That's insane. They couldn't find anything the driver was doing wrong that caused him to veer onto the shoulder and hit the cyclist? Why should it matter WHY it happened? The fact that it DID happen should be enough. After ruling out external causes that could legitimately excuse the driver from criminal negligence (things like a sudden bout of vertigo, or mechanical problems, or dangerous weather) they need to charge the driver with something, even if it's just something like "improper handling of vehicle." Isn't driving on the shoulder illegal anyway? Or crossing a solid painted line (assuming there was one there to differentiate the shoulder from the main road)?