Lets look at the picture a bit. We have in the last one a tandem-bicycle, on it you see two persons, the one in the front labeled capital, the one in the back labeled labour. Both grab the handlebar in front of them. For labour it is a fixed one, for capital it is a freely moving one which controls the angle of the front wheel (which is labeled labour) and as such controls the direction of the whole enterprise, but isn't able to use brakes (as there are none). The labour-labeled front wheel doesn't have a chain, making it free rolling and not adding any power or velocity to the apparatus. It does stabilize the bike though and guided by the capital-person rolls the whole thing into the given direction. Both persons have their feet in the pedals, between those there is a chain guard to the capital-labeled back wheel hiding any chain connecting them. This means that the capital-wheel is powering the whole bike, powered by the chain which might be driven by either of the two persons.

What does this picture then illuminate about the views liberals (who arguable created this picture) hold?

It exposes that they think that capital is needed to drive labour, enterprises and as such people, that it is capital's role to drive and plan and that they are the thinkers - those who own capital - and that the others are absolutely able to just be a pair of legs.

I think that is a fair assessment about how "liberalists" view people and themselves. It is a view that is inherently one of "masters and slaves" Nietzsche/Hegel/Marx. However as socialists we know:

"Weil ein Prolet ein Prolet ist,
drum hat er Stiefel im Gesicht nicht gern,
er will unter sich keinen Sklaven sehen und
über sich keinen Herrn!"

"Cause a proletarian is a proletarian,
he doesn't want a boot in his neck,
he doesn't want a slave below him,
nor a master above!"

(not gendered texts, but a recording of it )

lol