The car involved in a fatal collision in downtown Burlingame Friday night was hit by an e-bike before it accelerated into the sidewalk where a 6-year-old girl and 4-year-old boy were hit, killing the boy, according to Burlingame police.
At about 6:25 p.m. Friday, Aug. 8, the sedan driven by a 19-year-old woman from San Mateo was entering Donnelly Avenue from Parking Lot D when it was struck by an eastbound e-bike. The vehicle then accelerated across Donnelly Avenue onto the north sidewalk and into the Truffle Bar, where it stopped, according to police.
(14) comments
I agree with Stephaie Masten in today's Editorial letters. It's clear laws are needed since it's apparent that some adults cannot say no, and have little sense of responsibility to allow children to have them. Even the best of young people do not have the experience and maturity to manage the risk and danger. Who lets an 11 year-old ride in city streets in bikes that go as fast as cars? Where was the parent?
The LAW is very clear on one thing: drivers are NOT allowed to hit children on bicycles or sidewalk.
Anyone who doesn't know the law is a by definition a "scofflaw" - simple.
Once you understand that part you understand that the rest of the discussion is just about drivers trying to weasel out of that responsibility by blaming a 11 year or his parents for the reckless driving of a 19 year and the teaching failures of her parents.
The legal framework is there and has been there for a long time.
California Vehicle Code, the DMV's Driver Handbook, any professional driver's handbook, the National Safety Transportation Board (NTSB) are clear on this.
Ask any injury lawyer of your choice and be prepared to get schooled.
Children must be allowed, even encouraged to ride their bicycles so they don't grow up such bad drivers as this 19 year old, who obviously should not have been allowed to drive a SUV when she is clearly incapable of doing so.
Who teaches their kid to accelerate in the middle of a business district?
If you feel for that 19 year old and her parents - as anyone with empathy would - blame her parents, blame the system, blame the Burlingame City council for failing to provide safe streets for 11 year old on bicycles.
That would not have happened if that 19 year old was riding a bicycle through San Mateo at the age of 11. So we can blame San Mateo leadership here as well.
To our regular SMDJ commenters: I'm proud of you.
Different from various Social Media outlets this group of readers and San Mateo County's critical thinkers did not take the bait laid out for us by Burlingame police and newspaper reporting. They did not blame four kids for the incompetent driving skills of a 19 year old.
The commenters were almost 100% in agreement that this was a hush job rather than a serious investigation. While the commenters seem to clearly understand the physics of the traffic world, Burlingame police can't even distinguish between a sedan and an SUV.
"Details matter in an Investigation" [Jack Reacher]
PS.: And yes, I feel for the 19 year old from San Mateo as well and I blame the city of San Mateo council for creating a city, where this young woman wasn't allowed to start her transportation career on a bicycle. Kids need to be on bicycles first to learn the in and outs.
As a long time resident of Burlingame...we are heart broken by this mishap and grieve for the family. I have no sympathy for Burlingame....we walk to McKinley elementary every day to drop our 7 year old to school and RISK OUR LIVES every day on El Camino. So do numerous families. We have petitioned both the town of Burlingame and Caltrain and both pass on the buck to the other agency...there is no pedestrian warning light or anything....just our lives to RISK and our neighborhood probably pays the highest property tax in Burlingame. NO ONE WILL DO ANYTHING TILL A CHILD DIES ON THAT WALKWAY ON EL CAMINO Happy to talk to the reporter on this appalling condition
Per the Mercury News:
"The 19-year-old female driver was leaving a city parking lot when she pulled directly into the path of an e-bike driven by an 11-year-old boy with a 10-year-old female passenger, said David Perna, public information officer and investigations division lieutenant for the Burlingame Police Department.
The e-bike, which had the right of way as it traveled eastbound on Donnelly Street, collided with the driver’s side of the sedan.
After the collision with the e-bike, the driver of the vehicle accelerated across Donnelly Street, Perna said. The sedan struck the two children and then the building housing the restaurant, Truffle Poké Bar. The children had been on the sidewalk area at the entryway of the restaurant, which had large accordion-style windows that were open at the time, Perna added."
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/08/11/burlingame-e-bike-collision-child-killed-identified/
I understand why the BPD may have needed to be vague on details, but it's really unfortunate that the initial press releases and articles on this tragedy fueled assumptions about the culpability of the cyclist.
Thanks for the link to the Mercury report. Most informative, particularly about the classification of e-bikes. Glad those two kids are okay.
There must be a dozen cameras in that area ...
"...was entering Donnelly Avenue from Parking Lot D when it was struck by an eastbound e-bike" -- In other words, the car driver did not yield to traffic on the street.
Here’s a thought. Let’s wait for the conclusion of the investigation, instead of speculating.
What investigation? There will not be a real one, that's the point of this police report and news article. The DA will not pursue this either.
We will only get full information if relatives file a civil suit against the driver AND the city for negligence.
Researchers have gone through hundreds and thousands of these kinds of articles based on police reports before and after. Once you know the patterns, it becomes fairly easy to reverse engineer what really happened here.
Fact No. 1: Police works for the city and they don't want the city to be sued. Many are siding with drivers anyways because of personal bias, but they might also be instructed by their city manager to do so.
Fact No. 2: The 19 year old driver killed a child on a sidewalk. That puts the responsibility and fault 100% on the driver and because of the age of the driver also on whoever taught that young woman bad driving habits like accelerating instead of braking.
From these two facts and reading the two articles we have so far we can basically deduce:
- Police always takes their time releasing the name of the driver when they do not want to follow-up. They are quicker with victims though. Why do the perpetrators deserve more privacy than their victims?
- If police had found any circumstances that speak for the woman, they would have done so. But they seem to be grasping at straws now.
- The second article makes it sound like someone on an e-Bike had some fault here. But it still appears that that person had the right-of-way, adding another charge to the 19 year old woman.
- Interestingly no mentioning of who was with the children - most likely to raise suspicion or start the victim blaming.
- "neither alcohol nor drugs appear to be a factor in the collision" - we see that statement all the time. No one at the crime scene should make such a statement; a full blood test panel should always be required.
- "there might have been medical issues" - the perpetrator might still be instructed to use that excuse. But no police officer or reporter should repeat this kind of excuse unless a full multi-day hospital examination has confirmed real health issues.
- ... and once real health issues are confirmed the question would change to 'why is a person allowed to drive with such a debilitating health issue that could kill them and other people?'
If something sounds weird it usually is. This all sounds weird.
What people would want to see in cases like this is some assurance that a full blood panel has been drawn, that a full health check came back negative, that the driver's license has been taken, etc.
What does it matter if the driver was hit by an e-bike before accelerating and killing a 4 year old boy? In what world does somebody get hit by something small that isnt putting them in danger while ALMOST STOPPED pulling out of a parking lot and their first instinct is to put the pedal to the metal? Seems like there is already an effort to try to absolve the 19 year old from blame. This is San Mateo County - where as long as you are a protected class - you can kill people with your car and just say "whoops - it was an accident - whoops my brakes failed - or whoops I was only 17 years and 364 days old". This liberal bleeding heart nonsense needs to stop - California is a loonybin where the inmates are running the asylum - and the Politicians and lawmakers in charge want to make excuses for criminals rather than protect their citizens. They try to demonize us while eliciting sympathy for these criminals. Truly disgusting to live in any "Blue" area anymore - these liberals have only sympathy for the Devil - who is really their daddy.
It seems like there's still a lot of critical information missing necessary to understand what happened.
The driver was pulling out of parking lot D, was hit by a cyclist traveling eastbound (with traffic, but possibly riding on the sidewalk?), and then accelerated across the street rapidly enough to drive into Truffle Poke Bar?
Was there a car parked at the parking meter adjacent to the parking lot entrance that may have made it difficult for the driver to see an approaching cyclist?
Good questions, Seema. You know, I was there twice today, and I didn't spot that parking meter adjacent to the east-bound lane [going toward Lorton] though I did note that parking is prohibited on the west-bound side [going toward Primrose].
However, one thing seems clear to me: when a vehicle exits a parking lot onto a street and must turn left or right, the motorist must come to a complete stop and look both ways prior to entering the roadway.
I know it's early and we need more information, but this article appears to blame the e-cyclist, stating, "The car involved in a fatal collision in downtown Burlingame Friday night was hit by an e-bike before it accelerated into the sidewalk..."
Did the motorist turned in front of the cyclist? Who hit whom?
I had thought the driver had executed a left turn upon exiting the parking lot, i.e., going west-bound, and lost control of her vehicle and hit the storefront - I hadn't read this article yet.
Wasn't the SUV driver pulling out of a parking lot when they got hit?
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.