Ironic given that driving is not a right—you need a license—and is highly regulated (e.g., insurance), while you can walk and cycle without any of those things.
A cop can stop you in an automobile and ask for all sorts of documents, while doing the same walking or on a bus/tram/subway would probably be against most countries' constitutions.
See the Oh the Urbanity video '“15-Minute City” Conspiracies Have It Backwards':
Not in Canada:
* https://ccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Know-Your-Rights...
* https://www.jeffreismanlaw.ca/when-do-you-have-to-identify-y...
* https://collettreadllp.com/know-your-rights/can-you-refuse-t...
Further, you don't have to carry ID and can't get into trouble if you don't have any if walking.
A few years ago a driver making a right-on-red bumped me in the crosswalk with his car. It was reckless but whatever no harm no foul. But then he got out, incorrectly thinking he had the right of way, and demanded my "papers." He was incredulous and furious that I didn't have insurance papers to show him, or thought I was refusing to. He ended up calling 911 about it, though they didn't come.
Ever since then I can't get some questions out my head. Is that really how he thought it worked or was he just flustered? Do other people think like this? This was a middle-aged guy in a suit in a major city's business district, so presumably some sort of professional. Is he good at his job?
Cars as virtue signaling? I'm not quite sympathetic to this case. This person's liberty is causing harm to everyone else and I don't care for their symbol of wealth. I'd like to say, "get off my lawn", were the lawn is actually my city. My liberty of not being polluted by noise and fine particles, and of easily and safely moving on as a pedestrian or biker, and of my earth's climate not being harmed is important as well.
People could have their cars outside the city, reachable with good public transport, so it's not even like they couldn't have their symbol of wealth somewhere.
It would also make sense that people don't have their personal cars in cities. We could have car sharing systems like we have for city bikes, which work great. Most cars sleep most of the times, this doesn't make quite sense. We could have fewer cars achieving the same usefulness with better a organization less focused on the individuals.
Maybe a solution is that the car stops being seen as a symbol of wealth and liberty, and more like a liability / necessary evil, because this also doesn't make sense.
Wanting to look wealthy is already a cursed concept. Why should anyone care that anyone looks wealthy? This is not what's important in life. What you think and what you do matters much more.
Of course, this is a very good point, and this needs to be addressed. To be clear, I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing.
If you also live in an area where you cannot imagine how you could possibly live without using your car frequently, the prospect of a car-free city sounds a lot like you're being hung out to dry by people who don't care what happens to you.
These reactions are a combination of poor messaging by those affecting change and a failure of a imagination by the car-bound. The first, at least, is avoidable.