This makes sense, though there are more variables to consider. In a city, a walk means you're inhaling car exhaust, cigarette smoke from passerbys, and at risk of being victim to a crime. Less dramatically, there's the risk of falling or getting lost. All these things are problems for "physical health". From this perspective, it may be better to drive as the air quality is better and the car provides shelter, like a big shield. Although driving is risky in its own right such as car accidents or road rage. For context, rage is stressful, and stress is not conducive for health.

Stepping back for a moment, should we care about health? Aren't we fighting the inevitable? What good is it to be healthy yet suddenly die, like Charlie Kirk? Is the practice of being healthy a denial of our mortality? Is being in denial of mortality to live life in bad faith? Is this willful ignorance a virtue, a vice, or something we ought to entertain? I don't know. It's hard to say that we ought to be unhealthy. That also seems wrong. Then again, a stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger once said,

"Why does God afflict the best of men with ill-health, or sorrow, or other troubles? Because in the army the most hazardous services are assigned to the bravest soldiers ... No one of these men says as he begins his march, " The general has dealt hardly with me," but "He has judged well of me.""