Here's the thing with "equality": both sides, cycle advocates and opponents (for lack of a better term), are having two different arguments. I'm constantly exposed to this whole bike lane crapover that has everyone in NYC all hot and bothered. Cycle advocates here see bike lanes as safety measures--a way of ensuring equality of outcomes, you might say. Opponents see bike lanes as special treatment--a way of disrupting equality of opportunities, you might say. So you have two separate definitions of equality: one aims to equalize the death rates of cyclists and motorists, and the other focuses on equal facilities for cyclists and motorists. Both are valid arguments. Both are founded on completely segregate premises.

The whole "cyclists should be licensed" argument is a canard. By that reasoning anyone who doesn't own a car should be exempt from any taxation that goes towards street maintenance. Besides, it doesn't have anything to do with safety. It's liability, for one, but most of all it's just the destructive half of envy: the "screw you" half, instead of the "advance myself" half. Maybe it's because there are no rights for motorists to advance in this situation, or that there ARE rights for cyclists to advance, that drives people to the "screw you" mindset.

Being a motorcyclist as well, the cycling community has it pretty swell in terms of support for cyclist-oriented reforms. Most of that, though, is structural--there ARE things local government can do with infrastructure to enhance cyclist safety, for instance. With motorcyclists, all we can do is print bumper stickers and run ads. It protects us from equality arguments, sure, but makes the unfortunate ones no less dead for that.