Sorry, Serge. I have put some thought into this during my commute home (on a bike lane) and, while I appreciate the premise you propose, I don't buy it. I don't think segregation or the 'need' for segregation is the issue at all. Traffic planners have the responsibility to accomodate both high-speed traffic and slow-speed bicycles on specific routes. Yes, there are some bicycles and cyclists who can keep up with standard city traffic, but most cannot (I sure can't...not on a 50lb cruiser!). Vehicular traffic must be reasonably assured they can utilize higher-speed routes with few impediments. Cyclists, being equal, also need reasonable assurance of a less-dangerous route to the same areas, so a compromise is reached with separate lanes. Motorists can travel at 50mph if they want to in THEIR lanes and cyclists can travel at 15mph in THEIR lanes.

It's not just cyclists being segregated, but motorists as well: I see it as motorists being segregated from bike lanes, not the other way around (although both views are equal). In most cases, only a few routes are affected, leaving the remainder of city roads and avenues to be shared equally. You can see where this contradicts the racism analogy: it wasn't just SOME whites-only fountains being reserved for whites only, but all whites-only fountains. That isn't the case here.

I honestly believe the bike lanes (even mandatory bike lanes) are for the safety and security of BOTH cyclists and motorists. It's stressful passing a slow-moving, possibly wobbly bicycle, after all. All cars are capable of keeping up with one another, but cyclists are not. Bike lanes allow nervous and/or novice riders a means of using their vehicle without the overwhelming intimidation by high-speed traffic. Relating racism to sharing the road is really stretching it. This isn't a human-rights question, but one of traffic-flow and safety.