Please stop using passive and marginally accurate language for violent deaths. The article says that it happened "...after the bicycle he was riding collided with a car..." This suggests that the bicycle ran into the car. This is an implication of fault. However, the known facts say that both the bike and car were traveling in the same direction. With a fatality involved, it seems HIGHLY likely that the car was overtaking the bicycle (and thus FULLY responsible) when the 2 ton machine struck, mangled and killed the person who was riding the bicycle. Note the 'person' was struck and killed. The impact between the car and bike is not the story. The story is that one person was operating a 2 tone machine in such a way that it killed another human being. Was it a true 'accident' in that it was unforeseeable? Perhaps. But more likely it will turn out to be negligence at best that the operator of the car failed to give the operator of the bicycle sufficient space while overtaking and the person riding the bicycle has paid the price with his life. Will this be represented this way in news? Haven't seen it yet.

The purpose of a news article is to give the reader who what when where why and how. Give the facts they are known. It is not the job nor the place of the reporter to speculate as to the cause and blame of the incident or accident if that is what it was. You are possibly right ,more than likely in fact. But the article is well written in that it has FACTS. Not speculation. A collision happened Monday night, the biker died. Well done Michelle. Keep up the good work.

So SM Daily Journal and the Daily Post were more explicit about the known facts as reported by the SMC Sheriff. Both reported that the cyclist was struck from behind by the driver. I hope that the Almanac can update their article to include those facts.

It’s also possible that the cyclist swerved into the lane in front of the car, without looking—or that the cyclist did a sudden u turn without looking. Both of these scenarios happen with some frequency. It’s a tragedy for everyone involved. The poor cyclist, but also the poor driver of the car—they must feel terrible.

A strange way to describe this accident: "a bicycle collided with a car..." Sounds absurd. If the police report says that the cyclist was indeed struck from behind by the driver, then the language should reflect that fact. This is not clear reporting.

This is devastating. Cañada Road is a popular road for recreational cycling and one can imagine that the bicyclist was out enjoying the spring weather while it was still quite bright outside. Thanks to other posters who have called out the story's tortured wording. If the bicyclist was the one that actively ran into the car (unless he turned head-on into the car), he would likely have bounced off instead of ending up dead.

I was cycling on this road/same direction one hour prior and was terrified the entire ride. IT WAS HORRIBLE! There are so MANY temporary/folding “caution” road signs and small landslides that are completely blocking the bike lane; which forces cyclists into the road with vehicles. I was constantly having to look behind me while also taking note of southbound vehicles since northbound vehicles were being forced into the southbound lanes to avoid cyclists. The beautiful scenery and weather did not outweigh the stress! It was awful (I had told my cycling partner that I will never ride there again) and especially now after hearing about this tragically sad event.

My condolences to the family and friends of the cyclist. The last comment mentioned the road conditions and the need to constantly look behind. It sounded scary. I urge every cyclist to have a rear view mirror. Once, when I rode without one because mine had broken, I felt as vulnerable as I would without a helmet. Please, everyone, be as safe as you can.