Frugal living: when is it bizarre?

[cjking]

What would be very informative, I think is if we had an overall safety rating for the vehicle along with the driver deaths per car sold. Then we could compare highly rated groups of small with highly rated groups of big. Since we are addressing a group concerned about safety, no use to even include the 'known bad' models of either size.

It seems "good" means foreign, so if small means subcompact and large means err... large, we end up comparing a Honda Civic to a Toyota Avalon. The Civic at 84 driver deaths per million cars per year is nearest to the median for foreign subcompacts, the Avalon is the only foreign car in the large group and has 40 driver deaths per million cars per year.

In fact the Avalon is the safest car for total deaths in the whole table, though for own driver deaths two of the minivans beat it. But there seems to be a consensus developing that the minivans don't count anyway.

The Avalon salesman can boast that his car kills fewer than half as many people as a Civic each year.

The Civic salesman can point out that the difference in safety between the two is only worth $66 per year to a motorist who values his life at 1.5 million dollars, a difference that is likely to be negligible when set alongside any other criteria that are important to a potential purchaser choosing between the two.

 

[Marquette]

You know, I know we're not typical consumers here, but among my friends and acquaintances, I don't recall hearing "safe" as a modifier on the "why I bought this car" or "why I want that car" list. (unless it's my wife, of course, IHS crash scores are top on her list followed by reliability).

When I was a few years younger, it was "fast", "cool", "sporty", "car & driver said it was good", "looks sexy", "because it has a diesel", "it has a Duramax", "it'll tow my boat", etc. Now I'm a little older and gas is a little more expensive, the words are "reliable", "fuel efficient", "consumer reports said it was good", "because gas is cheaper than diesel", "it gets better gas mileage than my truck", etc.

Of the friends I've lost to vehicular accidents... three were driving on icy roads when they crossed into oncoming traffic (no real concept of a median on that stretch of highway) and hit a semi head-on. They were in a Geo Metro. No surviors but I'm not sure that any car would have seen them through. One was driving drunk on a motorcycle and got a cable to the neck. A car would have helped there... but it might have just helped him take out someone else instead of himself. Three coworkers were on their way to northern Wisconsin in an Altima when they crossed into oncoming traffic and hit a pickup truck. Pickup driver died on the scene. Rear passenger died on the scene. Front passenger survived with massive surgery (and was killed two years later in a snowmobile accident). Driver survived but nearly lost his hand... oh, and he tested below the legal limit by the time they took a blood sample because a lot of the blood wasn't his by the time they made it to the ER.

All of the injuries to the front occupants were directly mirrored in the crash test results. The Altima scored very low for front impact protection and they had the scars to prove it. The rear passenger ruptured his aorta on impact, they think. I guess your body will do weird things to you when physics makes you go from 70 to 0 in seconds along with all of that kinetic energy from several tons meeting at 120 mph.

I've also seen plenty of trucks and SUVs overturned on the side of the road. No idea on how well they fared, but I do know that most of them probably ended up there because they were overdriving for conditions.

 

[Sarah in SC]

FWIW, my car was cheap to buy, cheap to repair, and had AC, automatic transmission and a working radio. Those are pretty much my only requirements. "Safe" isn't really too much of a factor, although current Saturn is the first I've had with an airbag.

I think that the high fatality rate on those pick-em-up-trucks might be skewed because the purchasing demographic: don't younger guys drive most of them?

 

[Khan]

FWIW, my car was cheap to buy, cheap to repair, and had AC, automatic transmission and a working radio. Those are pretty much my only requirements. "Safe" isn't really too much of a factor, although current Saturn is the first I've had with an airbag.

I think that the high fatality rate on those pick-em-up-trucks might be skewed because the purchasing demographic: don't younger guys drive most of them?

I read somewhere that a large part of the pickup truck demographic is young white males who don't wear seat belts.

Planner 18: Campaign Safe & Sober

 

[joan12234]

I hope this forum didn't have such a topic or if it did then it was long ago.
The following quote of CaseInPoint from "The Ultimate Cheapskate" thread: http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/ultimate-cheapskate-36395.html#post670362 prompted me to start this thread .

Sure, there's a point at which overspending becomes garish and wasteful, but there's also a point at which being super frugal can become downright bizarre.
I really wonder how many people actually choose to live so frugally, as oppose to being forced into it.

I'm curious whether you are frugal by choice or your decision to become a frugal person was influenced by someone else (e.g. your spouse, friend, etc. or someone close went through bankruptcy that prompted you to evaluate your early lavish living, etc. etc.).

When do you think frugality becomes bizarre? Any real life examples?

I think our family hasn't crossed the line between 'normal' frugality and 'bizarre' frugality, but I'm sure in some cases we're considered CHEAP by other people.

The latest example would be this. I'm expecting a boy in Aug. We've also got a 2.5y.o. girl. So, some colleagues at work asked me whether his nursery is ready. I said no, he'll spend almost a year in our bedroom (in DD's crib) and when he moves to his sister's room who'll be moving to a guest bedroom, we'll just hang some pictures maybe. Their reaction "Oh, but don't you need to paint it in blue or something? Isn't your DD's room pink now?" Me: "No, the walls are off white like we bought the house new. We never came around to paint". Should I feel guilty for not decorating the room in the cute colors and buying matching bedding/furniture because my DH and I feel fine as is? Maybe we're lucky we don't have people coming to our house or otherwise they'd make us really guilty and would definitely 'push' us to start shopping and changing our interior.

Another example. When DD passes her crib to her brother, she'll sleep on the thick full size mattress instead of a child's bed. After grandparents leave us (they'll come to help us out in Nov. for 3-4 months), DD will move to the guest bedroom that has a queen size bed.
Our rationale for doing this way is that our house won't become a motel with beds/mattresses stored in each and every room. Do you think this is bizarre because I don't see that way?

80-90% of children's clothes and toys are from garage sales or Goodwill. I know that in a year or two I'll shop more in regular stores for kids if I find nothing good in Goodwill or a consignment shop. It's time (and gas) consuming to drive to various garage sales and find good clothes.

What about you?

This is the way we raised our children (now grown) it didn't hurt them a bit. Children don't need as much stuff that people purchase for them.
Good for you, Go odwill has furnished and clothed us too!

 

[jclarksnakes]

Next time you see a pickup truck look to see if the occupants are wearing seatbelts. I do not know what it is but pickup truck drivers and passengers seem to buckle about half as much as everybody else I see. My data may be skewed living here in bubba land.
Jeff

 

[Khan]

Next time you see a pickup truck look to see if the occupants are wearing seatbelts. I do not know what it is but pickup truck drivers and passengers seem to buckle about half as much as everybody else I see. My data may be skewed living here in bubba land.
Jeff

Just an anecdote:
Many years ago (1974) I got into someone's car and buckled the seatbelt and she took that as an insult to her driving abilities.

 

[Ultimate Cheapskate]

Let's not piss off Jeff (Ultimate Cheapskate) -- at least until he has gotten hooked on the forum. He's a extremely funny and smart guy, and it will be a pleasure to have him around.

So everyone please be especially nice to him until he has about 300 posts.

Thanks TromboneAl, but fat chance of pissing me off ... my hide is as thick as it is cheap.
Speaking of which, did I mention that the other day someone questioned my credentials as both a cheapskate and an environmentalist (I'm proudly both) when they found out that I use disposable razors?
"What do you expect?" I said, "I hardly ever find the other kind in my neighbor's trash."

Stay Cheap!
-Jeff Yeager

 

[CitricAcid]

I think Marquette put it best that safety is an objective value that when people look at certain subjective tests or feeligns of safety get overlooked. If you want to sleep at night knowing your family is riding in a car or something, safety is definitely a very tangible asset, very hard to overlook or discount. How much safety means to people, however, could be misinterpreted, overstated, irrational or unnecessary as long as people wear seatbelts and drive well.

 

[vt74]

Even my two year old throught it was bad

Two weeks ago, I went to visit my sister in another city. I took my 2 yr old with me. My wife and the newborn stayed home.

My family in general is pretty cheap and we were actually talking about it. We were walking to the grocery store and afterward walked little further to check out the neighbourhood.

It happened to be that the next day is garbage day. We walk by a fruit and vegtable market. They had lots of empty boxes. But what caught my eyes were barrel full of ripen fruits and vegatable that may not last the weekend. Nevertheless, they look good.

So here we are going throught the barrel full of fruits and beside us a bag lady was doing the same thing. The funniest thing happen when I was going through the garbage, my two year son kept repeating " no daddy, no daddy". It was one of those thing you had to hear for yourself. Of course this would never happen if my wife was with me.

Anyways, we left with three bags full of brocolli, tomotas, onion, and patatoes. Had some of it for supper the next day.

 

[free4now]

Driving across the golden gate bridge today, I was struck at how unsafe the approach is... I rounded a corner and had to slam on the brakes because a lane was suddenly blocked off with pylons. They are currently considering multi-billion dollar public projects to fix these issues, as well as earthquake issues with the approach.

It is an interesting question what the value of a human life is from a public policy standpoint. E.g. if they can save say 1 life a year with a project that costs $10,000 a year, I betcha most people would vote for it. But if it costs a million to save a life, it gets more debatable, and at $100 million per life most people would probably say it's not worth it (except bleeding hearts who don't pay taxes).

But with automobile safety my fear isn't death, it's getting maimed so badly that I want to call Kevorkian. I'd rather lose everything I have and become a homeless vagrant than deal with what lots of car crash survivors deal with. So I can kind of get the perspective that "you can't put a price on it".

 

[haha]

A statistic I have heard a lot is that even in the cities/areas of the countries with the highest murder rate, you are over eight times as likely to kill yourself, makes you think doesn't it.

Unless living in a high murder district makes you over 5 times more likely to kill yourself than the background rate for the USA, this “statistic” is wrong. USA suicide rate overall is 11/100,000 people. There are 96 cities in the US with higher murder rates than this, some much higher.

For example, Compton CA at 67/100,000, Gary IN at 58, Birmingham AL at 44.

Similarly we sometimes get posts about how this or that country is no more murderous or even safer than the US. Well, if it's France or Iceland we are talking about, true enough. But usually it is some Latin, Caribbean, or African country. Let's have a look: The US is #24 on the list, just below Bulgaria and just above Armenia. USA is below all the Baltic States, no more than 1/3 that of Mexico, below Thailand, Costa Rica, Poland and Uruguay. The rate in the US is 4.28/100,000 people. This is only 8% of the #2 country, South Africa, and less yet when compared to the winner, Colombia. And this doesn’t account for the highly likely situation that US murder reporting is more complete than Colombia or South Africa, or Jamaica, or…

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

As the saying goes, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. It also appears that there are “statistics” fabricated out of whole cloth, with no relation whatsoever to actual data.

Ha

 

[ERD50]

It is an interesting question what the value of a human life is from a public policy standpoint. E.g. if they can save say 1 life a year with a project that costs $10,000 a year, I betcha most people would vote for it. But if it costs a million to save a life, it gets more debatable, and at $100 million per life most people would probably say it's not worth it (except bleeding hearts who don't pay taxes).

All very true, however I think there is a more beneficial way to look at it.

Rather than put them in isolation, and assign a value, we should simply prioritize - given $X, which actions can be taken to save the MOST lives? If we think of $ as a limited resource (as we should), it makes no sense to invest $1M to save a life, if we have not already invested the $1M on projects that would save 100, or 10, or even 2 lives. Work from the 'most bang for the buck' projects, until we run out of money, or feel we are hitting some level of diminishing returns.

But many people just get emotional about it, and won't look at it that way. 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?

Seems it is easy to for people to say you can't put a price on human life, until it is their pocket the money is coming out of.

-ERD50

 

[Finance Dave]

Another intersting thing to do is talk to highway patrol, or EMTs. See what they say about who does best in the many crashed they see- the guy in the old Beetle, or the guy in the SUV?

Ha

I agree. I've heard some people say they won't wear seat belts because they knew a guy who was thrown from his car during a wreck and lived because his car caught on fire...and he would have died if he was belted in.

It's amazing how people can pick one example that suits their need, then hang on to that on example in the face of thousands of contrary experiences.

Dave

 

[Khan]

I agree. I've heard some people say they won't wear seat belts because they knew a guy who was thrown from his car during a wreck and lived because his car caught on fire...and he would have died if he was belted in.

It's amazing how people can pick one example that suits their need, then hang on to that on example in the face of thousands of contrary experiences.

Dave

Ah yes, the person who was saved by not wearing a seat belt; everybody's cousin's barber's plumber.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".