A bonus of public transport is that you can let your kids do whatever once they hit 13. There's always a few awkward years where they can basically care for themselves but can't drive.
Today's parents are way too paranoid. My mom grew up in the country and back then all the kids were driving by 12 even in town. I think modern age limits are more about making sure you can get charges to stick in court than a safety issue
I used to walk to school alone when I was little. When I was a little older I walked my younger brother to his school, then I walked to mine. My parents didn't need a car to do that for us.
However all of us used a car to go shopping once a week. A four people family buys an incredible amount of stuff. Sometimes I walked with my mother to small shops to buy fresh food during the week.
We also walked to health care centers. Everything was in a 20, maybe 30 minutes range.
If cities are planned to place homes close to important locations there is little need for cars.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/why-are-littl...
The younger child goes to a kindergarten on the opposite end of Bad Homburg. That's 40 minutes with the bus one direction. No, there was no option of a kindergarten closer to our house. There was no option at all, you just take it where you get place.
The younger child has an illness and we have to bring him to a therapy at least once a week. That's in a hospital in another sattelite city on the opposite end of Frankfurt. Two hours with bus one direction.
The older child has allergy treatment in another hospital in Frankfurt. One and a quater an hour with public transport.
And these are just a few examples.
Without a car my wife would probably have to stay home just to manage children.
To answer your question - children introduce spatial responsibilities we you can't typically efficiently manage without a car.
The original thought was "everyone should be able to get everywhere they want to go easily without owning a car so a personal automobile should be considered a luxury." You're describing a situation where the first criteria was not met so the second, of course, won't follow. So your situation doesn't apply and it doesn't take away from the original idea.
"Everyone should be able to get everywhere they want to go easily without owning a car so a personal automobile should be considered a luxury" is a nice thought, no objections.
So how about we'll talk about "owning a car ... should be considered a luxury" first when "everyone should be able to get everywhere they want to go easily" is implemented? Because it's pretty far from my reality.
It also looks like Ober-Erlenbach and Nieder-Erlenbach are the only two villages and twos around Frankfurt that don't have a train station to Frankfurt.
Almost every reason I've ever seen given for needing a car have to do with deciding to live somewhere with terrible public transport or lack of public infrastructure nearby.
The argument that there are currently great reasons for automotive mobility isn't affected by the notion that a set of imagined circumstances could enable people to stop being reliant on cars in the future.
So either we discuss the reality where the next available pediatrician is in the next city (1h with two busses, imagine this trip with a sick child on your hands).
Or we discuss the fantasy world of "everyone should be able to get everywhere they want to go easily". But then stop asking, what is it about children that you need a car.
It sucks that today youngsters are treated as dumb. Even though the world is getting safer and safer.
So no, I did not consider biking with a second seat. It is completely unrealistic.
Yeah, cycling near trucks is terrible, I wouldn't do it either.
Parents of children under 12 should also be given a pass.
(Unless outsourcing the population is a deliberate tactic, of course.)