[ghaff]

>That implies the only alternative is not doing things?

The option is often not to do things. Leave aside the fact that I live in a semi-rural area. Even if I lived closer into the city, there are a bunch of outdoor activities (hiking/kayaking/etc.) that I do which require a car. Could I rent? In some cases with the caveat that the vehicle may not have an appropriate rack to transport a boat for example. And I probably can't just wake up Saturday morning and decide to go somewhere.

My observation is that people do indeed tend not to do activities that have a lot of friction for them. And it goes both ways. I'm very selective about making the effort to go into the city for evening activities.

[OJFord]

I don't understand why this is so controversial - you compare the cost of the owned car to the cost of alternative way of doing whatever weird and wonderful requirements exist - if there's literally no other way then call it infinite.

I don't think anybody and certainly not I ever said 'a standard taxi or bus will do for everybody in all circumstances'.

To me it's a helpful comparison to make (even though I'm not very good at obeying its advice) because I have the need so little that however exorbitant a taxi or hire car might seem at the time, it beats year-round insurance, tax, depreciation, etc. hands down.

(I obey it in the sense that I don't own a vehicle, just not in justifying taxis as readily as I ought.)