Originally Posted by tandempower

Interesting and valid points but I think you're missing one crucial strawman in the whole basis for 'backlash against change,' which is that advocating one thing doesn't necessarily mean wanting to eliminate its rival completely. E.g. if you advocate that people should drink more pepsi, that doesn't translate into wanting to put Coca Cola out of business. Even if you argue that drinking too much soda is bad for health, it doesn't necessarily mean you want the soda industry out of business.

The same is true of car-free reforms. You can say that car-free living needs to be growing to make room for sustainable population growth and that doesn't mean all driving has to be prohibited tomorrow or even ever, necessarily. You could even say that motor-traffic needs to stop growing to protect what natural lands aren't already wasted and not be advocating the elimination of all motor-traffic. This is where I think the anti-car-free backlash is misguided, i.e. because people often imply that if incentives or reforms are suggested to facilitate car-free living for a growing population, that automatically translates into an assault against people who drive or urban planning that includes the possibility of many people continuing to drive.