This, to me, is street photography

Alan there are multiple definitions of street photography. Also there are many genres closely related to "street" photography, probably way to many.

I think Eric Kim in his book gets it right.
erickimphotography.com/blog/2020/12/20/street-by-kim/

"To start off, street photography is whatever you make of it.
There are no “right” and “wrong” definitions in street photography.
Street photography is simply the art of wandering in public places, and taking photos of whatever interests you.
You don’t need to adhere yourself to any “rules.” Street photography is the most democratic form of photography— because all you need is a public place, and a camera, to document whatever you find interesting, and personally-meaningful to you.
If I could define street photography, it would simply be: “Documenting humanity.” “Humanity” can be defined however you want."

Of course closely related to "street" is social commentary, e.g., "White Angle Breadline" and "Migrant Mother" by Dorothea Lange. There is the classic photo essay fathered by W. Eugene Smith, "Country Doctor," "Nurse Midwife," Spanish Village," "Alberta Schweitzer," "Dream Street" and of course "Minamata." Street is closely rated to photojournalism - in the telling of a story. Then there is the classic shots of Henri Cartier Bresson, Gary Winogrand, Robert Capa.

Then there was one of the greatest "street" photographs of all time, "V-J Day in Times Square" a.k.a., "The Kiss" by Alfred Eisenstaedt. It has stirred controversy over the years. Multiple 25 foot statues of this incident has been made, with one standing in on Sarasota bay in Sarasota, FL, one in downtown San Diego, CA. and one in Times Square.

Gene Smith was always bothered with the hard lines many wanted to put to pigeonhole the broad area of street photography into photojournalism, social documentary, documentary, etc., with his infamous quote, "Hardening of the categories causes art disease." I prefer Eric Kim's approach.

So yes - your image is a classic "street shot." What is more street than street performers, be they in Key West, the San Francisco wharf or London.

Justice! by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

Here in America, anywhere vehicles go can be called a "street", unlike in photography where an urban location is implied.

I don't get out or shoot much, after an accident over a year ago - so here's my street:

I find most ‘street’ photography dull. I think, though, that it matures over the years as a reminder of how things were. The most uninspired image acquires value and fascination when it documents places or practices that have disappeared. I also find myself wondering whether it really is just a case of “f//8 and be there” I.e would I have obtained the same image if I had been there? I exempt the greats, whom I know to have an eye for composition and (dare I say it) the decisive moment which I lack, but I don’t think the vast majority of street photographs which I see fall into this category.

In the same way, I wonder about some of the great portrait photographers… Was Julia Margaret Cameron an inspired photographic artist or a lucky amateur who happened to have a lot of famous friends in an era when not many portraits were being made?

A lot of "street" photography, is just poor pictures of poor people at its worst, or just pointless shots of random people pictured in the street. But there is some good stuff out there too, where something interesting is happening, or a nice composition is made, using shadow and light, and maybe colour. "Street" covers a pretty wide spectrum. But like all good photography the picture should tell some sort of story, to be of interest.

A lot of this sort of photography does gain some historical meaning with time.

Here is my take on "Street"

Boring shots can become interesting with time as the place in the picture changes.

A demonstration

Curious

A photo of randos doing nothing much, becomes a historical shot.

I like the composition.

Maybe just portraits of interesting people

Or famous people (Lord Sopher)

Or just sweet moments

You make the argument more elegantly than I and your photos illustrate your points perfectly. The first one has a sixties feel to it; out of geeky curiosity, where is it? I first thought that it was the Ashton Canal at Ancoats, but looking more carefully, it isn’t quite right…

It was taken along the Grand Union Canal, at Kensal Green, in North West London. I think it must date from 1975, and was taken with a Pentax Spotmatic and a cheap Chinon 135mm lens. The Agfa chrome slide needed a lot of colour recovery in C1