I don't see where this argument is coming from. There's no reason why self-driving cars can't be as or more capable at interacting with cyclists than human-driven cars.

Even if issues with self-driving cars did require new regulation, there's no reason that regulation should favor the cars. Cities and their streets are managed by democratically elected governments. If people like cycling -- and many of us do -- then we can construct the regulatory and physical infrastructure to support it.

It's not that it favor cars, but that it favor predictability and thus order and as a result fewer collisions meaning more healthy people!

note: I'd be glad to register and pay for a bike license if that means more dedicated lanes for cycling --so long as scofflaws get ticketed.

It's just as likely that well behaved drivers will enable the creation of (at least effectively) segregated space for smaller vehicles.

It'll be a long time before buildings are reclaiming space taken by streets.

> If self-driving cars become ubiquitous in large cities, it is likely that one of the large side effects will be more regulation for bikes, scooters, longboards (electric or not), etc.

Irrespective of any s of-driving cars, it's a near certainty that the California mindset of 'regulate everything and we can create a safe utopia' will result in more regulation for non-car personal transportation.