(12-20-2016, 04:49 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: "Basically just 100%"...I'm done with this conversation.
It's like claiming pedestrians should count the food they eat, and the clothes they wear towards the cost of their mode of transportation.
lol, dude. I already said that was an absurd statement when I first quoted the article.
I was just pointing out that the 65-85% number DID NOT include vehicle costs because if they DID it would be basically 100%.
Edit: Here's exactly what I wrote originally:
"Notice how they call out: "If we look at the total cost of driving, including vehicle costs, cost recovery will tend to be closer to 100 per cent". Which is just silly."