Until the mid / late 1960s there simply weren't individually owned cars in rural British villages beyond the doctor, vet and perhaps postmaster. In Donegal in Ireland it was like that into the 80s!

I assume the grocery stores back then were probably smaller and more centrally located.

And women were less likely to go out to work, so they could spend a day schlepping around the shops to buy what they needed. Yes, people shopped at the local corner store - which means a narrower range of goods at higher prices. A rather different world of pre-decimal currency.

But also significantly lower carbon emissions!

I love how whenever people talk about banning cars in cities everyone comes out of the woodwork and screams “but what about the rural towns?!?!”.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but rural towns aren’t cities.

HN is very US centric. In the US state politics are almost always dominated by one or a couple of cities. And the generally dominate in a ways that results in rural and suburban folk are basically told to screw off if they don't like it. The reason people come out of the woodwork to scream "but what about rural areas" is that the fear is that cities will get policies enacted at the state level that make it more expensive to own/operate a vehicle statewide rather than improve alternatives (costs money, whereas taxing cars makes money) or just raise costs in the city.

Basically people are worried about a lead balloon like NY-SAFE but for cars.

I'd be perfectly fine if the major city in my state made it more expensive to use a car in the city so long as there was an proportional increase in the quantity of park and ride lots at the ends of the rail network and reliability of that rail service. What would happen in reality is that they'd just raise the cost, the parking garages would all be full at 6am instead of 7am and the rail network would be even worse because it would be handling more volume and the money made would be used on pork and graft. Nobody's quality of life would be improved save politicians who suddenly have more money to spend on salaried government jobs they can appoint the friends/relatives of people they want on their side to and the people appointed to those jobs.

But even in the relatively narrow scenario you describe, there is an immediate benefit for those living and working in the city, which is that there is significantly less car traffic, which means less noise and pollution and greater safety (also access for emergency vehicles etc). And, over the longer term, fewer cars within the city means that roads can be narrowed and sidewalks widened. And this is all without even considering where the increased taxes would actually be spent.

pjc50 and my post indicate the same happens in Europe, it isn't just the US. otherwise, agreed, I don't think anybody argued cities need more cars and less public transport.

In this case I was replying to:

"For very small towns, you can walk. For mid-size villages... I see zero need of owning a car for the general population"; so not just cities.

I think it's safe to say Scotland is more remote/rural than most of the regions being discussed.

But, if we consider Blairgowrie (a fairly typical farming town), you could get by without a car if you lived and worked in town. The Tesco isn't in the best location for walking (because it's surrounded by a giant underutilized parking lot). But, the large Co-op in town is walkable. And the small Co-op is walkable for the houses along Coupar Angus Rd.

My parents owned a house on the outskirts of town and I could walk to the Wellmeadow in 10 minutes or so.

There is regular bus service to Perth and Dundee, so you can get into the cities for doctors appointments and suchlike.

But, for a farmer who lives outside town, I agree, a car is going to be a necessity. And for people living in town, a car is nice to have, just not absolutely required.