No it doesn't.

Calling something an "accident" implies that someone was negligent. Something can be an "act of God" which implies no one is to blame, but even then someone usually is negligence. The tree that falls on a clear day and kills someone probably was rotting from the inside, and the owner was not maintaining it. A rear end fender bender might cause no injury to the average person, but an unusually vulnerable person (known in law school as the "egg-shelled skull plaintiff") might be seriously injured. Cyclists are unusually vulnerable road users. Simple negligence by a driver that might bend some metal on another car can kill a cyclist. It's still an "accident," in that the driver didn't intend to hit the other vehicle.

I have trouble with the idea of making simple negligence a serious crime. On the other hand, if one of my children were injured or killed by a negligent driver, I would want them dismembered with a blunt instrument. We all are negligent once in a while. Usually it's just a simple weave on the road when daydreaming, and nothing happens. Sometimes a cyclist is there and that simple weave causes some serious harm (see BlueDawg's recent post). Criminal law punishes the offender based on what they intended to do, and intent is the lynchpin. Civil law punishes the defendant based on the harm caused, regardless of intent (that's an overgeneralization, but it's basically right). Cyclists need more legal protection than we get now, but I am not sure just what that means.