Jesus H Sugworth, I can’t believe so many on here have a problem with assumed liability.
If a car is rear ended everyone assumes* the rear car is at fault and rightly so, in odd circumstances – eg those nasty buggers going for insurance whiplash claims – evidence will show other factors at play but it’s a reasonable assumption.
Cyclists (and pedestrians) aren’t in the habit of throwing themselves under the wheels of cars**, other evidence – RLJing, stepping off kerb without looking etc – may show other factors at play but car hit bike/person is a reasonable assumption to make.
Why is this a contentious issue?
*dunno is this is just common sense or there’s legislation about assuming it
**again you may get insurance scams but riskier than the whiplash ones.