That's because people like their cars. You may not, but many people do. And I've traveled in many countries and it's not like cars are uniquely American.
Why? Convenience, flexibility, ability to haul a family.
Cars certainly aren’t a requirement if you have good walkability and/transit, but given the choice many people prefer cars.
But I hate using it for day-to-day tasks. For me, it's a machine that lets me take fun trips on the weekend, or go see family in their car-dependent towns and cities. If I want to go to a brewery, or stop by the post office, or shop for a few small items, or just go to a park, I would literally always rather do it on my bike or on foot. Driving around cities is miserable.
Of course cars are convenient for some things. I live in a city where the majority of households has access to a car, but only a quarter of the trips (accounting for 40% of the traveled distance) are made by car. I still consider the city to be built very car-centric, but it's a wholly different world from what I experienced when visiting the US.
This is a massive over-generalization that pretty much only applies to the suburbs that were built out in the 1950s and 1960s mostly in the southern half of the country. As those suburbs have densified over the decades (where allowed by law, so not the southwest) some of them have become pretty darn walk-able.
Only the rich own cars. Or those that live outside the urban core.
Welcome to our future if Strongtowns has a say.
BTW, it's already kind of true that only the rich own cars, car ownership correlates very strongly with household income.
Of course it correlates. Rich households can afford more cars per person and can indulge in specialized vehicles (e.g commuter car).
Rich families have a sedan for each commuting parent and maybe another less specialized car (e.g. minivan or 3-row SUV) that only sees weekend use. Poor families pile into a Saturn.
That the ability of the poor family to own and operate that Saturn confers a far greater standard of living jump than cars 2-N do for the rich family. It also has a much greater impact on the health of the broader economy.
To intentionally place monetary constraints on vehicle ownership would be unwise because you have to price out all the poor before you start making meaningful dents in the (relatively) wealthy professionals who commute across the inner suburbs and into urban environments.
I, too, live in a country with high quality transit and also got a car when i had a family and i could afford a car.
i have about 1400 km per year on it. having a car and driving it are two different things.
And I'd probably still keep to taxis in the city, can't be arsed to drive :D
Nope.
When given the choice between bad bike/walking infrastructure and cars, people prefer cars. But when you give them good infrastructure, many prefer bikes.
People might like their cars for the freedom of movement they provide - like being able to transport cargo without a headache; being able to go on a weekend trip with family; etc. But they certainly don't like their cars for having to spend 2 hours a day just to get to their workplace and back home.
They tolerate it.
That's why manuals are dying, that's why cars now HAVE to have things preventing distracted drivers from dying, that's why autopiloted car manufacturers are swimming in money thrown at them by everyone despite showing no results.
Should you ask why they tolerate it - the reason is very simple. The alternatives - cycling and public transport - have seen close to none of investments in the past decades all over the world. And therefore provide a horrible and humiliating experience to its users.
Also, the focus on cars allowed many cities and even countries to get lazy at planning and providing equal infrastructure to all districts. Having a smaller school in your neighbourhood is better for the kids - they could go there by themselves with friends and not spend much time doing nothing in traffic everyday. But because everyone has cars government will do the cheaper thing and build a bigger school that isn't convenient to anyone.
People shouldn't have to drive everyday.
All neighbourhoods should have adequate commercial and infrastructural exposure on the spot. No driving to school, groceries or GP. And when you have to commute, alternatives to driving should provide a better experience. Then many people would opt not to drive even if commute is needed, and therefore people like me - who like to drive - would have the roads free of traffic jams and distracted drivers, and be able to actually enjoy the experience.
People like being able to walk and bike places too, IF the walk and bike options are actually decent (in terms of safety/comfort and distance).
And people certainly don't like getting fat, and yet there's a strong link between car-dominant infrastructure and weight. Surprise surprise, getting exercise as part of your transportation is a lot more reliable than getting exercise as leisure.