Isn't a bike lane on the road, as opposed to say, the sidewalk or gutter?

I don't see any problem with a mandatory bike lane law as long as there are proper exceptions for negotiating intersections and avoiding obstructions. This is analogous to laws requiring motor vehicles to drive within striped lanes.

You're going to have to spell it out for me. What are the "immediately obvious" problems if all stripes are taken away from a multi-lane road.

Only if you accept the argument that the only appropriate place for a bicycle is in the bicycle lane. Otherwise it would be analogous to laws requiring that multiple occupant vehicle operate only in the HOV lane where present.

A more correct comparison might be places where heavy trucks are barred from operating in the far left lane. This is done to maintain the lane surface in the fastest lane. What's the argument for banning cyclists from other lanes?

What's the argument for solid white lines for motor vehicles? "Ban" is your word and terribly loaded. If a bike lane gets you from point A to B, why do you insist on being able to ride wherever you want on the road?

Anectdotal evidence for the other point of view. (Sorry - a repeat of what I've said before, but I think its important)
On 45mph+ multilane suburban roads - some with only a WOL and some with a BL. When I ride in the BL I do consistently get passed with less clearance than when I ride in the WOL. I do not know exactly why, but my guess is because when a BL is present motorist assume they should just stay static in their lane and don't in general move a bit to the left to pass a bike in a BL.
A point here is that whether or not you are in a BL or WOL you do want other drivers to see you - I think it is more likely they see you in a WOL because when a BL is present that area just becomes an ignore space on the road (i.e. don't drive in it, but also don't pay any attention to what may be in it)

Al

What if the bike lane is full of glass & debris? Also, some lanes put you right in the dooring zone of parked cars.

"ban", "restrict", "forbid". Choose your term. When the law says that a cyclist shall not move out of the bike lane except under exceptional circumstances, I take that to be a ban on using the full width of the road.

Again, I say, if the bike lane is truly well done and suitably gets me from A to B then cyclists will use it of their own accord and a restriction is unnecessary. Mandating use is only necessary when the facility is otherwise insufficiently appealing in its own right. The burden should not be on the cyclist to demonstrate that they had sufficient cause to deviate from the bike lane.

There's a whole attitude wrapped up in it that says that streets are the province of motor vehicles and thta other vehicular traffic is only allowed there as a courtesy. That's simply not true. The public way is the means by which we move from A to B in this country. That the majority of people choose to travel by motor vehicle should not diminish my rights to move about by other means, "the usual conveyances of the day" to quote a supreme court case. Requiring me to prove that I have need to use other partst of the public way than a bike lane places a burden upon my use of the way that others do not face.

Except on some limited access highways, the speed limit sets the upper bounds only. Apart from those exceptions, there is no right to speed on the public way.

These are arguments about the installation and upkeep of the lane, not the lane itself.

At least under Missouri law, cyclists already have to prove they should not ride to the right. Riding to the right is the rule, taking the lane is the exception. Analogously, I see no problem with a law requiring cyclists to use the bike lane if present. It is the same as requiring motorists to obey lane markings for motor vehicles. Bicycles not equal Cars.

Yup, got a problem with that too. It's already the rule that slower moving traffic shall keep to the right. Adding the "as far right as practicable" adds an undue and vague burden on cyclists. The rule is already to keep as far right as practicable, so it's not clear what the additional requirement means but it has been used to harass and cite cyclists in the past.

Nope, they're not. So what? Roads are the public way which motorists may use co-equal with other road users. Bicycles are not equal to cars, but cyclists are equal to motorists. Or maybe you have a different Constitution than mine...

I completely agree. However, what happens when they're designed poorly and/or not maintained, and the letter of the law makes it mandatory to ride in them?

So what? Don't you think roadways, including lane stripes, and should take these differences into account? How can you concede the physical differences between the two types of vehicles, and then insist, oh cyclists should ride where they want. Ridiculous!

Then things go wrong, but that's a topic for another thread. Laws for motor vehicles assume the roadway is properly designed and maintained, as far as I know. Why not the same for laws governing cyclists?

One is acknowledging a technical difference the other is accepting a difference in rights. Just because I locomote by a different means does not diminish my rights. Period.

By the way, I'm not even suggesting that bike lanes should not be striped, though I've suggested elsewhere that the practice is highly suspect and the qualifications of those putting installing them equally so. What I'm talking about here is making their use mandatory.

Again, there are rules of operation on the public way that cyclists can obey as well as any other road users. There is specifically a rule about slow traffic keeping to the right that resolves the issue without placing any additional and vague burden on cyclists.

Unless you're willing to claim that there is in fact a right to speed, allowing cyclists full access to the entire public way in no way impinges upon the rights of other road users and therefore represents an unconstitutional restriction on the rights of cyclists. Getting a court to agree is a separate matter, but we've already seen that both officers of the law and officers of the court often don't understand what rights cyclists actually do have.

We cyclists don't claim a right to speed, however the other users on the road, IE those driving the motor vehicles may indeed claim, however falsely, a right to speed...

So what are you saying? If the bike lane is a piece of crap & I'm not using it because of that, that I'll be excused from the law? I'm not so sure that will fly, and I don't wish to spend a day in court trying to prove my case.

My town just painted a bike lane stripe on a 25mph roadway right next to the curb. The bike lane is about 3' wide. People use this area for residential parking. Residents also put their garbage & yard waste on it for pickup. If you think I'll ever use this lane, you are crazy. But if the law says I must, and I don't, I run the risk of getting a ticket. I'm willing to bet this isn't the only poorly designed bike lane in the US either.

That is why I am opposed to mandatory bike lane usage.

Agreed and that is the premise of mandatory bike lane use.

I may choose to cycle in them out of the way of motorized traffic, but that is my choice. I maintain that there is no basis for mandating their use, such requirement may actually be unconstitutional, and that further there is already uniformly applicable provisions in most state vehicle codes that addresses the issue of slower traffic impeding higher-speed traffic. Slow traffic keeps to the right of faster traffic. Faster traffic passes on the left. That's the beginning and end of it.

(actually, in Mass there's no requirement that traffic maintain as far right a position as possible, but that's also an acknowledged "quirk" of our vehicle code.)

What difference in rights? How do mandatory bicycle lanes diminish your rights? You are still allowed to ride your bicycle on the road and get from point A to B. In no way would that type of law diminish your right to the road. If you maintain that it does, then you must also agree that the myriad of laws governing motor vehicles diminish their use of the public way.

I think most people are against bicycle lanes because of the reasons you suggest, ie. improper design and maintenance. My only point is that this has to do with the issue of implementation, not the concept of the lane itself. When you remove the issues of implementation, the argument gets a little thin, in my opinion.

Do you maintain that the "slow traffic keep to the right" laws diminish the rights of the slower traffic to use the public way? If so, why not crusade against THAT law instead of mandatory bicycle lanes, which are just one instance of that principle?

Let me make it clear- I am not against bike lanes. I am against mandatory bike lanes.
You still haven't answered my question. What am I supposed to do about the poorly implemented or maintained mandatory bike lanes? It's not my responsibilty to design or maintain them, yet I have to use them? That is not a thin argument, it's a reality & it's rubbish.

I for the life of me cannot understand why anyone, cyclist or not, would be in favor of laws restricting their freedoms.

If you are in your car and the road is washed out and you are forced to cross the double yellow line, what do you do? Cross the double yellow of course. If by some stretch of the imagination, you were cited for not riding in a mandatory bicycle lane, and you could prove that the lane was obstructed or littered with glass, I'm sure the judge would let you off. Again, I'm not saying your point is rubbish, I'm saying I don't think it is the issue here.

I'm not so much interested in mandatory bicycle lanes as exploring the thinking of the anti-bicycle lane crusaders.

Because that is not a restriction it's a uniformly applied rule of operation that insures that traffic flows as smoothly as possible. It is a rule that has a well-established history and whose meaning has become quite clear. It is well understood that the general prescription for slow traffic to keep right does not in any way reduce the rights of slow vehicle operators to merge left as necessary to avoid in-lane obstacles, prepare to reach destinations that may lie on the left side of the road, or otherwise use all parts of the traveled way as necessary.

On the other hand, rules that require cyclists to use bike lanes where they exist presumably imply an additional restriction than the general requirement to keep right. What exactly that is is not clear. When is a cyclist allowed to prepare for a left turn? If the right lane is full of sand and gravel and the cyclist is not able to go as fast as they like are they allowed to leave the bike lane? Even if they're still moving slower than the prevailing speed of the lane adjacent to the bike lane? Are they instead under obligation to reduce their own speed and remain within the bike lane? What of poorly implemented bike lanes? The burden now must fall to the bike lane to demonstrate to the court that they had sufficient cause to leave the lane, even if the court has no such practical experience that may allow them to adequately judge the merits of the cyclists claims.

What of cyclists maintaining a 20mph paceline? Must they do so in the bike lane if traffic in other lanes is traveling faster than 20mph? Are clubs then restricted from club rides unless they're willing to compromise their safety or travel substantially slower? Why would such a restriction apply to cycling clubs but not car clubs or motorcycle clubs? How come one can drive a horse and wagon or threshing machine down the road in the normal vehicle lane but not a bicycle?