If you make the argument in a vacuum, without considering all other variables in play and the ones that would come in play at every next stage of it, then you might end up without car lanes. If you however consider thouse, then at every next step you'd have to prove to the judge that harm is done. Soon the other side would point out for example that people would die in ambulances stuck in traffic and they'll have the evidence to back it up. And that's where your car lane cutting crusade would end. You may succeed in getting rid of some more car lanes (good) but you won't get to clean them all up.