And you think a motorist traveling 50 mph passing a cyclist separated only by a painted stripe and maybe a few inches, without slowing down and moving laterally to increase the passing distance, is safer?

Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer the motorists who are passing me to see me, become aware of me, and accomodate me, both by slowing down and by moving laterally, perhaps moving into the adjacent lane if that's what's necessary, perhaps slowing down to my speed if that's not immediately possible, and waiting until it is. Yes, I prefer that to them passing by me as if I'm not even there (going just as fast and in the same lane position as they would if I wasn't there - which is exactly what happens most of the time when motorists pass cyclists who are riding in bike lanes).

But my issue really isn't with bike lanes per se, it's really about integration versus separatism.
In the South there used to be laws separating blacks and whites with respect to water fountain use. I don't mean to trivialize the horror of racism, but to a point the analogy works. Back then the courts accepted the argument that such separatism was not violating anyone's rights, because no one was being prevented access to water. Blacks had water, and so did whites. So whose rights were being violated? For these people who accepted this view, the insidious nature of the separatism was not obvious. The problem of course was the underlying assumption that blacks and whites should be separated, and the effect it had on the thinking of people about each other, and their respective roles in society.

This is essentially my problem with bike lanes: the underlying assumption that cyclists should be separated from drivers of vehicles. It is the insidious nature of this underlying separatist assumption of bike lanes that is my greatest concern, and the effect it has on the thinking of cyclists and the public at large with respect to what proper cycling in traffic should be.