[Closed] Angry commuter - justified??

@TJ - You are stupid. And I'm sure your figures stack firmly against drivers

Official figures, seen by The Independent, show that the cost of motoring has fallen by 13 per cent in real terms since 1997, while bus and coach fares have increased by 17 per cent above inflation. Rail fares have risen by 7 per cent extra above inflation.

JAG - SCUM, FILTH you were obviously in the wrong. If the same situation had occured and you didn't own any cars you would have been RIGHT but due to your ownership of a motorised vehicle (or three) you are WRONG.

Oh, you mean VED - which is emissions based

Only if registered after 2001, which is why I pay the same VED on my '93 1.8 Mondeo as my Dad does on his '03 4.6 V8 Mach 1. I should get a bonus for keeping the old girl going!

Tax/VED - Yeah and marathons are called snickers now (yet still packed with peanuts).

A lot more to it than a name change though eh?

"Road Tax" might reasonably mean "a tax for using the roads that pays for their upkeep" - as it was prior to 1937.

"Vehicle Excise Duty" however is essentially a license to pollute by a certain amount, based on the emissions of your vehicle.

You may also enjoy reading: http://ipayroadtax.com/

OP I asked a similar question re. a double-parked street.

The cycle-safety boffins advised me to take a defensive position on the road and keep riding.

It would be nice if motorists paid their way tho - as it is they get a huge subsidy from the general taxpayer.

As much as i disagree with 'car culture', this is rubbish i'm afraid. Theres only one report showing that and its full of greeny eco nonsense and made up amounts of money to fix problems caused by motorists.

horatio - its the unfortunate truth. When you figure in all the costs of motoring them motoring taxes do not cover it. Add in all the greeny nonsense and its thousands a year subsidy per car. Just take the sensible and costed stuff and its still a subsidy.

GrahaS - I don't really care. I have to send some money to Swansea every year to drive my car. Exactly what bucket the gov puts that in or what they call it is completely irrelevant. It might make a good rallying cry for militant cyclists but that's about it.

As for costs. Policing, about £400m. Road repairs - hard to measure but looking at about £3b. Tax revenue from fuel - £27b. That's before we add in VED, Fines, VAT, Insurance premium.

Trains? Cost about £25b to run and are subsidised to the tune of 50% by the gov.

External costs are wooly as hell. Pollution is a problem. Public transport is the answer. But until the public transport system works properly and is efficient and good value - then nothing will change. I use trains when I can so I can work while travelling (even when its more expensive). But many times it just isn't possible.

Ironically, the car industry has made progress. Cars pollute less, they do more mpg, they recycle components, they have invested in alternative power plants. In the same period what advances have we seen in public transport?

Practically nothing apart from the price to use it.

horatio - its the unfortunate truth. When you figure in all the costs of motoring them motoring taxes do not cover it. Add in all the greeny nonsense and its thousands a year subsidy per car. Just take the sensible and costed stuff and its still a subsidy

What 'costs of motoring' are you referring to here?

Costs. All the deaths and ill health directly and indirectly caused. a million pounds a death. Thats a good few billion a year there. Many many other costs you miss out as well. Damage to buildings. Costs of courts and enforcement of motoring law.

As for public transport - well its starved of investment for decades but inmprovements - plenty. From all buses in Edinburgh being easy access for elderly and disabled to improved rolling stock on the railways

OP-IMO: You had right of way, should have ripped her wing mirror off, and dropped it on her lap, she sounds like a right Bag.

a million pounds a death.

You managed to put a price on death? How did you arrive at that monetary value?

Damage to buildings.

I have to send some money to Swansea every year to drive my car.

No you don't. You could choose to drive one of the Band A cars which have emissions of less than 100g/km and pay zero VED.

Or should they not be allowed on the road, since they don't pay "road tax" either?

I have to send some money to Swansea every year to drive my car.

Charlie - thats the generally accepted cost of a premature death - averaged out. 3000 ish a year - thats 3 billion. Then all the premature deaths from pollution related disease and stress and inactivity - so double or triple that.

Then all the costs of serious injuries - another few billion.

Then all the chronic illhealth - how much there?

Charlie - thats the generally accepted cost of a premature death - averaged out

How is this calculated? What is it based on? Whom does it cost?

Then all the premature deaths from pollution related disease and stress and inactivity

Cars don't cause stress and inactivity

I have to send some money to Swansea every year to drive my car. Exactly what bucket the gov puts that in or what they call it is completely irrelevant.

Actually when it comes down to it TJ, as a non car owner has a greater right to ask what his tax £ are doing for him being spent on roads seeing as he's excluded from things like motorways (which he helps to pay for).

I've had this on my commute in one particular place - it's quite a long one way stretch and can be hard to see traffic at either end. Generally I adopt primary just before entering the narrow bit. It helps cars to see you and stops people from overtaking. Personally I'll hold primary until forced to do otherwise, but wouldn't play chicken with a motor vehicle 🙂

WRT the tax argument, generally people pay what they're asked to. The glaring omission from the figures above is exactly how much it costs to [i]build[/i] roads. Particularly relevant since this is an mtb forum I'd say.

Actually when it comes down to it TJ, as a non car owner has a greater right to ask what his tax £ are doing for him being spent on roads seeing as he's excluded from things like motorways (which he helps to pay for)

sure but it appears he's happy for people to move the stuff he buys, on those very motorways. After all, they won't let me go and play on those tanks and aeroplanes which I went and bought. Anyway ultimately, the amount of direct tax TJ pays over his life, won't buy much of anything at all.

"primary"?

"primary"?

Given the context

Generally I adopt primary just before entering the narrow bit.

I'd assume it means much the same as missionary

Blue Peugot, and angry old lady,

Dont you think that sums it all up, everyone should know that peugot owners have a bigger chip on their shoulders than german car drivers.

Theres a nice bridge in LLanwrst , nerar penmachno, single track bridge with a serious hump in the middle, oh what fun it is on a sunny sunday afternoon watching as motorists cant reverse backwards, to let another car come towards them, sometimes quite heated arguments.

Then in chester the old dee bridge, the council have put an advanced stop line in front of the stop line for us cyclists, the road is not wide enough to overtake, but by mounting the pavement, and scaring tourist they do sometimes overtake, then suddenly see a large traffic light column in front of them in the middle of the pavement.

I pays me taxes I'll have you know

I'm constantly shocked by the pro-motoring comments of some people on here. I mean, I know this gwj72 person is a troll, but it still shocks me.

A while back my Granda (just turned 80) had another heart attack while driving. He's had about half a dozen heart attacks before, has reactions like a slug and drives everywhere faster than is safe. So he has this heart attack, goes straight over a roundabout, literally, and ploughs into a car, over a pavement and into a wall. Luckily, no one was hurt. About 1 minute before the heart attack, he told me he was doing 60 down one 30mph street, so he said he was glad it happened that bit later when he was going slower!

While talking about it with him, he said outright that he didn't care if he hurt other people, he was going to get another car and drive. Thankfully he had his licence taken away from him. But really, that was about 10yrs too late.

The tax paid by the motorist pays for the roads many times over. Until you start adding externals, the fuel duty alone covers it easily. But I don't mind you biking on them 😉

Public transport is a burden on every tax payer due to huge subsidy. You don't whine on them because it doesn't fit the anti-car agenda.

Adding externals suits you nicely, but its asynchronous. You conveniently don't include the additional input to the economy that many of these journeys add. Like tourism, employment and transport. When you add the net benefit of car travel, including direct motoring taxation and additional support to the economy - then your figures look like utter pish.

I pay my car tax (you can call it VED if you like) for the vehicles I chose to drive. I don't mind paying it. I think I should get a discount for the fact that 2 of the 3 are stationary at any time but I'm not going to campaign about it. For the record 2 of them are on v.low milage policies and have covered less than 2000m in 12 months. The other is for work, but due to working at home and using the train - I've only done 3000m in that. So I've probably polluted less than someone using a prius to commute every day. And because I'm keeping older cars on the road, I have had zero manufacturing impact on my conscious too.

Legally you had priority, common sensically and life preservationally might be a bit different though.

1) You had right of way.
2) If you are not sure of the right of way then its fair to assume that a fair proportion of car drivers will also not be sure enough to make the split second correct decision - play safe.
3) If you want to drive on the roads you probably need to learn not to get too wound up by drivers (the fact you are posting it here means you are).

Interestingly I made the opposite error of judgement with a car recently (I misjudged his speed and thought I would get through without him having to stop). I waved an apology and when he wound down his window and I apologised again and said "still, nobody died" I thought he was about to have a coronary.

Charlie - thats the generally accepted cost of a premature death - averaged out. 3000 ish a year - thats 3 billion. Then all the premature deaths from pollution related disease and stress and inactivity - so double or triple that.

3000 premature deaths a year directly from cars. More indirectly. A lot more.

A million pounds is the accepted cost of a premature death, 3000 of which are directly attibutable to cars and many more indirectly. No - not all pollution deaths - say 1/3 of them as thats about the % of pollution that comes from private cars. of course that will be an underestimate because most car pollution is in cities, most power station pollution is not.

Should have swapped phone numbers and give her a good seeing to as she has no action for 20 years, of course she will be moody. 😛

Hang on a minute. Seeing as nobody in the UK has ever died from pollution then the cost is zero. Even the greens figures say that at worst it may knock off 6 months of the life of those affected. And that's making an assumption that no other factors are in play (i.e they smoked, worked in a bad environment etc).

Pollution is bad thing and needs to be reduced. But putting the cost of lives which would have ended in a few months anyway at the motorist feet is plainly ridiculous.

I think you can make the numbers up anyway you choose and what ever you say to TJ, he'll argue this case until you either backdown or go away. Save your energies, ignore it as it's pure sophistry anyway.

BTW I though that £1m was the cost of an accidental death, y'know involving ambliances and the jaws of life n that.

gwj72 I know you are a daft troll but try to get it vaguely right. 9 months reduction in [i]average life expectancy for the whole population[/i] from pollution. 32 000 premature deaths a year from pollution.

A quick google gave.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4283295.stm

daft troll

[i]Public transport is a burden on every tax payer due to huge subsidy. You don't whine on them because it doesn't fit the anti-car agenda.[/i]

It keeps all those pesky poor people off the roads though, no? Means less queues for you. As indeed, does every person riding a bike. Less hold ups, less accidents, less pollution, less stress to the roads, less weight on the health system.

You're welcome.

The tax paid by the motorist pays for the roads many times over. Until you start adding externals, the fuel duty alone covers it easily. But I don't mind you biking on them

Well, I [i]do[/i] mind biking on them thanks, I'd rather they didn't exist and in their place we had a massive network of lovely singletrack 😉

TJ - I did see that. But when I see a report from the European commission with no attribution and statements like "the study suggests", I discount it has piffle.

Anyway, seeing as the vast majority of people killed on the road are motorists (not cyclists or pedestrians). Aren't we slowly solving our own problem 😀 And given that there are more tax paying motorists than none motorists in the population - aren't we paying the majority of the cost? 😀

daft troll

Why not just say troll?

or a stupid way or a witty way 🙂

or in a statistically flawed way? 🙂

Seeing as nobody in the UK has ever died from pollution then the cost is zero

Not actually true.

The exact same thing happened to me a few years ago apart from the drivers wing mirror got clipped (oops) he then did a uturn drove past me and got out of his car and waited in a layby at the top of the hill. When I got there I put my bike on the floor to talk to him he then proceeded to tell me how damaging his car could be bad for my health and I was lucky "bigger blokes than me might hit you" he was around 6ft i'm 5,8" I asked him if he fanced his chances he then drove off. This still makes me smile as I avoid violence like the plague usually.

[i]I was lucky "bigger blokes than me might hit you" he was around 6ft i'm 5,8"[/i]

😉

I once chased after a guy in his car after he overtook me on a blind corner. When I caught him he stopped and got out, I'm 5'11", he was about 5'2" and he looked as HARD AS NAILS!!!! You know the type. We had a chat and I was convinced he was going to start on me and kill me like a badger would. Thankfully we resolved the issue with discussion but he still wouldn't admit it was a stupid place to overtake me.

A million pounds is the accepted cost of a premature death

Can you explain this, instead of just repeating it?

CharlieMungus - Member

A million pounds is the accepted cost of a premature death

Can you explain this, instead of just repeating it?

Ditto... or does it mean [i]accepted by TJ[/i] 🙂

Well I've googled this if it helps.
[url] http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/422.pdf [/url]

The cost there is in american dollars and does seem to concentrate on people stiffing it at work but even in an inferior money, premature deaths seem to cost *significantly more* than a million pounds.

No, i said explain it!!

A quick google -

3000 deaths 8 billion audit commision
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/26/transport.world
1.6 million each road death - IAM
http://www.motortorque.com/news/auto-1006/road-safety-deaths-39cost-billions39-says-charity.asp
road accidents cost 18 billion a year 1.7 million a death, £200 000 a serious injury,
http://www.motortorque.com/news/auto-1011/39staggering39-cost-of-uk-road-deaths-revealed.asp

Edit - you want an explanation? Look to the audit office or IAM or Rospa - the sources for the various figures

Sorry TJ, I'm being a bit hard of thinking, It's still not clear how a premature death costs a million pounds.
please explain, these links are not clear

I want you to explain, not have to search through your references. Which so far seem to be related to RTAs rather than the general case

and these

The figure comes from adding up lost output and health care as well as the cost of pain and suffering to the families of the victim.

All I said was its the generally accepted figure - and it clearly is - or actually more than a million is. i suggest Rospa or the audit office might be able to give you more of an explanation. Me - I am happy to accept it as a reasonable ballpark figure.

Clearly it will vary greatly - but its an average.

Cost of medical care - some die after treatment, cost of the paramedics time, the hospital treatment, the days in ITU.

cost of the police time in investigating the death

cost of the Inquest / FAI

Loss of earnings

Oh - and yes you clearly are hard of thinking. these are figures worked out by experts and widely accepted. Not good enough for you tho - do you have an alternative figure?

I'll say it again. The numbers are made up to suit the argument. It's such a complex case how anyone on an Internet forum could ever get to the bottom of the real cost or real net benefit is beyond me. Referencing the Guardian or that august body, the IAM doesn't prove enything except they have repeated the mantra.

My bottom line is a modern tarnsport system that supports a mobile/flexible workforce has to be a benefit to a modern society.

<edit> TJ you're referencing RTA death costs not premature deaths (though death by RTA would be somewhat premature). You're also missing the point that these are theoretical costs not the true incremental costs of dealing with those RTA's. I.e. we'd need fire/ambliance/police etc just in case cats got stuck up trees rather than pesky motorists (or cyclists) topping themselves.

Boblo - of course any figures that blow your argument out of the water must be invented. ~The audit office and the IAM - (that bastion of car hating) are inventing ludicrous figures just to discredit you.

A million pounds plus is the accepted figure for the cost of a death on the roads. End of.

9 months reduction in average life expectancy for the whole population from pollution. 32 000 premature deaths a year from pollution

Given the pensions problem at the moment, this would be a cost saving.............

Oh - and yes you clearly are hard of thinking. these are figures worked out by experts and widely accepted. Not good enough for you tho - do you have an alternative figure?

and applied to RTAs whereas the figure you quote, and the one i wanted evidence for was

All the deaths and ill health directly and indirectly caused. a million pounds a death.

Loss of earnings?? Surely when someone dies, someone else gets their job and earnings.

A million pounds plus is the accepted figure for the cost of a death on the roads. End of.

TJ, I'm not having an argument. I just don't believe the numbers are a) credible (i.e. not largely made up) and b) truly incremental.

Night night.

So figures that are produced by respected and credible bodies such as the audit commission are not good enough - you know better?

So figures that are produced by respected and credible bodies such as the audit commission are not good enough - you know better?

The £1m is flaky. But the fact still remains that the majority of UK tax payers are car drivers. So whatever the costs are, the idea that non-driving tax payers are subsidising motorists does not add up.

There is 29m people working and paying tax. There are 31m cars on the road. Even taking multiple car ownership into account, it blows this idea apart. Car owners are paying for their own problems.

Morning 🙂 TJ - No I don't know better, I'm jusy sceptical. The threee sources you cite are probably repeating data rather than doing their own original research so don't really add any credibility above repetition.

TJ, do you have a breakdown of that £1m. I assume as you're quoting it as the de facto value of an RTA death you'll have had a look at what it's made up of?

BTW statistics produced by a Govt dept don't always represent the 'truth' as we might recognise it but you know that don't you?

who has priority is irrelevant when they're loading you into the ambulance...

I had this happen once, I was about 1/3 the way over the (narrow) bridge when a car comes rocking towards me having joined the bridge well after I did. The sound of the raised stone kerb rubbing down the side of said vehicle as it pulled over to the left to avoid me was music to my ears.

Cars don't cause stress and inactivity

I went out on my Lefty last night and I had an argument with a tree, it won.

Why has this thread entered the world of b*llox Tax/Death/angry middle aged men moaning about money? WHen surely the point of the thread is to punch old ladies who drive erratically in the face..

C'mon.. sort it out.

Why has this thread entered the world of b*llox Tax/Death/angry middle aged men moaning about money? WHen surely the point of the thread is to punch old ladies who drive erratically in the face..

C'mon.. sort it out.

But the fact still remains that the majority of UK tax payers are car drivers. So whatever the costs are, the idea that non-driving tax payers are subsidising motorists does not add up.

There is 29m people working and paying tax. There are 31m cars on the road. Even taking multiple car ownership into account, it blows this idea apart. Car owners are paying for their own problems.

Ummm... that's a either a serious logic fallacy or just very poor maths skills.

For a start you obviously don't have to be in a job to be paying tax, so limiting it to 29m "working and paying tax" is a pretty bad foundation. There are 62m people in the UK and even children pay some tax (i.e. VAT)

Secondly, you seem to be arguing [i]"Roads cost X - my share should be Y - if you add up ALL my tax then I pay more than Y so clearly I'm paying for my own problem."[/i] That doesn't work. Your total tax revenue is used to pay for lots of things - not just roads.

That argument only makes if you say that the [i]additional[/i] taxation paid because you are a motorist (i.e. fuel duty and VED) covers your "share" of the roads bill.

[url= http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/roads/condition/expenditure/rde0103.xls ]Fuel Tax and VED pull in £24,615 million and £5,441 million respectively[/url] and the [url= http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/roads/condition/expenditure/rde0101.xls ]Road Expenditure in England was £7,664 million[/url] so on those figures alone you'd have a point - but as others have pointed out there are huge hidden costs from our dependency on oil that still have to be paid for - not least from the 200,000 people who are injured on the roads each year.

There are 62m people in the UK and even children pay some tax (i.e. VAT)

Who's trolling now?! Are you seriously trying to say that the tax kids pay on their bags of crisps gets anywhere near close to what drivers pay on their cars? Cars, the second most expensive purchase most people make. 31 million of them driving about. And after the huge VAT injection from the new price - every consecutive time it is sold it gets another on the used price! Then there is the vat on servicing, on tyres, on petrol (as well as the fuel duty), on parking....

A few bags of monster munch are not going to tickle that iceberg. We gather in £520b in income tax. That's getting on for 40% of GDP. Fuel duty alone accounts for 6% of all taxation. Cut it however you like, the majority of tax the gov brings in is paid for by working motorists. Either through direct motoring taxation or general taxation.

I'm actually not making the point you assert. I am refuting TJ's position that non-motorists subsidise motorists and we don't pay our way. We clearly do because we pay more tax. Much more tax than non-motorists, who are in a minority anyway.

You're still ignoring the additional benefits from motoring btw. Try considering the people employed in the motor industry - nearly 1m! The foreign investment in this country due to it. The leisure and tourism industry depend upon it. Freight to support the retail sector. It goes on.... You can't talk about indirect costs of motoring without considering the indirect benefits - yet you persist to.

If anyone wants to give an accurate figure of the above costs and benefits, then there is something to debate. Without it, these loony studies you're quoting are worthless.

Cars, the second most expensive purchase most people make

gwj72

yes motorists pay more tax - but not enough extra to cover all the costs. some of the tax I pay as anon car driver goes to subsidise your car usage.

some of the tax I pay as anon car driver goes to subsidise your car usage

It subsidises roads, which you do use a lot indirectly.

It's a bit stupid to try and divide up taxation like this because as we've shown, it results in endless arguments, statistics and interpretations.

these loony studies you're quoting are worthless

Are you new here or something? You're wasting your time, you cannot argue with this man. Or rather you can, but it's worse than futile. Just smile and nod 🙂

yes motorists pay more tax - but not enough extra to cover all the costs.

Costs being the loony made up ones that discount all additional benefits of motorised transport. See you ignored it again...

@D0NK - You failed your test didn't you?

Are you seriously trying to say that the tax kids pay on their bags of crisps gets anywhere near close to what drivers pay on their cars?

No, I'm making the point that [u]everyone[/u] in the UK contributes some form of tax - not just the 29 million "working and paying tax". There are over 62 million people in the UK, so by your figures well over half are "not working but still paying tax".

I am refuting TJ's position that non-motorists subsidise motorists and we don't pay our way. We clearly do because we pay more tax.

Yes, agreed, a motorist will pay more tax than an exact equivalent who doesn't own a car.

But no, that doesn't refute TJ's position. You can pay more tax and still not cover the cost of motoring to the country. Whether that's true or not depends on how carefully/pedantically you consider the hidden costs (e.g. the 200,000 people injured every year on the road results in NHS costs, social security costs, lost earnings etc). Not to mention that dependency on oil leads us into fighting wars over it (do you think we'd have invaded Iraq if we only needed oil to make poly bags?)

We gather in £520b in income tax. That's getting on for 40% of GDP. Fuel duty alone accounts for 6% of all taxation. Cut it however you like, the majority of tax the gov brings in is paid for by working motorists.

Again you seem to be deliberately blurring the terms "working" and "motorist" together - bizarre as this may seem, not every motorist works and not every worker drives a car. I was in my 30s before I learnt to drive and I'd been working since I was 16.

If anyone wants to give an accurate figure of the above costs and benefits, then there is something to debate. Without it, these loony studies you're quoting are worthless.

The figures I offered were from the official budget of the Department of Transport - and could arguably back your case if you cared to look at them.

gwj72 - Member

You're still ignoring the additional benefits from motoring btw. Try considering the people employed in the motor industry - nearly 1m! The foreign investment in this country due to it. The leisure and tourism industry depend upon it. Freight to support the retail sector. It goes on.... You can't talk about indirect costs of motoring without considering the indirect benefits - yet you persist to.

If anyone wants to give an accurate figure of the above costs and benefits, then there is something to debate. Without it, these loony studies you're quoting are worthless

Hallelujah!

Two questions for TJ:

1. Do your numbers take into account all the indirect benefits of having a modern tarnsport system? Oil industry, manufacturing, employment, your own benefits of it etc?

2. Where's my breakdown of your fabled £1m cost per RTA death please?

I think you are guilty of repeating the same tired old stats/arguments endlessly in the vain hope volume will defeat logic. It's not enough to say 'widely accepted' whilst simply repeating unsubstantiatable tripe.

@D0NK - You failed your test didn't you?

He is a troll why you bothering? He admitted facts did not bother him what you hoping to achieve here? Suppose we should just leave him and TJ to it tbh

they are a sign of prestige if you don't have a nice new car your a failure

No a garage full of bikes is proper prestige ...and a tyre pile ..big enough kitchen to dedicate at leat one part to bike bits oh the list goes on 😉

Where's my breakdown of your fabled £1m cost per RTA death please?

Well... [url=

]"Article 2 - A valuation of road accidents and casualties in Great Britain in 2009 data tables" from the DfT[/url] puts the annual cost of all road fatalities as £3,680 million and there were 2,222 people killed in road accidents in 2009 - so that would put the official DfT figure at [b]£1.6 million per fatality[/b].

Incidentally, the same article puts the cost of all road accidents in 2009 at £15,820 million - which is a fair chunk of that Fuel Duty revenue!

Where's my breakdown of your fabled £1m cost per RTA death please?

Well... "Article 2 - A valuation of road accidents and casualties in Great Britain in 2009 data tables" from the DfT puts the annual cost of all road fatalities as £3,680 million and there were 2,222 people killed in road accidents in 2009 - so that would put the official DfT figure at £1.6 million per fatality

To be fair he said that every death costs 1 million, in reference to premature deaths caused by motoring, not just RTAs. Despite repeated requests he has not been able to justify this figure, so this just undermines his....oh hold. Actually it doesn't affect anyone's opinion of him at all.

[b]Cars don't cause stress and inactivity[/b]
hahahahahaha funniest post I've read in a while

Like to unpick why this is so funny? You think cars make people inactive or inactive people drive everywhere? I imagine most people on here own some form of motorised transport, yet, given the forum, most are not inactive.

Is it still funny? or like all jokes is it not so funny once it's explained?

I thought my post last week started something bad............jeeeeeeeez!