Originally Posted by
tandempower
The problem is we can't know exactly who 'they' are, because the corporations, unions, etc. have PR people to say whatever sounds best. But several people here have said that the primary interest is to sell more cars, so that implies a conflict of interest when it comes to providing services to (potentially) car-free people. In short, 'they' seem to be creating this multimodal transportation vision for the sake of preventing people from giving up car-ownership in favor of bike- and scooter- sharing.
No, there is no 'conflict of interest'.
If GM promotes a 'multimodal transportation vision-thing' as part of its on-going efforts to sell the products it makes, that is not inherently or even potentially a 'conflict of interest' -- it is part of GM's on-going efforts to sell the products it makes. Provided its advertising is not wilfully false/misleading to the point of illegality, and its actions are lawful, there is nothing wrong with its attempts to do so.
GM is not under a duty to subscribe to, let alone promote/serve goals that
you deem appropriate. Look up even a basic definition of conflict of interest, never mind a legal one. The concept is tied to the notion of duty owed: a conflict of interest
may exist where the self-interest of a corporation or person might work against
a duty that corporation or person is under to make decisions for the benefit of someone other that itself. GM is under a duty to obey the laws and regulations of the state jurisdictions in which it operates. That is all; it is not under a duty to conform itself to
your idea of what it should do or promote -- it is not under a duty to make corporate decisions for
your benefit, or mine, or the Little Birdies and Trees and Streams and Bambi,
except as required by law.