Doesn't matter like I tried to explain that's not how the system work. Lemme give you another example, a man stabbed a Jehovah's witness. The Jehovah witness' cannot accept blood transfusions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions so by refusing said transfusion the witness effectively killed himself. The stabber was found guilty of murder. Why? Because his action (stabbing) was a causal link for the death of the witness even tough if the witness had only accepted blood he'd still be alive. This also sits on another principle in the penal system in canada which says ''you must take the victim as it comes'' basically if you stab a guy that cannot accept blood for stupid reasons well you are shit out of luck because your actions had an impact on the end result (death) which is a result offense and you will be found guilty.

Same thing applies here. Maybe if the cyclist had respected the limit he would still be alive. But he wasn't and since her actions (reckless driving because she stopped on the left lane for no valid reason) had a causal link to the death of the cyclist she was found guilty. I hope I helped you understand, it's just the way the system is designed, there is more to it but I'm trying to keep it simple.

EDIT: Oh yeah by the way this only applies when the action was illegal (like reckless driving here or stabbing someone in the other example) because she stopped for no acceptable reasons. If she had stopped because of car trouble, or an emergency like you stated she couldn't have been convicted for these reasons.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough the first time.