I don't think you can generalize. It depends on the street and the rider. On some streets, it is safer for all riders to be in the bike lane, than in the traffic lanes. On other streets, a confident, fast rider is safer with car traffic, but a slow, less experienced rider is safer in the bike lane. And some bike lanes are a lot better than others, the difference often coming down to available road width and available money. Not every bike lane is a narrow strip of rutted doorzone clogged with taxis and delivery vans, and fewer are physically separated boulevards with signalized crossings.
In a city like Portland, the strong confident rider can already cycle on most - not all - city streets in tolerable safety. That is due to a combination of sheer numbers of bikes, drivers who are mostly sensitized to bikes, car speeds that are mostly sane, and just enough bike lanes that are basic but better than nothing. So the target user of new bike infrastructure here is not so much the strong confident riders, but the beginning, slower, inexperienced rider. Basically, imagine granny who rides 10 mph on the bike path, or little Jimmy who just turned 9.
I think that for granny or Jimmy, a good bike lane is a lot better than dodging cars in the traffic lane; a marginal bike lane is still better than dodge-car; a physically separated bike path is great. Frankly, if you tell them "bike infrastructure is dangerous, ride in the traffic" they just won't ride.