Could be "yes", could be "no", depending on the facts.

Hypothetical #1: Road rage incident where truck driver tries to "scare" a cyclist who flipped him off, and so drives perilously close to the cyclist. Underestimates how far his mirror extends and clips the cylist, killing him. Drives off without stopping.

Hypothetical #2: Soccer mom gets call from baby-sitter that 4 yr. old child at home is vomiting and in convulsions. While speeding to get home, and talking on the cell phone with the child's pediatrician, she drifts 30" to the right and clips a cyclist, killing him. Stops immediately to render aid and calls 911.

Both drivers above were operating their vehicles in an "unsafe" manner. IMO, #1's actions clearly exceeded simple negligence. #2's actions were simple negligence.

And this actually makes my point. Some folks here are advocating a cookie-cutter approach: Any at-fault motorist who causes a cyclist's death should [...insert draconian penalty here...] regardless of how the accident happened. I think that calmer, rational thought is called for. We've all heard the saying: "There but for the grace of God, go you or I".

Bob