You seem to enjoy the number of places that you can reach in a car. But if the destinations are man-made places of interest, such as businesses, friends, shops, services, and social meeting places then cars' space inefficiency limit how many of those you can visit. Because each has to spend a massive amount of space on parking. And transport has a failure mode of creating traffic jams whenever demand for a certain route tips over a critics point, causing a phase change from free flowing traffic to a traffic jam, that can only be cleared by long periods of far lower number of cars.
With trains and bikes and walkable cities, you can achieve far far higher densities of interesting destinations, with a <40minute travel time. There is really no comparison.
If your interests and hobbies are limited to bars, restaurants and your yoga studio then yes. I lived in a dense and walkable city, with (most likely) the best public transit in the world, and I felt like I'm trapped in slums.
YMMV, but for me a car is freedom.
High density does mean more bars, restaurants, and yoga but it also the prerequisite for highly specialized professions like tailors, rare book collectors, rare tea, etc. etc. etc. Bars and restaurants are the tip of the iceberg, but the rest of the iceberg is a long tail. Just as the internet allows people with rare interests to find each other and talk, high density allows these rare interests to meet in real life and develop face to face relationships.
It is time efficient and convenient though.
> We have to start to realize that the failures of car infrastructure result in less jobs, less leisure time, less living.
How come? Having a car, I can reach tons of places in ~40km radius, without planning ahead too much, in any season. I would have to chop significant portion of my life if I were not able to drive anymore.