On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:36:42 +0100, Alexis wrote:

All Lee was doing was trying to "prove" that a cyclist breaking the
law at a set of lights has priority over everyone else and that it's
someone else's fault if he gets run over.

If Road User A is going over a green light and _avoidably_ hits Road
User B, then A most certainly DOES carry a degree of culpability.

Sure, B shouldn't have been there. They also contributed. But if A could
have avoided the impact and didn't, then they are not blameless. Even if
A didn't see B because their observation was lacking. If A could
reasonably have been expected to see and avoid B, but didn't, then A is
just as much at fault as B is. The mode of transport of either A or B is
utterly irrelevant.

You think that will be seen as a "knock-for-knock" situation by the
insurance companies?

No such thing as "knock-for-knock" these days.

Isn't A likely to keep their no-claim bonus intact while B is not?

No. Both will be held at fault. Correctly so. The insurers will split the
costs 50/50. (K-f-K implies A's insurers pay A's repairs, B's pay B's.
It's simpler than that.)