brightn'ove
cringe
Regardless, the cyclist is in the wrong and putting himself in danger by attempting an illegal maneuver.
Yes, the taxi driver could have (and perhaps should have) been more vigilant, but with regards to law, insurance claims and in court, the cyclist would be seen at fault.
I don't agree that the cyclist performed an illegal manoeuvre. The parts of the highway code that are legal requirements are the parts which state that you MUST do or not do something. Both parties have broken advisory rules, acted dangerously, and would share blame.
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.