For example harsh winters and big temperature differences make maintenance of motorways significantly more expansive compared to railways and walking paths. Hence you have trans-siberian rail but no trans-siberian motorway network.
Also Netherlands did car-centric design in 50s. Then they stopped and reverted it because they realized it sucked.
I remain unconvinced about the argument around climate: when it is too cold to walk less than 15 minutes, roads are also unsafe to drive.
What does altitude have to do with anything? San Francisco has plenty of hills, yet people still manage to move around by bike.
When a city was founded has little to do with what to do with them going forward. Many american cities were very walkable, and then urban freeways where built in them, displacing people and disconnecting neighborhoods. Amsterdam itself was very car-centric in the 70's, yet they are now considered the biking capital of the world. Cities are living organisms, that can and should change over time.
If you don't see how being able to walk when you need milk helps with having a good quality of life then I don't know what to tell you.
Edit: the comparison is relevant because it gives us a good idea of what the lower bound of what it realistically means to downsize the usage of cars in urban environments. It's a very clear example of a place where half the population (which includes children!) has a car, but cities are entirely navigable by foot, public transport or bikes.