On reading the BBC report it sounds like his word versus hers on whether she came across the road and hit him or he came across the road and hit her. Given cars and bikes take slightly different lines through tight bends I can see the two parties holding different views. I doubt you’d ever prove which version was correct.
In that situation, there is doubt and the benefit goes does it not with the defence.
She appear to have been done for what was provable, not what she may well have done. But that’s how the law works in a fair society.
My own views on what I think she did and what she should be made to do are worthless (though they do involve her being “encouraged” to ride round London passing road safety leaflets to HGV / bus drivers – apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan).
VVVV Aracer – agreed (still like the Mikado idea though) VVVV