Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Please log in, or sign up for a new account to continue reading.
Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal. We hope that you continue to enjoy our free content.
Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
Your current subscription does not provide access to this content.
Support the Peninsula’s only locally-owned newspaper. Subscribe!
Subscribing annually brings you big savings. We also offer monthly and weekly subscriptions.
Premium Subscription
As low as $8.25 per week
Premium Includes:
-- Access to the Daily Journal’s e-Edition: a digital replica of our daily newspaper including crossword puzzles, games, comics, classifieds and ads. You can download a digital replica of the Daily Journal for offline reading. You can also clip & download articles or images from the e-edition to share with others The most recent 90 issues are available at any given time.
-- Unlimited access to our award-winning online content
-- Commenting access on all stories as a valued member of the DJ community
-- NEW! Access to our online-only digital crossword puzzle. A new puzzle every day, seven days a week!
| Rate | Price | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Year | $99.00 | for 365 days |
| 1 Month | $20.00 | for 30 days |
| 1 Week | $8.25 | for 7 days |
Support the Peninsula’s only locally-owned newspaper. Subscribe!
Subscribing annually brings you big savings. We also offer monthly and weekly subscriptions.
DJ Basic Subscription
As low as $5 per month
Basic includes:
-- Unlimited access to our award-winning online content
-- Commenting access on all stories as a valued member of the DJ community
What you're missing -- Additional features available only with the Premium level:
-- Access to the Daily Journal’s e-Edition: a digital replica of our daily newspaper including crossword puzzles, games, comics, classifieds and ads. You can download a digital replica of the Daily Journal for offline reading. You can also clip & download articles or images from the e-edition to share with others The most recent 90 issues are available at any given time.
-- NEW! Access to our online-only digital crossword puzzle. A new puzzle every day, seven days a week!
All for as low as $8.25 per month.
| Rate | Price | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Year | $60.00 | for 365 days |
| 1 Month | $12.00 | for 30 days |
| 1 Week | $5.00 | for 7 days |
The Burlingame City Council walked back passage of an ordinance that would have banned micromobility devices — including electric bikes and motorized scooters — in all city parks and recreation areas at its meeting Sept. 3.
The city will bring back the ordinance for a first reading with exemptions for recreational areas like the Bay Trail, in particular, after some constituents voiced concerns about impacts to their commuting patterns.
“I felt that there was pretty widespread support for not allowing somebody to ride an electric bike through, say, Washington Park or Ray Park,” Councilmember Michael Brownrigg said. “I think where we’ve gotten into trouble is this broader recreation area.”
The proposed ordinance eliminated operation or riding Class 1, 2 and 3 e-bikes, electric skateboards and electric motorized scooters in all parks, pools, recreation centers, playground, field or open space.
That didn’t make sense for the community, Mike Swire, chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee for the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, said. He and other bikers spoke at the meeting against the original ordinance, which was on second reading.
“Regulation of the Bay Trail should be done at a regional level, not at a local level. We don’t have a hodgepodge of rules on Highway 101 for cars,” he said in an interview. “If you’re trying to get from San Mateo to San Francisco to commute in the morning, as many people do, you should be able to have a consistent set of rules.”
Councilmembers like Andrea Pappajohn were inclined to agree.
“Hearing that the Bay Trail is used by some to commute to and from work, they commute on bikes and micromobility devices as well, I think it’s really important to be consistent in how we regulate the Bay Trail with our neighbors,” she said, voicing the possibility of instituting speed limits on the trail instead.
Some voiced concerns that limiting bans on e-bikes to parks only, and not other recreational areas, would fail to address high speeds on trails that can pose a danger to pedestrians.
“The issue I see though, is not just the kids that are abusing the speed or driving unsafely,” Vice Mayor Peter Stevenson said. “I see a lot of commuters being incredibly unsafe, traveling on roadways, traveling on the Bay Trail — they may have a helmet, but they’re [going] 35, 40.”
Mayor Donna Colson remained firm that the City Council should proceed with an e-bike riding ban in park areas.
“Frankly the e-bikers, they won’t yield, they won’t stop, and I just have to say, I have to speak out for elderly seniors, little children and people with dogs. They’re also sharing that park and the behavior has not really changed, so I see no problem saying you can get to the park and walk your micromobility device.”
Others, like Swire, remain unconvinced that e-bike bans in parks are the safest option when road conditions often remain unfriendly to cyclists.
“I’m very excited that the council scrapped the original proposal and is going back to the drawing board and seems likely to leave the Bay Trail out of any regulation going forward,” he said. “I’m still worried, however, that the council is going to outlaw the safe use of e-bikes and bicycles in city parks, without making sure that it’s safe for kids to instead ride on the adjacent streets.”
(650) 344-5200 ext. 105
Daily Journal staff
{{description}}
Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Plaza Suite Read morePlaza Suite
Classic, custom & vintage automobiles displayed throughout the day along with music, loc… Read more2025 San Mateo Rotary Car Show
Join us for this family-friendly event, and explore how green buildings can help shape a hea… Read moreGreen Building Tour: Greenprints for a Brighter Future
Join us at the beautiful Burlingame Community Center for a resource fair, free health screen… Read moreBurlingame Senior Showcase
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
(7) comments
There are three legal classes of ebikes - everything above 750kw is a e-motorcycle that can only be used off-road and private areas.
By law regular ebikes are regular bikes. Funny story, it was actually the last Republican Administration that said ebikes are bicycles and should be treated as such. One of the last executive acts of the previous Transportation guy was to force National Parks to treat all three legal ebike classes like regular bicycles. California then quickly followed up with their OmniBike Bill (AB 1909) which states that all three classes of ebikes should be treated like regular bikes.
The interesting part behind ebike bans in Palo Alto, Burlingame, Mill Valley, Half Moon Bay was that they all came out after AB1909. The leaders in these cities pretended to follow this new law and were looking for ways to restrict ebike use again, because they don't like kids or the elderly riding bicycles.
Kids on ebikes are mostly hurting themselves, adults in cars kill 44,000 per year. A Ferrari can drive 200mph, a Tesla Cybertruck can get to 60 in 3 sec, and yet they are allowed in residential areas and even around schools - following Burlingame's logic, they would need to be banned even more so.
California Democrats keep claiming Electric Vehicles are the future - but only the huge ones with huge batteries and the worst carbon footprint.
They all seem afraid of the small ones with small batteries that actually would do something to reduce carbon emissions.
It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye, or much worse. It is nice to read that Vice Mayor Stevenson and Mayor Colson see what many of us see. If Burlingame allows these vehicles, they’d better increase their liability deductibles and we should hope we don’t see increasing amounts of road rage incidents causing someone to lose an eye, or much worse.
Hi T-Bot, what gives? I thought you don't like regulations.
People being idiots with cars kill 44,000 Americans each year, hurt a few hundred thousands, and cause millions in damages - and often to others.
People being idiots with bicycles kill almost nobody, hurt a few hundreds and mostly themselves.
And yet the Bay Area idiots with cars (they often call themselves Mayor or Vice Mayor btw.) always look how they can restrict idiots on bicycles - "for their own safety of course".
As usual it's about discrimination against children, seniors, people with disabilities that benefit the most from a little electric help.
eGerd, T-Bot here. Glad to see you’re out here, giving us your outlook on life and issues. I’m all for regulations as long as they interpret the meaning of laws for the good of the community and our nation. What I’m not for is, to follow your lead, idiots who refuse to enforce our laws, such as idiots Biden and idiot border czar Harris who don’t enforce our border or our laws. And idiots like the EPA and CARB who attempt to regulate to handicap the country for a man-made global warming hoax.
As for people with idiots with cars killing and injuring folks, I wonder what an apples-to-apples rates per capita comparison against idiots with bicycles would show. If there is data, methinks there may not be much of a difference when cars and bicyclists are going 5 to 15mph.
As for restricting idiots on bicycles “for their own safety of course” it does make sense if they’re idiots and not following our vehicle laws. Of course, this also goes for idiot drivers. Perhaps we can find a way to add more enforcement and hand out more tickets. To spread the wealth with cycling advocates such as yourself, we can require most, if not all, of the money be spent on bicycle lanes/improvements/additional enforcement/etc.
As for discrimination against children, seniors, and people with disabilities that benefit the most from a little electric help, I’d like to see how many children, seniors, and people with disabilities ride electric bikes, much less any bikes outside of recreation. Which, I’d say, are what bikes are mostly used for since they’re not convenient for everyday living. I know, I know…if there were more bike lanes…so let’s get a bicycle law enforcement division and work towards that goal. BTW, it sounds like these regulations will help children, seniors, and people with disabilities from being run over by idiots on bicycles.
Here I thought we are having a nice local discussion about transportation, but your Russian programmers just had to bring up national politics. T-Bot, you need to ask them to update your programming so you look more legit and less like a broken algorithm.
But back to transportation. The practice around here to drive 5-10mph over the speed limit, in fact means that 99% of drivers are violating the law meaning basically right out of the box 99% of drivers are scofflaws. The next tell-tale sign that idiot in cars are the way bigger deal is the "California Stop". They don't give it that endearing name because Californians are good at following the simple law of stopping. In fact on my daily bike rides I can see 20-30 cars violating even more laws (right-on-red, speeding, not crossing double lines, not crossing into bike lanes, yielding to pedestrians, etc.) before I even see a person on a bicycle.
If I see one it's often children on their way to school, which the education system is holding back by not offering bicycle education anymore and locking down school yards, where kids used to be able to practice their riding skills. In this area, the "Mayors" and "Vice Mayors" are dumping them on the street and then put up signs like "Share the Road" - but statistics tell us, Americans are not too great at 'sharing'.
All jurisdictions in San Mateo County are constantly violating the California Outdoor Bill of Rights: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24952
Those Bill of Rights explicitly state, that kids need to be allowed to:
- Ride a bike
- Play in a safe place
- Follow a trail
And Burlingame want to exactly prevent children from riding their bikes in parks (Safe Place) and on a trail (SF Bay Trail)
eGerd, T-Bot here. I don’t know about you but I feel we are still having a nice discussion about transportation. If you didn’t add the crack about regulations that would obviously bring up border czar Harris’s incompetence... If you feel that’s political, that’s on you, not my algorithm. Regarding your California Outdoor Bill of Rights, it seems to me that kids can still ride a bike, play in a safe place, and follow a trail in a park. Just not with an e-bike. Your attempt to conflate e-bikes with bikes doesn’t make the California Outdoor Bill of Rights invalid. If anyone feels different, they can sue San Mateo County to make their case. As for folks driving over the speed limit and “California Stops” let’s beef up the vehicle speed enforcement division for both cyclists and drivers. BTW, since you see 20-30 cars violating laws before you see a person on a bicycle, it sounds like you’re making my argument that there aren’t a lot of cyclists.
>it seems to me that kids can still ride a bike,
Where? In traffic with idiots in 6000lbs vehicles? or Sharing the Road with drivers that are drunk, distracted, or high as a kite?
The moment kids are testing your theory it becomes international news: "CHP investigating several incidences of juveniles riding bicycles on the Bay Bridge"
There are no bike lanes to cross the Bay Bridge, how else should kids on bicycles cross over?
There aren't many cyclists because California Democrats - like Emily Beach from Burlingame during her time at SMC TA - constantly redirected bicycle funding towards car-centric projects. Any project with names like "traffic calming" or "Bicycle Route" or "Bicycle Boulevard" is a project where they discriminated against cyclists by mis-using their funding.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.