If it's a rural or rural-suburban area, no bike lanes is probably fine.
In urban area though, those bike lanes are VERY helpful. I've ridden a fair amount in urban areas for commuting, and those bike lanes are really, really helpful. I've read the critiques of them, but in my experience, that's all hogwash. A clearly demarcated bike lane in an urban area clearly notes to motorists you have a right to part of the road and drastically decreases driver aggression. It's really, really noticeable - I bike commuted in LA for a few years, and the bike lanes appear and drop out from street to street. I very carefully chose out roads, alternate routes, before settling on a 'best' route for me on a bike. In all situations, the routes with the clearly marked bike lane were vastly preferably for riding on busy urban streets than not.
For those of you familiar with LA in the locale around super-car-busy UCLA, compare the sections of Wilshire boulevard which have no bike lanes to the parts of Santa Monica blvd that do have bike lanes. If you ride on Wilshire, you're risking life and limb as cars do everything they can to squeeze you off the road at the highest speeds possible. On Santa Monica blvd where the bike lanes exist, it's easy, pleasant cruising, even in rush hour - until the bike lane runs out and you're back to life and limb.
For quiet residential streets or low-traffic areas, the bike lanes aren't necessary and are frankly a waste of space, but for urban main throughfares, they're crucial imo. I don't buy for one second that it's equally safe with or without bike lanes in busy urban streets - one ride on the streets I mentioned above and you'd feel exactly like I do.