is common practice in USA & Canada and UK in the insuance industry, i.e. the insured is required by the insurance policy not to admit, promise, or offer to settle any claim because it may prejudice the insurer's position. The insurer has a duty to defend, so it will be involved from the outset of the case through the ending. In the end, liability is left to be decided by the courts only, based on the facts of each case.
My another thought is that if you were riding out of a driveway, same as a vehilce, you would have better grounds to negotiate or sue. In Canada there is not a special lane for cyclists, so they are treated in the same way as driving vehicles.
Finally personally I do believe the 2nd car driver was liable to an extent, which is left to the court to determine based the facts. I would suggest you do a researd in the library and look through related precedents (past cases) to see how the liability in them were established.
My another thought is that if you were riding out of a driveway, same as a vehilce, you would have better grounds to negotiate or sue. In Canada there is not a special lane for cyclists, so they are treated in the same way as driving vehicles.
Finally personally I do believe the 2nd car driver was liable to an extent, which is left to the court to determine based the facts. I would suggest you do a researd in the library and look through related precedents (past cases) to see how the liability in them were established.