Does Being in a Group Setting Actually Make Traveling Safer?

On being in Morocco, a fellow traveler who came directly northward across the Strait noted with worryingly horror over a glass of cheap Spanish beer, “It is totally differently over there, man; you can get pick-pocketed on the streets even if you are with a large group of your friends.  You got to be careful on your own!”  He went on to carefully describe the wild chase he and his newly acquainted travelers had in the narrow streets of Marrakech’s medina. 

The point about Morocco being full of pickpockets is well-noted.  But his statement contains a fundamental assumption that one needs to be rather doubtful about; that is, is being among a group of friends really makes one safer than traveling alone?  After all, his genuinely entertaining Hollywood action movie-style story began with a girl having her camera snatched while she was engrossed in a conversation with other members of the group.

Of course, this is not to say that traveling alone is always safer.  Being with large number of others definitely thwart attempts at more violent forms of crime in the form of knifepoint muggings (something apparently is also common in Morocco), but greater vigilance, rather than collective strength of numbers, should definitely be more important when countering attempted pick-pocketing.  And one should certainly not be sure that having more people around makes one’s wallet more protected.

Group travel, for better or worse, emphasizes the company of other people, rather than being immersed in a certain environment.  Being in a particular setting or location becomes simply backgrounds for concentrating on “having fun” with other people.  And because of that focus on people, a traveler within a group just cannot prioritize watching over what, or more importantly, who are there without seeming like being embarrassingly out of synch with the others.

Unfortunately, not paying much attention to potential pickpockets and one’s wallet is not counterbalanced by being surrounded by people one knows.  No matter how large the group, there has to be at least one person at one point in time who has her valuable possessions exposed enough for a professional snatcher to make his/her move.  These snatchers often take advantage of the mistake group travelers make in thinking that large number of eyes and ears in the group can thwart any crimes.

The lone traveler, on the other hand, has no choice but to look out for oneself.  The common perception of the lone traveler being targets of crimes only makes them even more vigilant and always on the lookout for abnormalities in the surroundings.  For fear of their lives they wisely decide to make undertake any excess risks (e.g. walking through the narrow streets of Moroccan medina after sunset) and put certain degree of distance with anyone who does not look completely friendly. 

So, in fact (and ironically in the minds of some people), seemingly lonely single backpackers often refuse to join group activities or even talk to other travelers who look harmless not because they are unfriendly or antisocial, but because they are actually quietly weighing the benefits of acquaintanceship with the costs of increased risks during future travels.  Being perpetually alone actually may make their travel experience a bit tenser but relatively safer. 

Ultimately, traveling in any destination, no matter how “developed” (which is for some, a codeword for safety) the place seems to be, always carries certain amount of risk.  “Bad apples” with bad intentions exist in every society because every society holds someone who is relatively poor and disgruntled.  The traveler can only avoid being targeted by such people by being cautious and not standing out like a sore thumb.  One could venture to say, with all else being held equal, lone travelers seem to adhere to these the best.