I'm having some trouble following this civil disobedience thread. Let's look at a specific example: Rosa Parks, and civil rights for African-Americans.
The way I understand history is that African-Americans were denied basic rights and treated as a separate class of citizens by the law. So, Martin Luther King, among others, advocated civil disobedience as a means of changing the laws (which succeeded).
Now, when I compare this to cycling, things start to break down. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of city and state law is that as cyclists, we are (well) protected under the law (in fact, you could argue we have some additional benefits such as being able to filter forward and use the sidewalk in certain circumstances), but the issue is enforcement--the laws in place (including general laws about speed limits, etc) are not actively enforced, and thus the roads are not as safe as they could be for all users (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians).
Rosa Parks broke the law because the law was unjust. Are you suggesting cyclists break the law (run red lights, for example, or ride four abreast) because red lights are unjust for cyclists? Or are you suggesting that cyclists break the law to bring attention to the lack of enforcement? I'm confused, and bringing civil rights into the discussion muddles things even more (and likely does a great disservice to both the fight for civil rights and the fight for safer roads).
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that civil disobedience isn't a solution to our problem, but I am suggesting the reasons for civil disobedience don't make sense based on the historical examples provided. In most cases in history, civil disobedience is a response to negative rights. In our case, we're talking about the enforcement of current laws, and perhaps better infrastructure to support all road users. I'm trying to understand how breaking the very laws we want to be enforced advances our cause.