That is indeed a question, and I observe that the democratic process that decides it is a bit skewed, at least from some people's points of view. AFAICT, a fair

That is indeed a question, and I observe that the democratic process that decides it is a bit skewed, at least from some people's points of view. AFAICT, a fair summary is that almost everyone wants restrictive rules where they live, but some/many also want permissive rules in other places (to which they can then drive). The suburban voters who want to drive in the inner city are quick to complain if one of the navigation systems starts recommending a shortcut through residential streets in their suburb. Since voting happens according to where one lives, the suburban voters have next to no say in inner-city matters. This may be seen as fair or unfair. Unfair, because it means that the most car-unfriendly voters tend to set the rules where it matters most, while the most car-friendly voters don't matter much. Fair, because it depresses the number of cars in the noisiest areas, somewhat equalising the noise/traffic people have to suffer where they live.