Stroads are bad for cars too (not just pedestrians and bicyclists). That's the argument against stroads. Roads are good and streets are good but stroads is the worse of both with the benefits of none.
Moreover, removing "stroads" does NOT reduce fatalities! Boston's accident rate went up from 16 vehicular deaths in 2016 (before they drank the KoolAid) to 26 this year.
The attacks on surface roads by groups with an agenda (push people into dense cities) is predictable. They want traffic to become untenable, so they just lie and insinuate.
Sure, hyper-dense cities are not ideal, but neither are spread-out asphalt wastelands where cars are the only means of getting around. This is terrible for anyone who can’t drive (children, people with impaired vision, people who can’t afford cars). I have also lived in Houston (without a car) and I found getting around absolutely miserable. Even when I had friends pick me up with their cars, the distances were huge and a lot of the time, this would be because of parking lots creating gigantic empty space everywhere. (At least, this was my impression.)
This is the only rational argument against cars. I especially want children to have more autonomy.
Yet it'll be far better solved by self-driving vehicles. They already exist, and they work.
The latter _can_ be a solution for some roads, but it necessarily lengthens the trip and significantly increases its time because you have to make 3 right turns instead of one left turn.