In other forums, this topic comes up very quickly and instantly turns into a flame war. People feel so strongly on the subject. It's interesting that I haven't seen the bike lane argument on TE before (I've been here 2008, but I don't read it exhaustively, so it's possible I missed it if it has been discussed).
As always, we manage to be civilized in our discussions.
Personally I just don't have strong feelings about bike lanes and bike paths. Some of them are really nice and some are awful. Some lure the cyclist into door zones and debris, and some are well designed and clearly indicate where the cyclist should take the lane for a left turn. The arguments end up being "all bike lanes are evil" or "bike lanes are great" but the reality is that thoughtful design is what matters. Increasing the number of bike-car conflict points is poor design. Failing to consult cyclists who will be using the facility is poor design. Letting the facility be hijacked by the loudest protest is poor design. Too many bike lanes and paths have been designed for purpose other than cyclist convenience and safety--to get "them" our of "our" way, as a way to increase their safety without inconveniences like speed limits and wider roads.
It's sad when paint is thrown on or taken off capriciously. It's sad when facilities aren't maintained. Those sorts of things send the message that bicycling isn't important, it's not a legitimate way to travel. It's even sadder when a well meaning government pours a lot of resources into a badly designed facility.
2009 Trek 7.2FX WSD, brooks Champion Flyer S, commuter bike