I think you are being a little harsh, officer. You're stationary (on a motorbike in the inside of two lanes of an urban dual carriageway with a high(ish) sided taxi in the lane next to you, waiting for the lights to go green. They go green and the road ahead of you and within your vision left and right is clear. You start accelerating (whether to 'beat' the taxi or otherwise). Simultaneously a cyclist appears travelling from the other side of the taxi across your path. The OP did his best to stop/avoid and managed to mitigate the collision to a minimum, and one which did not harm the cyclist. "Going for it" from lights to "beat the taxi" is a mindset that'd be worth moderating, but the OP's request was:
The primary cause of this collision is (according to the account) the cyclist crossing two lines of vehicles on red, presumably in the knowledge that the lights were about to turn green.
If the cyclist was already partway through their turn(from the other side of the dual carriageway, no longer out of no-where), they may well have been in a yellow box that allows them to enter if they're turning right.
If this had been someone on a pedal cycle, who'd ridden up the inside of two lanes of traffic, waited in the gutter until the lights changed(as the first poster says they did, on a motorbike). Then "went for it, just to beat the taxi", colliding with another road vehicle(first poster doesn't appear to consider pedal cycles as road vehicles), what would be said?
Who'd be at fault for the collision. The person who'd gone up the inside/left-side of another vehicle at lights, or the person they hit?