SJ Bicyclist Dies After Collision With Motorcycle This Month

A bicyclist injured in a collision with a motorcycle in San Jose earlier this month succumbed to his injuries at a hospital Wednesday, police said.

The Santa Clara County medical examiner’s office has not released the name of the bicyclist, who died 20 days after the crash that was reported around 9:45pm on April 1 in the area of West San Carlos Street and Leigh Avenue.

The bicyclist was crossing West San Carlos Street outside of a crosswalk when the motorcyclist traveling east collided with him. He was taken to a hospital with major injuries and eventually died, while the man on the motorcycle suffered minor injuries, according to police.

The fatal collision is the 13th on San Jose city streets in 2021. Anyone with information about the case is asked to contact Detective Malvido with the San Jose police traffic investigations unit at 408.277.4654.

5 Comments

  1. City streets were built for motor vehicles. Period.

    There are literally hundreds of miles of bicycle paths and trails outside city limits, and they are much safer. Bicycle riders should use those, and since they won’t use the bike lanes to commute to work (the ostensible reason for converting traffic lanes to bicycle lanes), those lanes should revert to their original motor vehicle use.

  2. Both you two gentlemen are incorrect, but the reality is, more and more roads are becoming unsafe from worse drivers, and a number of us have ceased to ride them.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if others besides me are foregoing arterials for collectors.

    Off-road facilities still have to not be inferior, and to be and go where people are and want to go on their bikes. (It’s possible to use these as part of trips; I did that when bike commuting in L.A. often, with one of the major river trails.) It’ s not easy to get them right. Note that shared (ped-bike) facilities don’t really succeed, are a last resort because of the hazards that force slowing (among grown-ups).

    You should understand the irony in switching from arterials to collectors. Cyclists have used arterials for the same reasons motorists do; they’re faster, more direct, have the right-of-way at intersections over cross streets, etc. I got an early letter to a newspaper published admonishing a city that wrongly had redesigned and rebuilt one of its major arterials without bike lanes or wide shoulders or right lanes, then directed bikes to use the sidewalk. (The signs were changed to say bikes “MAY” instead of “MUST” use the sidewalk.) It’s bad when arterials must be rejected in favor of often less-direct or slower collectors for safety or other quality reasons. (In better done designs, collectors have few or no stops between signalized intersections with arterials.)

  3. There is another problem with many new bike facilities, not just being ignorant or starry-eyed about bike use in the Netherlands and bringing it here, however a city or county can. (Cycle tracks still have a huge intersection and “right hook” hazard along with any driveways that cross them that are very serious hazards, as on any sidewalk..)

    They’re being done where capacity is insufficient on arterials, which with major ones or those providing more important service need to be three lanes rather than two in each direction, and it’s crazy to remove lanes.

    They may also be wrongly used sometimes as traffic control devices. (anti-car)

    There’s a need sometimes to slow arterials, or even limit to two lanes (heavy crowding or intense use along the roads, many driveways with a good deal of use, etc.) but so much is for politics, not for transportation, reasons now.

  4. I may be wrong, but I have ridden my bike on these roads and I am certain “bikes are for trails” is true in CA. It is interesting that one in five of US adults with an IQ lower than 80 live in CA. Thats like 5-6m people. They dont let you in the service if your IQ is under 83. Layer on cell phone addiction and poor law enforcement coverage, you have to be crazy to ride on roads. Sorry.