Don't see whats tricky about it. Two road users hit each other because they went blind across a junction.
If this had been a car and truck it would be ok for the truck to do it because, its ok for the Truck to drive blind into a junction because they are less likely to be injured.
thats not quite what people are saying - its just that given the circumstances the driver did what most drivers probably would do - knowing that, it makes it really stupid and obvious that the cyclist was going to end up getting hurt if that is how he rides in general - thats not totally saying the driver was completely in the right but it does make what the cyclist did monumentally idiotic, unless life changing injuries or death are what you are aiming for every time you go out on your bike
its not about who is right or wrong, its about staying alive in a situation that is very predictably going to end up with someone getting hurt, of the two vehicles involved, the one in control of the bike had the greater opportunity to prevent that accident from happening - I don't think it is at all realistic to expect the driver not to go when someone flashes them - regardless of what the rules say - it is just how the roads actually work - the biker knew they were there and seeing a junction could have predicted a hazard - it was far less likely that the driver would be able to predict the bicycle hurtling towards them at speed, short of just not moving at all, which might be the "correct" thing to do, but its not the realistic expectation
should drivers generally be more aware of the potential for bikes to be in unexpected places? probably yes
should bikers hurtle along the road ignoring potential hazards and risking their own life? well if it was me, definitely not, if other people want to splatter themselves up the side of large metallic objects then its probably darwin at work
the key word above being "unexpected", cyclists should avoid putting themselves in unexpected places, for their own safety, he was bombing along because he was presumably in some sort of rush, instead of taking basic precautions that would have slowed him down (although strangely enough he would have gotten where he was going quicker by actually going slower in the first place and not having to presumably be carted off in an ambulance)
both participants broke rules, only one of them could end up dead, so that does place the onus on the potentially dead one to prevent themselves from becoming dead, just from a basic logic point of view
