More in the VC vs. "accomodations" wars. ...
I wonder whether the purported duel is as pervasive and extreme as some folks claim. I think most of us welcome certain well-designed forms of bicyclist accommodations, such as shoulders or wide outer lanes on prime arterials
with or without bike lane demarcation, bicycle-sensing traffic signals, and bike lanes between through-only and right-turn-only lanes. Most of us also acknowledge or at least recognize the hazards posed to pedestrians and bicyclists by high-speed multi-lane free diverges, merges, and unions. In extremely heavy urban traffic congestion, most of us will filter up to a red light, whether or not a blue bike box has been painted on the asphalt, to avoid missing out on the next green cycle.
My position is relatively simple, in the sense that the smaller the speed differential between motorists and bicyclists, the more my philosophy resembles VC integration. At higher motor vehicle speeds, I want at least lateral separation and some form of safe accommodation at each major intersection. Where two free right turn lanes sweep 50mph traffic onto a freeway entrance or two fast freeway offramp lanes come in on the right side of a union, I'll look hard for a good alternate route every time.
By the way, I concur emphatically that a bike lane should not continue up to the right side of a right-turn-only or right-turn-optional lane.