Given in the letter of the law the car was at fault, did the cyclist engage legal advice, challenge the insurance company decision and proceed to settle. Was the cyclist hurt, the bike damaged? If the fault was with the cyclist according to insurance did they go after the cyclist for damage to the car, injury to the driver? Be nice to know after 7 pages of discussion!?
This is where British cycling membership comes in handy.
I got this reply
"
You would think so but it was the driver who claimed against the cyclist for damage to his car and the insurance went in the drivers favour and as far as I know he won the case, this is because the cyclist was technically speeding and should have already been slowing for the red light, the way he was riding and the speed he was going indicated no intention of slowing and also suggests that he plans on running the red light, due to the ridiculous layout it's apparently the cyclists job to make sure the junction is clear before crossing and although the cyclist hit the side of the car it still counts as him going across the cars path as the car had already made the maneuver before the cyclist was anywhere near the junction.
It's all pretty controversial and i would say it's the fault of the council and their crap lane layout."
If I was the cyclist I'd be getting a better solicitor! Viewing the video it appears the car does not pause to check the cycle lane is clear before proceeding into the junction.
So moral of the story is to have legal cover (through ctc or bc)