Most will agree the adage, “better safe than sorry,” serves as a helpful warning sometimes. It’s an easy way for us to justify taking extra precautions, even when they seem unnecessary, because we’d rather do a little more first than suffer the consequences of a less desirable outcome. But how do we decide what’s enough?
Being Sorry
When we conduct our mental cost/benefit analysis of a situation, we weigh the possible worst outcome against the cost of extensive protection. For example, take my misbehaving clothes dryer, which last week decided to not stop running. The clock wound down, the drying period finished, all lights in the digital display turned off…and yet the drum kept turning. I turned the power back on so I could turn it off…but as long as the door was closed, the drum kept turning. It needed no programming, no lights, nothing but having the door closed. So, I unplugged it from the wall and considered my options. What’s my worst case? An electrical fire.
Being Safe
But next is the calculation of probabilities. Was this a fluke that just needed a “reset”? If I call a repairman, can I duplicate the problem so he can diagnose it? How much will it cost to fix, if it can be fixed? How much will it cost just to have a repairman come? (Hint: a service call costs A LOT these days.) So, do we spend hundreds of dollars even before we know if there’s a pattern or only a single incident?
Somewhere in the Middle
When deciding what’s safe enough, no one wants to spend too much unnecessarily, but neither do we want to “get burned.” We want to find a solution that balances up-front costs against possible bad outcomes.
My solution? I bought a new fire extinguisher! It costs a fraction of a service call and offers me a safety net while I monitor the situation closely. This time, I’ve chosen a modicum of safe while I hope to avert the sorry.