I may be wrong...
...so go and check the law for yourself, but I think it comes down to intent.
By definition, an accident is unintended. So the SUV driver did not kill the cyclist through intent (for that would be murder) just through negligence, ineptitude etc.
The biker, on the other hand, intended to break the law. Travelling at 100+mph is a deliberate act.
The consequences are, to a large degree, by-the-by. Intent is what matters.
Now, before you start frothing at the mouth consider if you are the one who causes an accident. You are at a junction, you look but make a mistake and pull out when you shouldn't:
Scenario A: T-boned by other vehicle, some bruises, nothing serious, you get a charge or driving without due care or something.
Scenario B: T-boned by other vehicle, driver and passengers in that killed, passengers in your vehicle killed, should you now be up on a multiple-manslaughter charge?
If you said "Yes" to the question in scenario B then that has consequences. You are asking the law to consider the worst-case-scenario (not just intent) because the law should be consistent based on you actions; why should a lucky person get away with a lesser charge when they take the same actions? Justice [should be] blind etc etc. So that means, even for a minor infringement, people could face very long jail sentences. Went through a red light in error? Whoops! That could have lead to scenario B, 20 years in jail.
Want to live in a world like that?
So, AFAIK, our law takes intent into account much more than consequences (for the reasons outlined above). Whether or not that's the best way you can debate all you want.
[Edit: Typographical errors]