No, this is incorrect.
High speed trains and planes both have a higher top speed than cars. Does that mean trains and planes are by default a faster way to get around for all trips?
No, of course not. How infrastructure is built around them matters just as much. Obviously there are trips in which they are indeed faster than cars, but plenty too where they’re impractical, or slower.
Cars have a higher top speed than bikes, sure, but they also demand far more space. Given equal space between cars and bikes, bikes will often end up fastest for trips under a mile or two — simply because drivers are more likely to get stuck in traffic. Especially since it’s easy to have walk bike cut-throughs.
Which, I know, you’ll object to as unfair, but it’s unfair in the sense that walking and biking being banned on the freeway is unfair: it’s actually just what’s suited to the transportation mode. A walk/bike cut through is a cheap, easy thing to slot in, much more so than the car equivalent.
Car speed relies on being given far more total space and money than other modes. Remove those advantages, and car utility would sink, while the utility of walking and biking would rise dramatically. Especially if zoning was loosened to allow — not force the way things are forced to the car’s advantage now, but simply allowed — higher density and mixed use areas.
Or consider an indoor mall vs a strip mall. One uses cars more heavily, one uses walking. Which one is more efficient to visit and browse stores?
The thing about car dominant spaces is that they force things to spread out, which reduces efficiency. That efficiency reduction is then ‘solved’ with the same thing that caused it: with cars. Which works out okay for cars, but everything else works horribly in that context, which is why US cities usually have extreme car dominance, with other options being hilariously ineffective. And some people cheer on this lack of choices, even as their waistlines expand and government budgets explode.