Oh, we're going to have this discussion again. Okay, I'll play
Why is it that whenever I see someone precede an argument with "OK, I'll play", it's never, ever followed by a properly rational argument free of logical fallacies?
It's almost as if the extra dose of smugness is a sort of psychological 'mask' of sorts to conceal the weak reasoning - an 'orange-sherbert'-like handwave given with the hope that if projecting arrogant over-confidence, readers will assume the point that follows carries the weight of a well-considered argument rather than actually analyzing it.
Firstly, you seem to believe that because you've seen some cyclists doing dangerous things, that all cyclists do dangerous things (tribal/collectivist fallacy of generalization). Secondly, that some cyclists sometimes do dangerous things in no way whatsoever negates that car drivers often do, too. Third, even if it did, that some cyclists sometimes do dangerous things in no way invalidates the argument that robot cars would still make roads safer for everyone, both cyclists and car occupants alike.