Scooper

2:30 AM accident southbound on Highway 85 north of Fremont Ave. in Sunnyvale.

Sunnyvale: Bicyclist killed in Highway 85 collision was under the influence|San Jose Mercury-News

squirtdad

85 is no place for a bike at any time of the day......will be interesting to see if there are any details on lights, reflectors etc..

Chris516

I made the mistake of going on to the interstate. When I was living in Minnesota. I had only been living in the city of Duluth for less than a year(2004), and riding around the city for short distances. When I went on to I-35W. I immediately realized my moronic mistake, pulled on to the shoulder, and got off my bike, off the highway. Somehow. I got my keister back up and off the entrance ramp. If I had been hit, I would have deserved it. No 'taking the lane'. Because that was the interstate.

My mistake was moronic. But this cyclist's mistake is indescribable. Because it was fatal.

genec

I am not condoning what happened... I don't know the details, etc.

But I do what you folks out there to realize that in several places in CA, it is sometimes legal to ride a bike on the shoulder of the interstate... and sometimes it is the only road available.

The on ramps/off ramps are usually marked "no bikes" except at these legal locations.

I don't know what the situation was on 85 as mentioned. I just want folks to know that riding on the interstate DOES happen. (don't even take the lane)

Looigi

FWIW: I've ridden legally on interstates in CA, NV and CO, routinely in NV. IMO, it was no big deal. Noise and dust/grit thrown up was annoying at times.

richardmasoner

You're indeed correct that bikes are allowed on some limited-access freeways in California. California State Route 85, however, is not one of them. The only bike-legal limited-access highway in the Bay Area is a 1.5 mile portion of I-280 in Millbrae.

Richard

rydabent

Saying the cyclist was drunk because someone "smelled alcohol" does not mean the cyclist was drunk. Was his blood tested? And to me the overridding fact is the cyclist was run down from the rear.

squirtdad

No, the overriding fact was that the cyclist was on a highway that is clearly (I drive it all the time) not a place for cyclists (either legally or common sense wise) at 2:30 in the morning. There is no way anyone is getting on that highway on a bike if they were in any condition to think clearly.

We don't have any more details (I have checked all local sources), but the most likely situation is a person impaired, with no lights, in the dark, on a highway they should not be on.

Cyclists are at fault at times.