Not necessarily.

By itself, "I didn't see him" is an automatic admission that the driver didn't see him - nothing more. There can be a host of reasons for this. Dumb inattentiveness is only one of them, and that's what it sounds like here, or the DA wouldn't be prosecuting this the way he/she is.

But what if the road at that place and time was headed directly into blinding sunlight? What if is was foggy/dusky/early morning with resultant bad lighting and the rider was in low-contrast clothing and no lights? What if the road was going into and out of the shadows at short intervals, making it next to impossible to see from the sunny spots into the shady spots? In any given situation, there can be mitigating circumstances.

Don't get me wrong - in far too many instances, the driver is simply being an idiot. It sounds like that was the case here. In such cases, the driver should have to face the consequences, criminal, civil, and moral, of their actions.

But just as it is wrong to assume that every car-bike collision is the cyclist's fault (are you listening, CHP and police departments?), it is wrong to assume that every such collision is the driver's fault. "I didn't see him" will, in many instances, equal an admission of fault in light of all of the surrounding circumstances. But it may also mean that the driver didn't see the cyclist because the cyclist could not be seen for reasons beyond the driver's control.

Sometimes, sh*t just happens. The fact that it sure sounds like this is not one of those times doesn't mean it isn't so some of the time.

I guess my point it - don't be so quick to make such sweeping generalizations based on one incident, even one terrible incident. Be glad that this DA is taking this incident seriously. Be incredibly sorry that the incident happened at all. And be very, very grateful you weren't there in any capacity because there but for the Grace if God go us all.