How far?

[grenfell]

Prompted by a couple of bugging out threads and my own comment about the characters in Revolution seemingly to transverse the US in no time at all I began to wonder just how far people factor into their plans if having to bug out by foot. How far is a reasonable distance to walk. I'll ignore the use of motorised transport as most cars and vans with a full tank and a jerry can or two of their favourite tipple could likely travel almost anywhere in this country.
Now military thinking seems to look at something like 20 to 30 miles per day are feasible but for most there would be differing situations that would perhaps reduce that by half. Having to keep of roads , taking kids along and scavenging for food and water along the way would all serve to slow one down surely? We are currently fostering a three month old baby and even going somewhere in the car is a lot like a military operation so I could hardly think how we would cope if we had to evacuate any real distance by foot.
I don't as such have a bug out location although a good friend of mine has a secluded place in Wales which I'll use for this hypnotise . Getting there can be done by car in a few hours although a fair bit of that is on main roads. At perhaps 10 miles per day it would take a least a week to get there. We could carry some water but not enough for the whole trip so as the days went by we would get slower as we sourced it and probably having to boil it too would all eat into the time.
I'm not in the slightest trying to deride or belittle anyone's bug out plan, a plan after all is better than no plan , just interested how others would factor walking into their plans.

[Stasher]

We are not planning on bugging out. BUT if we get to TEOTWAWKI I don't think it matters how long it takes to get anywhere. Safety would be the primary concern, not speed in my opinion. But you have a good point. We could not yomp for miles every day. But then adrenaline would also be a factor, soooooo....

[Spiderwebb]

We very much have a stay-home plan. Leaving would be incredibly difficult (personal circumstances) and nearest family 250 miles away. Under the circumstances needed for us to leave home, I can't think where we'd go. By then everyone I know would be looking for a paddle!

Hypothetically, I'd guess I could cover say 15-20 miles per day with baggage, good health, safe routes, in daylight, fair weather conditions, some maltesers and alone.

[grenfell]

Yes I'll admit bugging out isn't high on my list so I generally plan to stay put but of course best laid plans and all that .......
Reading of the famous Yomp by the paras in the Falklands it seems they did 56 miles in 3 days which just read like that doesn't seem too impressive until one realises that it was in full kit across very rough ground. Few other than super fit military types could get anywhere near that.
As with so many things it would depend on the situation as to wether speed was an important factor and if it were then I'd have to say keeping off the roads wouldn't be a real option. To get somewhere , anywhere quickly even by vehical the roads would have to be used.
I mentioned Revolution as an example of the ability to seemingly travel huge distances in no time at all by foot and it's not alone . Hollywood seems to largely ignore the time it takes and characters rarely have anything other than a gun with them which could start me on another rant about just where do all the bullets appear from .

[dazthechippy]

my thoughts are a little different but sort of similar. We're not planning on bugging out for all the normal reasons (leaving your preps, no location in mind and lots of others will move to the forests etc.)

BUT I am planning for a walk home from a place I commonly work at - 18 miles away. I reckon I could do it in 36 hours by road. However taking into account self preservation and avoiding other people as much as I can I'd avoid the roads (most sensible option I think) and I'd be cutting through fields, skirting round urban areas, maybe moving at dawn and dusk and lying up if needed and generally taking it slow and cautiously I reckon its a 3 perhaps 4 day activity.

I'm building a get home bag to deal with this and at the moment chucking what I think I'll need into a 30 litre patrol type rucksack until I reckon I have what'll I need to do the 3 dayer, it's quite alarming however as tests so far are showing that even 1 one day of food and water plus a few essentials and sleeping/shelter gear weights quite a lot so I'm rethinking what I'm including.

Sometimes I work in Birmingham and central London so that's all going in the plan too and I totally appreciate that if I had to walk home from those locations its a different game altogether.

[Hamradioop]

The distance covered will depend on may factors. The type of shtf you are legging it from, the terrain you are crossing, the threats to you person. Your level of fitness and any companions. IMHO 5 miles a day would in some situations be a good days travel. Just my three ha'pence worth.

[Devonian]

I would have no concerns about walking 20+ miles in a day with my BoB if there are no restrictions etc, I already regularly walk 10 miles in an afternoon with the dog on occasions.

However it will depend on the situation, as soon as you have to go cross country the distance will reduce; if you have to go over moor land or via beaches, it will reduce further.

If though you are trying to evade others and remain out of site, then the distance will dramatically reduce and you could be lucky to cover a couple of miles.

If you are on your own, you will cover larger distances, if there is a group or children/elderly persons, then you will be moving at the pace of the slowest member and at a greater risk of being discovered.

I'm currently wading through the 1970's Survivors DVD's at the moment, and its interesting that they can make it to Birmingham in half a day from their base, and London in a day, and their salt source is 120 miles away!! They do travel by horse, but they haven't got Red Rum

[Vespa]

Some good points raised, interesting topic.

Has anyone considered that they may have to get home on foot at night?

It's one thing walking in the daylight with a horizon and landmarks in the distance but with out decent dead reckoning skills you can find your self in bother relatively quickly. Whether it's taking the wrong route and ending up in the wrong place or falling down an embankment into a river or canal it can be dangerous.

I walk my dog for four or five miles a night around a number of green lanes and moorland paths and I know the area like the back of my hand having walked for many years during the day and night. But even though I know these lanes well I remember one moonless and rainy night I found my self taking a wrong path at the top of a hill I've climbed since a child and ended up in the bottom of the next valley. I had to phone my wife to come and pick us up when we got to the bottom. She wasn't best pleased.

I also remember one incident camping when when I had to answer a call of nature I only went 20 or 30ft from the tent but got lost for half an hour on the way back.

Does anyone know how many steps they take over a hundred metres, on flat level ground I do 140 steps or 70 left feet, more on rough ground and an incline. If you're walking at night with out a moon it's a handy thing to know when retracing your steps.

[Memphis]

Reading of the famous Yomp by the paras in the Falklands.

The yomp for the most part was marines, there were some paras but i believe the paras naturally came in by seakings to take an airport.

As for a feasible distance to cover in a day, ive done 30 miles in 7 and a 1/2 hours, running with the sort of weight thats in my bob, that was a few years ago now, and i couldnt imagine how i could possibly cover that distance with that weight in a day, let alone the same time. If your in a situation where your needing to travel that sort of distance youll be thinking about rest stops, not being seen as your poodling along, collecting food and water as you go...
I think 10 miles a day maximum is a good distance, allows for plenty of stops to rest, explore, forage, check the route, allows plenty of daylight at the end of the days travel for setting up shelter and checking your area out before you go to sleep. Thats my oppinion but ive done a hell of alot of long hard yomps so its from a position of experience too.

I personally would only want to get as far from any danger as necesary, if just my town was too dangerous to stay in id move a few miles outside it to a good location but if it was TEOTWAWKI id just keep heading north! Unless its as extreme as that id like to stay in the area i know or as close to it as possible, after all, the north is too cold and wet for essex folk!


Sent from my GT-N8010 using Tapatalk

[grenfell]

Thanks for the replies.
Seems that dependant on the scenario walking may or may not be of much use as an integral part of a plan . Certainly not if speed is of the essence. I suppose that in some sort of complete break down a return to a more sedentary lifestyle would be in order with only essential travel needed and that perhaps by a few traders.
I can't help but think that the modern world has almost programmed us to be on the move as a sort of right or necessity and mention of film and tv of the post apocalyptic genre seems to strengthen that , people are always moving around . Ok so a two hour film of people plodding down a track and using a bush as a toilet might very well be less interesting than a band of plucky survivors saving the world but perhaps just a nod towards reality and logistics.