The initial story claimed the cyclist crashed into stationary police car. Then followed large number of comments about stupid cyclists, he should be charged with being drunk. sued for criminal damage. Was it crappy reporting or was it a half-truth by the police?No clear info = no clear conclusion possible.
Statement 'cyclist was in collision with door' is 100% correct, he didn't hit anything else. It is a statement of fact - the two objects collided nothing more to gained by this. Nether which was moving or which [or who] was at fault. Another waste of time until [or more likely if] proper details become available. Guessing is simply an attempt at 'trial by media'. We know nothing - for all the report states the cyclist may have been a drug runner trying to avoid the car and capture.
The car wasn't stationary, the door was moving....into the path of the cyclist.