But jeans are terrible in the extreme situations that could happen while hiking, and can worsen the risk of hypothermia if you end up in such a situation, potentially causing death when you might otherwise have endured.
Thats why people tell you not to hike in jeans, you don't need 'special' pants, just 'not jeans (or any other pants made from similar wet-trapping materials)'.
There are pants that look like jeans and feel a little bit like them - athleisure - that probably don't have this limitation.
I had a pair. I wish I knew how to identify them because searching for athleisure jeans is turning up traditional jeans as well, including slim fit which would be worse. Maybe non-denim jeans.
Edit: I think the brand was Prana. Maybe they were denim, but "performance denim". Is all denim unwieldly in extreme situations? My jeans like this felt different, to where I might like them significantly more or significantly less based on what sort of pants I felt like wearing on a given day. They seemed a lot more like pants and less like jeans. https://www.prana.com/men/bottoms/denim.html?srsltid=AfmBOoq...
It's not that it's unwieldy, it's that cotton absorbs and holds onto water, so if you fall in water on a hike, or get soaked from a downpour, you're going to be stuck in cold, wet, pants.
It is, however, possible to coat the fibres with something to make them not do this, perhaps that's what the 'performance denim' did.
Basically, if you have a chance to be stuck far from indoors with soaked clothes, you want them to be made of a material that doesn't hold water as cotton and wool do, it's fairly easy to find nylon, acrylic or polyester pants.
I think they were thinner and lighter so they would probably absorb less water even if fully soaked. I think they prevented absorbing water with some kind of a coating too, though.
This is an optimization though, when you just get started, start with what you got. In situations where someone is just starting and doesn't have gear, AND it's actually an ambitious day, my only requirement is some kind of grippy shoes and a headlamp. Anything below an ambitious, unpredictable day, and you can probably just roll with basics. Couple hours is nbd and I do most days in jeans. Comfort is usually more important.
That said, definitely some situations I'd have preferred not to have jeans
People overestimate their risk of an extreme situation occurring while hiking and underestimate their risk of being in an extreme situation in everyday life. They are roughly equal.
So if you were really that concerned, you’d be wearing hiking pants everywhere, even when not hiking.
What? I’m a lot more likely to get cold and wet with no access to dry shelter 3 days into a 7 day thru hike in the Sierras than when I’m within a 15 minute walk of my car in the city.
Not GP, but hypothermia strikes more people in summer than winter. In winter, folks know to prepare for it. In summer, they wonder how they could possibly get hypothermia. Then a thunderstorm drenches them and washes out a bridge.
It doesn't even have to be that cold to die of hypothermia. Just cold enough that your body can't maintain above 82°F. If immobile, like due to injury, that can happen at 50°F. Quite possible in the mountains, esp with windchill.
Sure, there are a lot of ifs in that scenario. But it does happen. And it is usually easy enough to buy polypro pants.
The situation the author describes sounds like a summer day hike in subalpine terrain at Rainier. I’d do that in a cotton hoodie and jeans, and I recreate in that part of the cascades 12 months a year. Our forecasts are some of the best in the world, and even if they missed the solution to getting rained on in July on a day hike is to walk back to your car a little damp and disgruntled.
Your example actually makes his point almost exactly. The 7 day thru hike is akin to when hiring a data engineering team and investing super heavily makes sense, the day hike is when you’re chatting with users and figuring out the domain. The “wrong” tools are less consequential at the start and when the stakes are lower.
I’m not trying to respond to the article, overall I agree with the advice. just replying to this silly comment saying I’m more likely to need hiking pants in everyday life than when I’m on a hike, and that my estimation of risk of those activities and locations is off.
> People overestimate their risk of an extreme situation occurring while hiking and underestimate their risk of being in an extreme situation in everyday life. They are roughly equal.
They are roughly equal in absolute terms, say 0.000001% and 0.00001%, but not in relative terms (10x). These are made-up numbers, but I think they convey the idea behind the numbers accurately.
The reason for the wide disparity is not really about the situation. Our ancestors spent every day of their lives walking miles on rough unpaved trails in the wilderness. It's about experience. Most people, even fairly avid hikers, simply don't spent anywhere near as much time hiking as they spend doing other things.
Inexperience radically increases risk. Clear evidence for this is that every single high stakes profession places an extreme emphasis on training and practice.
If you're doing an activity that you aren't an expert at, it behooves you to increase your level of caution to compensate. If that activity happens to take place in a setting where consequences are more dire (in the wilderness, far from access to healthcare), then increase your level of caution to compensate for that too.
> So if you were really that concerned, you’d be wearing hiking pants everywhere, even when not hiking.
I mean, they do appear to be a Seattleite, so that wouldn't exactly be unusual around here...
Thats why people tell you not to hike in jeans, you don't need 'special' pants, just 'not jeans (or any other pants made from similar wet-trapping materials)'.