There are people, quite a few in our road, who have more cars and Van's than adults living there.
Cars are designed to carry (mainly) people; vans are designed to carry (mainly) large amounts of stuff. Say you have a couple - one is a builder/plumber, the other is a travelling salesperson/exhibition worker and they have four children. If they're only 'allowed' to have one vehicle per adult, which two vehicles do you suppose will enable their family to function practically?
This thread is almost like the negative of the other one on single adults having to pay more for things than couples. Single people are told they should share the limited housing stock and not expect to have one house all to themselves (or with their children); yet when people do use houses arguably more efficiently, they're told that they're only 'allowed' one (or at an absolute push, two) vehicles per person.
As I said before (I don't know whether or not the two deleted messages that immediately followed it had anything to do with that point), there is often a (hopefully) unconscious racist element to bigger and/or multi-generational houses; not to mention HMOs containing house-sharers or all races.
Imagine not only realising that you might end up having to share non-premium accommodation with four other adults you aren't in a relationship (or even necessarily good friends) with, for the rest of your life, and then, to top it off, you get people telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to have your own car, to enable you to work and pay rent for said shared house.
I'd still also like to know if people refuse on principle to use the services of any tradespeople until and unless they can prove that they have a drive for their van and any other vehicles in their family.