Yes. They're the anti-road Government I was referring to.
In what way are they anti road?
I suspect what you mean is that they aren't of the mindset "car is king", as you only need to look to the US where their cities are little more than roads and car parks with fairly few buildings to see where that ends up.
Cars are a very inefficient way of getting about and whist they have many advantages there are quite a few problems which come with them.
As such governments and policy makers should be doing what they can to ensure that roads are safe. The best way to achieve that is to ensure that they are safe to use for the most vulnerable of road users (i.e. pedestrians).
The public highway is defined as "a way over which all members of the public have a right to pass and repass", that word ALL is important, as it means that highest authorities and all levels of government who impact on policy can not shirt from their duty to allow any member of public the ability to use the public highway.
For the avoidance of doubt, the word highway in the UK is not the same meaning as the US (which effectively relates to a motorway standard road), as it doesn't even solely relate to where cars can use, nor did it mean that it is even paved. Technically any public right of way could be defined legally as a highway (footways, bridleways, byways, roads, cycle paths, and any other route people have the legal right to use), however the more narrow use of highway maintenance at public expense (publicity adopted roads) are generally what people mean. However, even then roads aren't everything.
For example if you were to park on a grass verge behind the footway (footpaths are route away from roads and pavement design is the design of a paved surface, so whilst common usage would imply a pavement or footpath= footway they are all different things) which is adopted highway and the carriageway had double yellow lines on it you can still get a parking ticket for doing so as the parking restrictions cover the adopted highway, not just the road.
Another thing which is fairly unknown, your title deads can show that you own to the centre of the adopted highway (or all of it if you are the land owner on both sides of it), however that doesn't mean that it's your road. As adopted highway can "overlay" land ownership and where it does it supersedes the rights of ownership. Therefore, if a road is adopted it's entirely possible for you to own it but not be able to do anything with it.
Anyway, ultimately roads should never be there solely for cars, as there goes the ruin of society. The overuse of cars will lead to low density development, meaning that people can not walk to get to where they need to, which means far more land space is required, which means higher taxes to fund the repair of the roads. As not only is there far more paved surface to maintain, but also there will be more vehicles using them causing far more now damage.
There's a view that the reason why the US is having so many issues with their infrastructure maintenance is that suburban areas actually cost too much to maintain for the amount of taxes they generate (it's less of an issue in the UK where houses and gardens are much smaller, so the length of road, sewer and services connections for each extra house is much shorter).
In theory (as long as roads are kept free from excess water and the impact of plants) a road being walked or cycled on could in theory last as close to forever as makes no difference.
Not only would an over use of cars last to higher taxes, it would result in higher costs for owners, as rather than being able to park and visit several shops, you would likely have to drive between shops.
If you're doing that, then public health deteriorates; which increases the tax requirements to keep people alive.
Not only does have significant tax and other financial implications as well as health problems, communities become simply a collection of buildings. As people rarely meet each other locally and so would be unable to form the relationships to allow them to work together for the betterment of where they live.
Ultimately, it's why it's the best thing for society if cats are kept in check (please note I'm not saying we shouldn't have any just not as many as possible or even as many as people would like as they do have some advantages, just that those advantages shouldn't be understood without acknowledging that they have issues).
You'll also note that I've not mentioned the environmental impact of cars, and that's not because they don't have one (even electric cars do, just a slightly smaller one and a slightly different one), but rather because that's easier for people to understand and doesn't really need covering.
Incase anyone isn't aware, my job; Highway Engineer. As such you may have thought that I'd want as many people to drive as possible. No my job is to make the roads I design safe for all users and ensure that we don't end up with significant traffic congestion. The best way to achieve both those goals - have as many people as possible walking, and if that's not viable, cycling and if that's not viable, using public transport and if that's not viable using shared vehicles (car clubs and taxis) and then and only then then considering using there own car.
