Originally Posted by khuon
The article does not mention if the cyclist had lights or was highly visible. It could be that the driver was absolved of blame because the cyclist was not visible. Even in automobile rear-endings, there are mitigating circumstances. Also, the article does not state that the driver was not presumed to be at fault. It only stated that the police said the driver did not see the cyclist.
Well, I said we don't have all the facts. However, this article "smells" like the usual media-and-law enforcement bias against finding motorists at fault when there is a collision with a cyclist. It's not true of all reporters and all officers, of course, but we've all seen plenty of examples to know it remains a national problem.
You say that the driver was absolved because the cyclist was not visible. Visibility is not a legal requirement. Requirements differ from state to state, but having an operational headlight and a rear reflector are generally required, but this is not the same as being visible.
It is possible the cyclist was at fault. If she was next to the curb and proceeded straight from a right turn only lane and the car right-hooked her, then of course the motorist would be blameless.