Maybe I over reacted and possibly omitted the occasional gratuitous punctuation, but it seems to me that Reg and yourself are saying that the jurors returned a not guilty verdict because they are motorists. While there will be occasions that common experience might be relevant, in this instance they should have been asked to decide on a clear point, whether or not it fell into the definition of careful.
As to bias, from where we are sat there is no reason to suppose the jury was biased in the favour of the motorist as opposed to the victim and to take the attitude you do demonstrates the same prejudice that you are accusing the jury of having.
I don't have rose tinted spectacles and I recognise that drivers often don't give a tuppeny shit about cyclists, but driving around corners on the wrong side of the road appears careless by any construct. And then, not seeing the cyclists - had it been a skip in the road, the outcome would have been different.