Blood on the streets

My key point was (as you say) that when someone is passed dangerously close that is 100% the fault of the driver and 0% the fault of the cyclist, even if the cyclist was not riding in the best way possible. My second key point was that to say that to say that the cyclist was not cycling very well is to imply that the driver is less than 100% at fault and the cyclist is more than 0% at fault, which is, by definition victim blaming.

You inferred the victim blaming, it was not implied. For example, "I didn't lock my house very well" does not remove any culpability from the burglar who then breaks in.