Cyclist killed after falling into path of oncoming car, inquest hears

"Oncoming car". It's right there in the opening paragraph. Might affect your maths.

Ahhh

Happens.

What Caused Chloé Dygert's Crash? | Bicycle Laboratorium (mechmotum.github.io)

I read that post as having a sarcastic rolleyes at the end.

I don't know. Sriacha seems to have similar concerns as well. Unfortunately only Huw knows what caused it and he took that with him. But all it needed was a gust of wind, a similar bump to what someone mentioned, a dropped chain or the dreaded speed wobbles like they mention in the article above.

And that's the thing. If it was glibly accepted that a person of protected characteristic, run over and killed, must have "fallen off the pavement under the wheels of the car" there'd be an almighty hoo-ha about institutionally characteristic-ist police and press and judiciary.

But fell off a bicycle, well that explains it.

I think you and others are putting too much into the report and circumstances here. The Coroner needs definite proof to make the recomendation that the pot hole might have caused it. No one saw him hit it, witnesses can only report a wobble but not what caused it. The coroner would have asked could there be other causes so the investigator had to list a few which is what was reported. Tbh nowhere in the report does it mention the bike was also hit by the car or not,  but if it was that would have destroyed any mechanical evidence of cause unfortunately and even if not hit, the high speed crash might have. There is a chance that whatever caused Don's incident several months ago could have happned and Don had no idea what caused that.

Brooksby mentioned a medical incident and that could have been the case, (look at the unfortunate rider at Paris Roubaix(?) a couple of years ago for example). Unfortunately with the car hitting him it might have been medically attributed to that or lost beneath other wounds. 

The only real story about what happened was lost when Huw was and sometimes all that could be recorded is an accident on the road when multiple witnesses state he fell in front of her car but not why.

And I expect there probably has been coroner inquests into a type of death you mentioned but there hasn't been a hoo-ha because sometimes you cannot prove the sequence of events that lead to it. 

My point is, had a pedestrian apparently "fallen off" the pavement and under a car, nobody would accept it for a moment. There would be exhaustive enquiry, and if still no convincing evidence emerged, it would be left as an unsolved mystery. Yet here we are expected to meekly accept that in all probability he just fell off his bike, and there is no mystery to solve. Maybe non-cyclists think that actually happens? It's the insouciant ease with which that proposition is accepted that annoys me.

I think thats naive, I can certainly see pedestrian deaths getting short shrift too.

In many cases its lack of funding/willpower not dislike of cyclists.

No one said there wasn't a mystery, even the coroner has pointed that out in her findings. 
Assistant Coroner Ms McCormick, recording a conclusion of death following a road traffic collision, said she could not determine what caused the cyclist to lose control of his bike.

I suspect if you are lucky enough to find a coroners case of a pedestrian falling off a pavement underneath a car and toxicology doesn't show Drunk or Drugs involved, it might have  similar finding as above.

When there are too many factors involved and no absolute proof, these conclusions are the only thing they can officially put on. Not everything is a conspiracy. 

What about a medical incident? Something that dropped him like a stone?

He must have literally just gone over sideways if this woman is saying she (literally) had no time to stop or avoid him.

Awful...

Wouldn't that have come out in the autopsy ?

I'd hope so, but if his chest was badly damaged by being run over then maybe not?

Those dents in the road are awful when you don't even notice them. 

If the driver wasn't at fault, as seems to be the case here, then a proper investigation to determine the likely cause would be helpful all around ... e.g. was there a pothole or other road defect (or road layout issue) that could have caused it ... was it a crank failure (i've had 3 crank spider failures on ultegra groupsets) or was there damage that they just assumed happened as a result of the collision rather than possibly being what caused the cyclist to lose balance?  Was he out of the saddle when he lost balance, in which case it could be chain-slippage due to worn chain/chainrings (cause me to come off suddenly on a cycle path last year with no warning). 

To simply conclude the driver wasn't at fault and close the investigation is just lazy - if there is a safety issue then surely there is a duty to determine that so that it can be raised and/or resolved.

I know that road well having commuted on it daily pre-COVID.  It's an odd place to have an accident, you can be shifting but it's just levelling out after a fairly sharp incline so he wouldn't be tanking it unless really giving it Full Gas.  You usually hit the incline slow because there is a sharp corner at its base.

As Berkshire roads go it's better than average - large parts of it were re-surfaced 6-12 months pre-COVID. 
 

Assuming they checked the bike for faults I'd go for genuine accident, either clipping the pothole or some physical distraction like a cramp or muscle tear,  but total speculation because sadly we will never know.

Yep narrow and winding. Not sure where about the accident was but at a guess the cyclist was maybe on a one of the slight down stretches but he could have appeared before she could react much anyway. 

Weird road as in theory there is no road lights so in theory could be a 60mph but has speed bumps but no obvious speed limit sign. 

It's a bit narrow and there are some bends, I don't think I'd call it winding.

As for the speed limit, it's a 20 zone and there are reminders (whether there are sufficient, I'm not sure).

Most of that stretch is a 20 limit.

Glad for the clarification. Just didn't notice any speed signs on the Streetview but I knew it couldn't be 60 even without lights.