Originally Posted by atbman

There's probably not enough information in the report to draw a clear conclusion about the relative responsibilities of the two peopl involved, but there seem to be three possible scenarios:

1. The driver cut across the front of the rider leaving him too little time to stop, so he hit its side. Conclusion: driver's fault as he interfered with the cyclist's right of way.

2. The driver was far enough ahead of but not in front of, the cyclist for the rider to have slowed down to avoid hitting him. Conclusion: the rider was not paying sufficient attention so hit the side of the truck, but a possible shared responsibility because you shouldn't interfere with the right of way of the person in the kerbside lane.

3. The rider ran into the back of the turning truck so he should have been paying more attention.

The officer's conclusion, however, seems to have been automatically weighted towards the driver and pays insufficient attention to the rights of the cyclist if scenarios 2 applies. If scenario 1 applies, then the officer had his finger up his arse, trying to scratch what passes for his brain into action