchhike back than they do now. For the simple reason that it was regarded as "cool" to do so. Just like it was "cool" to smoke. And just as times have changed for the latter, so they have for the former.
Of course there is some unavoidable risk when you hitchhike or when you pick up hitchhikers. Out of millions of people in America, there are some who inevitably will be predators and who will take advantage of others. The overwhelming majority obviously don't. The risk lies in not knowing whether you will bump into the bizarre exception to the normal rule of human kindness in such situations.
But that risk, together with the alarmist publicity and paternalistic laws that can accompany it, have little to do with why far fewer people are hitchhiking now than they did back in the day. People are strongly affected by their peers and by what they are doing. Then they tend to do the same. In that older era, there was a huge social push to get out on the road in all sorts of ways and hitchhiking took wing as a direct result of that push. Now that is gone. There is no strong peer influence pushing people in that direction. There is nothing cool or adventuresome in the car culture, at least not for many.
And so hitchhiking, at least in America, is left for those who do it out of necessity and for the remaining few who truly enjoy interacting with strangers. For most people, it is a brush-off item that they would never consider. After all, "nobody is doing it."
Anyway, nobody leaves their house any more, not to drive, not to sit on the porch, not to hike in the hills. Well, somebody will say "But I do!" and that's fine. But the massed millions don't. They go to the mall and fool with their phones.
Edit: Heh, Google... here's a doc for the murder trial: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19951341658So2d683_11297.xml/...
Really this hitch hiking thing is like a social network that has gone wrong, to no longer have 'network effects'.
https://www.google.es/search?q=rafael+bueno+latorre
Uh, never more.
So it was just somebody who looked like him. Still, it made me nervous for a couple minutes...
Otherwise it's just a great anecdote.
Then the man started to drive like in an action movie, "daddy's car" he shouted all the time, rebasing other driver by the right side and asking us if we were snitches, that he had a special treatment for then (indeed, he made a band mate to cave his own grave and shot him facing the ground: "if he awakes, let's him dig downwards").
When he took the highway, we barely could convince him that we had to take the other way. We were terrified.
Edit: I'd always thought the psycopath incarnation in the movies was one of those movie artifacts that someone invented once and others copied. Not at all. This guy was exactly like that.
In one car the guy said he was stopping for a pee. We pulled off the road, down another road, down another, into a wood. He then stopped the car. I was worried. He got out, too a pee and then off we went again.
Everyone was very nice and we all had fun.
I guess my point is that in small mountains towns in the west, we have not yet received the memo that we should not be doing this.
I never waited more than an hour, and we usually got picked up in just a few minutes.
Most of them felt like a mutually beneficial exchange. We got a ride, and typically advice of where to stay/eat in town; the driver got to be a little part of a big adventure. Some drivers insisted on detouring to drop us off at the grocery/motel/WWII Japanese internment camp. I can't recall any situations that felt dangerous, though pick-up truck drivers were happy to let us ride in the bed, which is a significant fine for the driver if caught by law enforcement in California.
I hitch & pick up some hitchhikers (except the ones who haven't showered in years), but it seems a simple matter of fact that hitchhiking makes you more vulnerable on both sides of the deal. I don't think it's wrong to consider the risks.
Also if we are to compare statistics, the article puts forward 0.04 murders per day related to hitchhiking in California. Ok, well there's 7.7 traffic fatalities per day in California. But how many people drive on the road each day, vs. how many people hitchhike?
If there were 1 million cars on the road in California each day, there would have to be 5,200 hitchhikers each day for "risk parity" for the two activities. That is, choosing to drive your car or choosing to hitchhike would be equally risky. If there are less hitchhikers per day than that, it is more dangerous than driving- if there are more, it is less dangerous than driving.
The point being that while hitchhiking is not the nation's biggest source of violence, the risk is not as small as the article tries to paint.
As far as I can tell it's just a misunderstanding of statistics and extreme risk aversion that reduces numbers.
This idea that it's more or less dangerous than some other activity just doesn't jibe with me. Life isn't about going to the gym with muesli and green beans and avoiding scary information and so on. It is precious precisely because we have freedom.
On the idea of public transport replacing hitching - that's a completely different experience. It's commercial. You deal with ticket inspectors assuming you are a thief, barriers, overcrowding, limited routes, high cost (the entire point of hitching is having an extended/permanent trip on a budget). Etc.
Self driving cars may well kill it off entirely. And we will have lost something great - one of the few areas of life untouched by capitalism.
I'd recommend long distance cycle touring. Obviously you have to be a bit more self-reliant, and it doesn't exactly scream "socialise" but you wind up spending time in areas you otherwise wouldn't, where people are super friendly, and truly experiencing the geography and fauna along the route in a way that automotive transport can never match.
I used to hitchhike in college, but it was mostly asking for rides across town in the back of a pickup truck.
When I've been on a trip to western Ukraine 3 years ago, I picked up a female teacher, which was commuting to her school by hitchhiking every day. Strange that it's easier to hitchhike in poorer rather than richer country.
Still a fun experience.
Before the cheap flights, I went hitchhiking not just for fun, but because it was so much cheaper too.
Falling off can mean getting run over.
I mean, sure, the freedom can be great, but... highly not recommended for safety reasons. Really, please think twice.
Hell I wonder if it actually went up but we just changed the definition.
When I got a car, I used to pick up every hitchhiker I came upon.
Did you read the article? Even glance at it? Or did you just come here to start riffing on America's car culture? FTA:
>In many countries, hitchhiking isn’t just accepted but encouraged. Some municipal governments in the Netherlands, for example, install “Liftplaats” signs in desirable hitchhiking locations. And in places like Moscow and many parts of Cuba, where car ownership is less common than in the U.S., sticking your hand out is just as likely to get you a ride in a private vehicle as a taxi.