If traits map to interfaces and you have concrete implementations of those which can be composed into Car then rust is still just subtractive and eliminating inheritance. There's nothing you can do in rust then that you couldn't fundamentally do in OO languages by avoiding inheritance.
Which gets to the point of if we should be talking about avoiding inheritance specifically? Because "OO" is somewhat ill-defined.
Inheritance isn't gone from Rust it just only exists for Traits (akin to interfaces) as I explained.
For example std::cmp::Eq inherits from std::cmp::PartialEq - if there's an Equivalence relation between things of this type then necessarily there is also a Partial Equivalence relation between some of those things (specifically: all of them) so you implement std::cmp::PartialEq and then just say actually it's also Eq (ie this equivalence applies to the whole type).
If you make some types which you implement std::cmp::Eq for, and all I need is std::cmp::PartialEq, I can use your types, because of the inheritance. But the fact your types have std::cmp::Eq (and thus also std::cmp::PartialEq) does not prevent them from being quite different in every other respect to other types, nothing about the types themselves is inherited.
So this means thinking about inheritance in a different way but it doesn't mean the concept is gone from the language. A typical toy Rust type might implement half a dozen or more Traits, some of them inherited from others and some not, "eagerly" implementing common Traits is encouraged.
As to just not using subtype inheritance in languages which have that, you're likely to immediately run into an existential crisis when the language - not unreasonably - depends upon this feature in its own design. In Java for example you can't go anywhere without tripping over Object, the supertype of all user-defined types. Java expects you to use inheritance so avoiding it comes with needless penalties.
Which gets to the point of if we should be talking about avoiding inheritance specifically? Because "OO" is somewhat ill-defined.