Although technically, they're both at fault for reversing into the carriageway, if you look at the footage carefully, the red car was actually stationary and the grey car reversed into it. I reckon it would still go 50/50 at insurer level though.
I think the red card albeit lately spotted the hazard and stopped; the grey car then continued to reverse and into the red car therefore the fault lies with the grey car as they did not spot the danger and stop/try to stop IMO.
Just as a proper update to this, had a letter from my insurance company on Monday and they confirmed that this will be treated as a 50/50.
Just trying to sort out a date to get the car into the body shop to get repaired.
Damn, i was hoping it was the cyclist's fault.....
Thanks for the update, maybe people can now stop telling you it will go 50:50 
I think it'll go 50/50
The purpose of the car horn is to let other road users know you're there.
If the red car stopped because they could foresee the collision but failed to sound their horn to warn the grey car of their presence it is still at least partly the red car's fault.
Very good 
I know this doesn't have anything to do with the claim as such but the neighbour with CCTV can pretty much point the camera anywhere she wants so i wouldn't try and use that argument if the situation did for some reason get bit more complicated. When it comes to domestic CCTV, they're usually overlooking neighbours front or back gardens anyway as the equipment often has wide angled lenses.
Domestic CCTV: using CCTV systems on your property - GOV.UK