> Goods need to be transported anyways and in many situations there might not be alternatives for roads (e.g. transport food to grocery stores).

There were roads before cars and trucks:

> Before the advent of the automobile, users of city streets were diverse and included children at play and pedestrians at large. By 1930, most streets were primarily a motor thoroughfares where children did not belong and where pedestrians were condemned as “jaywalkers.” In Fighting Traffic, Peter Norton argues that to accommodate automobiles, the American city required not only a physical change but also a social one: before the city could be reconstructed for the sake of motorists, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where motorists belonged. It was not an evolution, he writes, but a bloody and sometimes violent revolution. Norton describes how street users struggled to define and redefine what streets were for. He examines developments in the crucial transitional years from the 1910s to the 1930s, uncovering a broad anti-automobile campaign that reviled motorists as “road hogs” or “speed demons” and cars as “juggernauts” or “death cars.” He considers the perspectives of all users—pedestrians, police (who had to become “traffic cops”), street railways, downtown businesses, traffic engineers (who often saw cars as the problem, not the solution), and automobile promoters. He finds that pedestrians and parents campaigned in moral terms, fighting for “justice.” Cities and downtown businesses tried to regulate traffic in the name of “efficiency.” Automotive interest groups, meanwhile, legitimized their claim to the streets by invoking “freedom”—a rhetorical stance of particular power in the United States. Fighting Traffic offers a new look at both the origins of the automotive city in America and how social groups shape technological change.

* https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262516129/fighting-traffic/

* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2924825-fighting-traffic

And goods were delivered. Of course we can still allow automobiles for commercial purposes while discouraging their use for private transport (or at least prioritizing non-auto transport).

A lot of things that seem to require an automobile do not:

> "'One of the causes of frequent bickerings is the bicycle. The Plumbers' Union has a rule, which is rigidly enforced, prohibiting the members from utilizing the bike in connection with their work. The rule is regarded as necessary to protect the men. When the bicycle came into popular use, the plumbers found that some of their number would go spinning around town on their wheels for the benefit of the bosses. The result was that the plumber without a bike soon found himself at a disadvantage. One of them explained the matter in this wise: "'Suppose two men were sent out on a job and both had practically the same kind and the same amount of work to do. They would both leave the shop at the same time, but the fellow with the wheel would reach the place where the work was to be done before his brother plumber would. If some tool or piece of material had been forgotten, the man with the wheel would go spinning to the shop, while the other fellow would have to walk or take a streetcar. The man with the wheel could make better time on a job in consequence, and the boss would be liable to find him a more desirable man, notwithstanding that it was no fault of the other man. In fact, the man without the wheel might be the fastest and best workman. We want this rule against the bicycle enforced in all the shops.'"

* https://heatinghelp.com/dead-men-tales/bicycles-and-heating-...

The Plumbers' Union banned the used of bicycle as they were considered an unfair competitive advantage.