Have you never wanted to visit a remote beach? Go on holiday to a rural area? If you don’t drive, other than for medical reasons, I think it shows a very limited interest in life outside your immediate surrounds. That’s fine if that’s how you choose to live, but lots of people are surprised you don’t choose to be independent, to explore, to be spontaneous and to live your life in as full a way as possible.
Oh come on. I've backpacked around India on trains, ditto the Balkans, and have navigated the public transport systems of New York, Paris, Rome, Beijing, Shanghai, and many other cities. When I was younger and fitter I climbed Ben Nevis and Mount Snowdon, both accessible via public transport, so I'm not someone who hates the countryside.
I reject the idea that you're amazingly independent and adventurous just because you sometimes drive to the beach near your house, and I'm a narrow-minded bore because I'd rather spontaneously jump on a plane to Nairobi or Seoul than drive around rural Dorset.
Truly remote places are not accessible to anyone who's not ultra-wealthy. I wouldn't judge someone who'd never been to Easter Island or the Galapagos (I haven't either!) so why judge someone who doesn't have the money and time - and willingness to spend 18 hours sitting in a stuffy Volvo - to traipse around remote Scottish beaches? Why are people putting such a high priority on which places win the prize for being the most remote in the first place? Nowhere in the UK is all that remote.
I could easily claim I'm more independent because I have money, am in reasonable good health, and have no children/responsibilities tying me down. I wouldn't because I realise that having disposable income and good health are huge privileges that not everyone has. Why can't car drivers realise that being able to drive takes a) money and b) not having certain disabilities/health conditions/neurodiverse conditions, and thus being able to drive also depends on having privileges not everyone has?