A bicyclist is dead following a collision with a vehicle late Monday afternoon in San Jose, police said.
The collision was reported at 4:26pm along East Brokaw Road near Interstate Highway 880.
A man was riding a bicycle across East Brokaw Road when a vehicle struck him, police said. The victim was taken to a hospital where he died.
The driver of the vehicle stopped after the collision and is cooperating with the investigation, according to police.
The traffic death is the 11th of the year in San Jose, police said.
bikes are for trails, not roads
have some empathy man
telling people riding your bike on the street is safe is not empathy
its heartless and deceptive
stop lying to people that these roads with these drivers will ever be safe and I won’t need to point out the obvious, which I have been saying for years
The roads are not safe for motorcycles, scooters and or walking in cross-walks.
There are small cars that are not safe on the roads, they’re just coffins on three or four wheels.
David S. Wall
People who ride bicycles on roads do not deserve to die – that is such a disgustingly callous idea that I do not think it should be allowed to be expressed on here, and while I am a huge supporter of free speech, I would ask that the moderators on here consider the impact this victim-blaming would have on the family of the deceased and remove the comment. I have worked blue collar jobs with hard-working people who road bicycles to work because they could not afford cars, and the idea that they deserve to die because the entirety of their commute does not consist of trails is sick and twisted.
You have reading comprehension issues.
No where does anyone say anyone deserved to die.
Endlessly promoting riding on roads, when everyone is fully aware that they are deadly, that carries much of the blame. This is on the activists who try to reimagine a world that can never exist and will only continue to take family members away from their loved ones.
San Jose is this, these are the people who live here, they can not share the road with you, they are too distracted, too poor at driving. Your fantasy of trying to fix 1M+ people from their way of living is getting people killed. They dont deserve to die at all, but if people just dont stick to trails, this wont end.
And thats the truth.
Come on, COME ON.
Please don’t advocate for more censorship.
If we can save just ONE bike rider, wouldn’t it be worth banning bikes on roads?
Its for the safety of the bike riders. Are we the only ones who care about the bike riders? Why do so many encourage them to be killed by ridding on the roads? Why do you not care about the bike riders COME ON? Why no empathy from you? Instead you just want to keep sending them too their deaths.
I bought a bike a year ago because my morning walk for exercise in downtown San Jose had become too dangerous after several attacks by homeless people. I thought with all the lanes being taken away from cars and given to bikes it would be easy and safe. Boy, was I wrong. Eliminating lanes, especially on busy streets like 10th/11th and 4th, just means more backups, impatient cars passing in bike lanes, and road boulders stopping traffic for blocks. I have come within inches of being run over multiple time by cars running red lights when I was in the middle of the intersection on a green light. The problem is, I’d like to only ride my bike on streets to get to safer bike trails, but now the homeless encampments along the Guadalupe River are shutting down those trails. Between cars and trucks parked on the trails, and shopping cart barricades, I’ve given up attempting the trails between 280 and the airport. So where can you ride safely? There aren’t a lot of options.
Campbell and Los Gatos did it. Why can’t San Jose?
The Los Gatos Creek trail is continuous from Forbes Mill all the way through Los Gatos and Campbell despite some engineering challenges. Then it abruptly stops at Meridian Avenue. I know the creek bed is steep and narrow but with REAL commitment- not just this lip service that we get from city hall- this trail could be completed to where LG Creek joins Guadalupe River. Also, there should be an uninterrupted bike path along the Guadalupe starting at Lake Almaden and going all the way to Alviso.
And we don’t need any help from Joe Biden.
More reading comprehension issues from the bike zealots.
No one ever said ban bikes, especially me. I hate, to my toes, any bans.
If you want to ride your bike on small empty streets between trails, great. Those roads are essentially trails. It’s those that want to reimagine society by funding bike lanes (with regressive gas taxes) and relentlessly push the idea that we should ride bikes to work and school and the store, are the ones who need a reckoning. Say what you want, ride where you want, but your words have consequences and encouraging people to ride a bike like its their car is getting them killed in San Jose.
If San Jose was a place that had good drivers, wide well funded roads, drivers who never rubbed their iphones, and the traffic patrol could strongly enforce license laws and actually do something about bad drivers, I would say you have a chance at changing the environment on the road. But since you have starved the roads, proliferated social media addicts, neutered the enforcement of unlicensed driving laws because of ‘muh racism and capped/defunded the traffic police because of whatever, the roads of San Jose are a mess, and that is why there are so many biker deaths.
Encouraging people to ride long distances on San Jose roads is irresponsible and you have massive culpability in these deaths. If you continue to either lie and say its safe or push people to do it either through propaganda or actual incentives, you are part of the problem.
I own property in a city that has a massive trail system funded through PARK budgets, not redirected gas tax revenues. The trails are full of people who ride to work, ride to school, but not so much to the store. Weekends there are travelling picnics up and down the trail system by families. And that is as Red a place as you can imagine. You want that, then do the hard work of driving those budgets, the eminent domain, and all the environmentals etc. and pay for it out of parks and recreation, not steal money that should be used to widen, maintain, and build roads for cars whose gas tax funds that work. But instead you try a cute end around and starve the roads so a tiny minority of the population (mostly white men) can ride their bikes on intentionally over-congested roads. But you won’t because that’s work and you’d rather signal virtue and write bad sarc.
Shame.
On.
You.
I’m a veteran cyclist from when cycling, too, was better. Nowadays a number of roads are abandoned or lost — we no longer ride on them — because the state continues to acquire more people of lower quality, with a culture conducive to poor driving in addition to more toys to distract worse drivers. Add to that failure to enforce traffic laws and ever more degenerate dominate liberal politics that include demands for less law enforcement generally and a halt to enforcing traffic laws specifically.
In the old days, making the right lanes extra-width would be less stressful for cyclists, about all one would ever need. (Most locations prefer bike lanes clearly marked to be separate from the main lanes for motorists.) Now streets and roads are simply no-go due to bad drivers. They are so bad I actually have growing sympathy for the granola-heads who are routinely naïve or ignorant, who believe San Jose can be transformed into Amsterdam or Copenhagen with cycle tracks. (It can’t.) About the only safe thing is to put up concrete barriers, even with higher sound barriers. That especially helps beginners and casual cyclists doing the world-wide standard 10-12 mph slow cruise. It can’t be done on most roads given the capacity is insufficient already (major arterials should be three through lanes in each direction, not two) and with cycle tracks there’s still the intersection problem. Plus there’s experience with other paths and with San Jose that the tracks wouldn’t ever be swept or kept clean, forcing bikes in the street again eventually.
It’s shame roads are lost to cycling (at least safely) when all were used in the past, and roads still used are much riskier or dangerous than in the past.
These days metro trails can be hazardous. The long river trails in L.A. metro have in recent years been known also for broken glass and other trash, crime and threats to user safety, and those extensive homeless “accommodations” that took a while before action was taken here and there, notably near Angels Stadium on the Santa Ana River trail. What used to be nice and a boon, is now not nice at times, and unsafe, even to be avoided.
Mr Before,
While I respect your take and well earned perspective, my feeling is must always look to some outlet that offers a realistic “best bang for the buck” alternative.
While it is true with trails the city or county will have to do the hard work to keep them clear of dumping, trash, and misuse, that seems to me a tractable problem. The current “intention” of forcing more and more bikes on intentionally congested roads is so obviously more dangerous, difficult and intractable by comparison.
The trail path at least energizes this group in a positive direction. A well maintained trail system that overlays Silicon Valley would be a great outcome as opposed to scraping 40-50 bodies off fenders and the curb and using those deaths as a “crisis” that is never left to go to waste, because we all know the activists are going to use each death as a way to further their braindead schemes of out lawing cars either through mandate or economic infeasibility. Whose only effect will be the rich people will own cars and poor people will wait for the train, more so than it already is.
Mr. KULAK-Not,
If there are trails, they need to be continuous and uninterrupted, else experienced cyclists will tend to stay on the roads. I’d want to see at least two miles between any stops or breaks, and the number of such should really be zero. As with earlier separated bike paths, no unnecessary gradients or curves to be cutesy. Experienced cyclists reject these paths..
A gridwork of such trails (LA-style gridwork, of bicycle highways, or bicycle scale parkways, hopefully landscaped!) would be ideal provided the trail routes were placed such that they were true trunk routes for multiple types of bicycle trips, formed real corridors.
I’d add (bike-ped) paths into neighborhood blocks connected to those trails.
Don’t overlook power line rights-of-way. (Texas Central hasn’t.)
Don’t overlook adding grade-separated access roads to freeways, on one or both sides. Where there are bridges these could be broken or added to or by the bridges, too.
An alternative where streets are planned well in a grid is that collector streets will be between arterials, and signalized where they cross arterials. This gives cyclists an alternative grid, signed as bike routes in a meaningful way, than the arterials to use, of through roads that also have right-of-way over cross streets (which typically have stop signs, as all may know in residential areas.). The roads would break at arterials typically every half-mile or mile in modern locations.
(One of the consequences of worse driving is to switch from arterials to collectors. Another consequence is that collectors can become dangerous sometimes, too.)
Other examples are more barriers and diverters, that permit cyclists to go through while reducing motorist hazards somewhat.
The trails would be the centerpiece of a bike system yes.
And keep these CLEAN and SAFE.
Mr. Before,
Sounds hard and expensive.
I was thinking maybe a few main traverse with minimal road crossings that can get people from park to park.
Well, it’s not going to be the Netherlands, city or country, certainly.
(For the fans, and try to ignore the politics that come up here and there!)
aviewfromthecyclepathdhottcom/search/label/what%20works
aviewfromthecyclepathdhottcom/2014/03/discover-what-works-to-encourage-massdhotthtmlextra
aviewfromthecyclepathdhottcom/search/label/the%20grid
—
I’ve done the shift to connectors where possible. Connecting parks with what else, effective parkways (linear parks) would be nice, but I also think of trunk routes or connectors to help form a grid. (The site I linked to believes in grids.)
Oops, was thinking of something else when I wrote the first part — I have done the shift to collectors where possible. Normal speeds are limited to 30 mph or less, single lane in each direction.