However if I may raise my counter point I like to have a rule that C++ should be written mostly as if you were writing C as much as possible until you need some of it's additional features and complexities.
Problem is when somebody on the team does not share this view though, that much is true :)
(Note: I'm not saying it is deeply flawed, just that this particular way of using it suggests so).
It's like a well equiped workshop, just because you have access to a chainsaw but do not need to use it to build a table does not mean it's a bad workshop.
C is very barebones, languages like C++. C#, Rust and so on are not. Just because you don't need all of it's features does not make those languages inherently bad.
Great question or in this case counter-counter point though.
How do you define “need” for extra features? C and C++ can fundamentally both do the same thing so if you’re going to write C style C++, why not just write C and avoid all of C++’s foot guns?
As for why not just go for C. You can write C++ fully as if it were C, you can not ever turn C into C++