Actually, in most states with bike lane laws (and, based on the bike lane/path law posted earlier in this thread, ORS 814.420(3)(c), Oregon is included in this), getting out of the bike lane/path to avoid a hazardous condition is legal.
In any case, being against even good dedicated cycling infrastructure is insanity. Bad bike lanes (this includes door zone bike lanes, bike lanes in the path of significant right hooking traffic, et. al.) are definitely worse than nothing, sure. Good bike lanes are a good thing, although it requires planning to do them right. Dedicated paths on their own light cycle (especially if it's set for a reasonable speed for a cyclist to be doing through a city) are the best, although there's a considerable space requirement to do them (funny, though, some countries with considerable space constraints have pulled them off).
In my opinion, in areas without good cycling infrastructure, riding a bicycle like a car driver should drive is generally a good idea. (Mind you, that means signaling your lane changes and turns, so that traffic in the area knows you're doing it. This means that they may be more likely to work with you, rather than against you, and you can perform the maneuver less stressfully. And, there is one situation where it's very much safer (not just easier) to signal - when a motorist is about to move into the space that you're about to move into, and has not signaled (so you don't know they're going to do it). Signaling to them can cause them to delay their move.) That said, there are some interesting ideas for turning that I'd like to see implemented - hook lefts can be implemented in a manner that's slower, but far FAR safer for cyclists, for instance, and avoids crossing traffic. (Hell, Melbourne (driving on the left) does hook rights even for cars in some areas, to keep traffic flowing going straight.)
However, eschewing cycling infrastructure in favor of vehicular cycling (lowercase, because Forester's flavor sure doesn't sound like vehicular cycling to me) should only be done when that cycling infrastructure is truly worse than vehicular cycling. That means things like poorly maintained bike lanes, door zone bike lanes, bike lanes/paths that cross many curb cuts (although, a segregated path that crosses driveways could actually be done in a safe manner, if it's about a car length or so from the right-hand car travel lane, by requiring motorists to come to a complete stop at the lane and look for cyclists), and things like that. Personally, I much prefer the local MUP for my commute - while it's a somewhat winding, hilly route (but all the other routes except for two are further, one is a freeway route that is completely closed to cyclists, and the other involves an extremely steep hill that's worth an extra mile or so (the savings in question) to get around), traffic is relatively low, that traffic can't kill me nearly as easily, the speed differential between different types of traffic is much better (only 12 mph or so (I'm doing 15 mph or so usually, except downhill, and most of the downhills have excellent sight lines), not 20-25 mph) and in my favor (and I watch for pedestrians and take precautions as necessary), and I don't impede motorist traffic significantly, even if I decide I want to ride a bit slower so I don't arrive drenched in sweat.