Recently Paula wrote about a topic that actually has been referenced quite a lot here, and that’s calculating the true cost of an item in terms of cost per use. (J.D. has a handy formula for hours required to purchase an item for a different approach.) I’m definitely in favor of using things until the end of their life-span, fixing them and then using them more.

Right now I’m wearing a $12 pair of pants I’ve had for about 6 years and patched repeatedly, a $16 jacket I’ve had for about as long which has been my main jacket and a sweater I won in a snowboard competition, meaning my outfit at this point costs next to nothing each time I wear it. This makes me feel pretty good in terms of cost-effective purchases, but, since I love to play devil’s advocate, I’ve been wondering if there are times to break with this idea and spend money even if you’re not going to use something all that often.

In my mind, yes.

Yesterday I ordered a super bright headlight and taillight set. Of course, I compared prices, read reviews, looked for coupons and finally ordered the $42.64 combination. Though I rarely bike after dark, it occasionally happens and the sporadic street lights aren’t good enough to see the massive potholes and cracks in the road, let alone make me visible to drivers with only my reflectors to supplement. I’m not anticipating biking at night frequently, but having too many friends who have been hit by cars while biking made spending the money no question, even if I use the lights less than a dozen times. (Admittedly, there were cheaper lights, but these are the brightest.)

While some things, like tools or instruments can be borrowed, loaned, and rented, I’ll admit that I’ll readily spend money to ensure my safety. Are there any other areas you’d spend money regardless of the cost per use formula? I’m thinking of adding sewing machine to my list, because even if I only use it a handful of times a year, the money I’d save in replacing clothes will most likely make up for it quickly.