Frugal living: when is it bizarre?

[TromboneAl]

In conversations, I've heard people say 'you can't put a price on a human life!'. OK, so I say:

Hmmm, did you hire a certified mechanic to thoroughly inspect your vehicle before you pulled out of your driveway today? No? Why not - you are risking your life and your family's life - you could have had a blow out, a brake failure, etc. But you won't spend the money/time for this simple act which could save a life?

And what do they usually say then?

[CitricAcid]

Originally Posted by TromboneAl

And what do they usually say then?

They back off of the front porch and stop trying to sell you a new safety device for your kid's sandbox or a walkie talkie or...

To haha, I was saying it anecdotally, and had no facts to back it up. Yet, you are cherrypicking certain high murder areas. The overall murder rate in America is 5.7/100,000 and as you said the suicide rate is 11.0/100,000 so for a nation as a whole you are about twice as likely to kill yourself than be killed. The threat is within...

[haha]

Your assertion was that even in high crime areas, in America one is more likely to die from suicide than from murder. As I clearly demonstrated, this is false. It is in fact false for almost 100 cities!

I also gave the whole country stats (recall that you gave none, only made a rather sensational, and false, assertion about high crime areas.)

People could make bad judgments with this faulty data.

In fact when obviously false "facts" like this are left uncorrected on the board, it destroys whatever credibility this board might be given by readers. Some things are only opinion, and we all know what is said about opinion-but this is data which can be easily verified, or not.

Ha

[CitricAcid]

I placed a gentle disclaimer in there saying that I did not have the data to back it up and it was anecdotal, obviously different people take that as meaning different things. Obviously, from where I had heard it, it was simply anecdotal and not correct, but disregarding the high murder rates (as you point out) is simply irresponsible. I apologize for that, but still feel the general point about the suicide vs. murder rate is valid, that the murder rates are often overstated as opposed to car deaths, suicide, hit by lightning or whatever rates.

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by TromboneAl

And what do they usually say then?

They mumble, stumble, then go about their normal Modus Operandi of looking for someone else to blame.

There just isn't much fun or satisfaction in 'personal responsibility' for some people.

-ERD50

[free4now]

One practical way this kind of data comes is useful is in deciding whether to travel to countries that have political unfriendlies. For instance, I travelled to Nepal while there were Maoist uprisings, and I know someone who travelled to Bali shortly after the bombings. In both cases the state department said it's too dangerous, but the reality is that the number of foreign tourists who die due to these unfriendlies is an order or two of magnitude less than the number that die in motor vehicle accidents and normal crime/accidents. So for me, it's not worth worrying about.

I've come physically but not temporally close to disaster many times. I've been inside the world trade centers a decade before they fell. I've been in New Orleans a year before it flooded. I've been on the beaches of Phuket a couple of months before the hurricane. I was on a Bangkok subway a few weeks before it experienced a horrific crash. When I was a child I had a huge tree branch randomly fall down as I was walking down the sidewalk, right behind me.

We are constantly putting ourselves in situations that are potentially dangerous; there's no way of avoiding that short of building a bunker and staying locked inside (although that has its own risks).

The trick is indeed accurately estimating which risks are the most likely to be problematic, and focussing our efforts on reducing those risks.

[Marquette]

Originally Posted by free4now

In both cases the state department said it's too dangerous, but the reality is that the number of foreign tourists who die due to these unfriendlies is an order or two of magnitude less than the number that die in motor vehicle accidents and normal crime/accidents. So for me, it's not worth worrying about.

I assume you mean the percentage who die is magnitudes lower, right? Because, if only 10 people travel somewhere but 100% of them die, count me out...

[CitricAcid]

Originally Posted by free4now

One practical way this kind of data comes is useful is in deciding whether to travel to countries that have political unfriendlies. For instance, I travelled to Nepal while there were Maoist uprisings, and I know someone who travelled to Bali shortly after the bombings. In both cases the state department said it's too dangerous, but the reality is that the number of foreign tourists who die due to these unfriendlies is an order or two of magnitude less than the number that die in motor vehicle accidents and normal crime/accidents. So for me, it's not worth worrying about.

I've come physically but not temporally close to disaster many times. I've been inside the world trade centers a decade before they fell. I've been in New Orleans a year before it flooded. I've been on the beaches of Phuket a couple of months before the hurricane. I was on a Bangkok subway a few weeks before it experienced a horrific crash. When I was a child I had a huge tree branch randomly fall down as I was walking down the sidewalk, right behind me.

We are constantly putting ourselves in situations that are potentially dangerous; there's no way of avoiding that short of building a bunker and staying locked inside (although that has its own risks).

The trick is indeed accurately estimating which risks are the most likely to be problematic, and focussing our efforts on reducing those risks.

This sounds like a challenge to God or something ... JUST TRY AND GET ME!

[free4now]

Originally Posted by Marquette

I assume you mean the percentage who die is magnitudes lower, right? Because, if only 10 people travel somewhere but 100% of them die, count me out...

Yep, if there are a high percentage of people dying in motor vehicle accidents I would be avoid that place for that reason. I do tend to be wary of going to places where the only transport is motorbikes for that reason, and I won't ride a motorbike unless they can provide me with a helmet.

[kumquat]

While I agree that worrying obssesively about how safe you car is, is bizarre: WADR, let's get back to crazy frugal living.

Edit to add "is bizarre" after "your car is".