The woman was no longer on the road when the biker came on the scene. So is it fair to say she is the direct cause ? Bear in mind the obstacle the biker faced was the triton and not the girl.  The triton was on his way to restart his journey signifying conditions were stabilized.

At the end of the day the obstacle is irrelevant. It could be a stalled triton, a python or a pothole that cause the traffic to stop. The outcome given the same distance and time lapse would likely expose the unpreparedness.

For sure the woman was also reckless.

I stated very clearly she salah. The essence of the question is wrong on what count ?
Traffic offence or killing a life ?

Yup and it remains to be seen. But we are free to discuss. That's the purpose of this forum. No need to be angry and hurl personal insults. ☺️

Alot of ktard fail in critical thinking.

The woman crossed the highway. That is wrong.

But the bike's accident was the indirect cause, not a direct cause. So the woman cannot be blamed for the accident on the bike.

If the scenario was different, say the triton experienced a catastrophic engine failure and come to total halt, will the result be different. Will the result be different? Answer this.

Oh take one sentence and frame it as you like ?
Take the entirety of my points. I said clearly she is an indirect cause, not a direct cause. Never even read the whole context of the stamement and try to twist. I also see many others already catch on to the point but you are still living in your own bias.
You need to do better.