The authors have provided some usefully specific information about the dispersal of seeds on motor vehicles. However, they did not demonstrate that weeds are hitchhiking on cars (per the title) or 'hitchhiking' on cars (per their conclusions). Seeds cannot hitchhike, literally or figuratively. This is semantic concern, but not one dismissible as 'mere' rhetorical hairsplitting. The only thing dispersal of seeds in motor vehicle traffic has in common with hitchhiking is movement via a motor vehicle. Hitchhiking requires complex causal and geographical awareness and specific intention, none of which traits or characteristics are demonstrated or supported by citations in the article. A hitchhiker may not have a specific destination in mind, but always knows he/she/it is someplace, that there are other places, prefers another place to the one currently occupied, understands a motor vehicle is capable of providing transport to such a place, and is convinced that the operator of a motor vehicle might be persuaded to facilitate movement from this place to another. Seeds have not been shown to do any of those things. Hitchhiking also entails the cooperation of the vehicle operator to recognize the hitchhiker as such, to decide to stop and allow him/her/it to board, determine where to subsequently stop and allow the hitchhiker to debark, and then actually carry out that plan. In their discussion, the authors clearly state 'cars can unintentionally transport seeds' which could be meant to distinguish cars (which have no intentions) from seeds (which hitchhike) but seems more likely to be synecdoche conflating the intentions of cars with intentions of their drivers. If so, it means they have concluded that drivers are unintentionally transporting seeds on their cars. As I have shown, lack of intention precludes the phenomenon in question from being describable as hitchhiking. Finally, it is not clear that the title reference to "your" car, which I assume means any reader's car, is justifiable according to the findings presented. I suggest that, in future, the editors give greater attention to such substantive semantic matters, lest they unintentionally encourage media outlets and the lay public to assume (e.g.) the incidental transport of seeds on vehicles is in some way reprehensible. After all, if commenters may not allege misconduct on the part of authors, it seems only symmetrical (i.e., fair) that authors should not allege misconduct--even unintentional misconduct--on the parts of their study objects, whether those be non-sentient; sentient but ignorant; or sentient, aware, yet incapable of practical prevention.