It's the single family home buyer with two cars and is a registered voter that is demanding the human unfriendly architecture at this point. We are getting more integrated architecture and people seem to like it, but it doesn't replace the millions of miles of bad design we already have.
Everyone always thinks "why don't we make it harder to make things and that way they'll be nice" but they can't connect the dots to "but to do that we have to grandfather in the existing stuff" and from that to "nothing new will happen and all the old things will stay that way".
Thing of the obvious effects, man. Come on.
I don't see how that's true - if you create cities or neighborhoods which are more walkable, such as New York's Chinatown, then you'll have less civil liability than suburban car-centric infrastructure. I would think that NY style neighborhoods would be MORE incentivized
Unfortunately the answer isn't going to be telling people they can't do something. We already don't give a damn about the number of deaths we cause, so the actual answer is probably somewhere closer to attempting to educate people so eventually we won't want it.
But I'll give it one last try:
One can only hope that you're either exceptional enough to succeed or that when you fail you understand that it wasn't because "suburbanites ruined a perfect plan because they can't imagine a blah blah blah" and learn that you're constraint solving in a democracy where other people have voices and your perfect solution needs to have graceful degradation as it makes allowances for their opinions so that it can get sufficient support to pass.
If all you do is create additional liability with grandfathering in of existing designs, all you do is lead to propagation of current designs.