Editor,
After seeing the news on Channel 7 last night regarding the crash into Truffle Bar in Burlingame. Those e-bikes and scooters should not be allowed on the streets. That awful accident would never have occurred if those tiny e-bikes had not been there. You can hardly see them, and young kids should never be allowed driving on streets — scooters included. I feel so very, very sorry for that 19-year-old who is getting the brunt of this very sad accident. The cities should ban e-bikes — scooters included — from being used anywhere in town. Just ride them in parks, school campuses and other open spaces where people can see them. That 19-year-old should know she was not in the wrong. My heart goes out to the parents as well as to that driver. Both are victims.
(13) comments
It is not clear if the child eBike driver was really paying attention to the road conditions ahead or if was driving at excessive speeds or if was distracted and where any or all of which could have contributed to the accident. Many report witnessing biking violence behaviors on our roads. Placing the blame on the design of an SUV cause one doesn't like cars is just ridiculous.
Funny, basically all SMDaily commenters were smartly seeing through this police report frame job, but there is always one or two automotive industry lobbyists trying to defend the indefensible.
But not everyone seems to know the CA Vehicle code well enough. So time for a refresher course:
Blaming an 11 year old is basically against the law in CA, because of something called "Duty Of Care"
By accepting a CA driver's license, a driver acknowledges that they have full responsibility in collisions with vulnerable road users ... and especially children.
The driver from San Mateo was violating at least three different laws or vehicle codes:
- violating the right-of-way of a vehicle in legal control of the roadway
- jumping a curb and driving on the sidewalk
- injuring and killing children
---
- the 11 year old on a bicycle was clearly NOT speeding, which is proven by the fact that the two kids on a bicycle were uninjured and the bicycle basically undamaged.
- the undamaged bicycle also proves that the eBike did NOT take the SUV out of it's intended trajectory - even if that was physically possible.
Anyone with a driver's license understands exactly what was going on here:
- when driving a stick shift car, the left foot is always on that clutch. If anything happens the clutch goes down and the car's forward momentum would stop.
- when driving an automatic, then the gear is on "D", the foot is on the brake and the driver is INCHING their way forward.
- that right foot stays or hovers over the brake until the driver determines the roadway is empty.
- only when the roadway is free then the right foot changes from brake to gas pedal.
- this driver either didn't want to see the bicycle in legal control of the roadway or assumed she can beat the slow bicycle to the punch.
- the foot went from brake to gas pedal and she hit it hard to beat the bicycle.
- when she couldn't, she hit the pedal even harder but didn't adjust the steering wheel fast enough.
- so she went straight, jumped the curb and landed inside the restaurant.
Either that or she was drunk, on drugs or distracted. Either way she violated her "Duty of Care" towards children. that comes with a CA driver's license.
The City of Burlingame takes plenty of blame here too, for example the parking lot exist most likely hasn't been "Daylighted" as common sense would dictate here. Their policy of "Incremental Progress" and delay tactics led to this.
It is shocking and disappointing to read an LTE victim blaming innocent CHILDREN who were following all laws and regulations.
Would someone write an LTE blaming children who were assaulted while walking home from school?
"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."
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/08/11/burlingame-e-bike-collision-child-killed-identified/
"The e-bike riders, an 11-year-old boy and 10-year-old girl, were operating a Class 2, two-person bike legally and in accordance with traffic laws, Burlingame Investigations Lt. David Perna said."
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/burlingame-community-mourns/article_f46de191-0186-46ac-b3c5-f1fca591820e.html
Anger and desire for regulation should be directed at the driver who failed to adequately check for oncoming traffic that had the right of way before pulling out of the parking lot, and the dangerous vehicle she was driving that disproportionately kills pedestrians, especially children:
A pedestrian or cyclist is 44% more likely to be killed if they’re struck by an SUV rather than a passenger car. The situation is even worse for younger victims – a child struck by a SUV is 82% more likely to be killed than a child struck by a passenger car.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriewinkless/2025/05/07/suvs-make-traffic-worse-and-are-more-dangerous-than-cars/
SUVs also provide drivers with poorer visibility of the roadway, by their design. Per the Dept. of Transportation “The designs of both heavy trucks and light sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks create blind zones that make it difficult for drivers to view their surroundings, increasing the risk of blind-zone related fatalities and injuries. A University of Michigan analysis estimates that blind zones are involved in 25 percent of U.S. pedestrian deaths in crashes with large trucks. The increasingly large blind zones in SUVs and pickups have been associated with fatal “frontover” crashes, in which children have been run over by the drivers of slow-moving vehicles in driveways or parking lots."
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/66144/dot_66144_DS1.pdf
Here are some ideas that address the root cause of these injuries and deaths:
* Regulate the design of SUVs to eliminate blindspots and the severity of "roll over" collisions
* Require a special driver's license (with additional training and tests) to operate a vehicle over 3,000 lbs
* Limit oversized vehicles from high-pedestrian areas (like downtown business districts)
There is no evidence that the e-bike caused the crash. It could have been a regular bike, motorcycle or car- it had the right of way when the driver pulled out in front of it and then inexplicably accelerated instead of braking (likely an inexperienced driver who panicked and hit the wrong pedal.) While there may be cause for more regulations on e-bikes for young riders this accident isn't a good example of e-bike dangers.
That being said this accident also has nothing to do with lack of bike lanes or those "terrible SUVs" (report said it was a sedan.)
All sides need to stop using this one-off terrible tragedy to push their pet issues, everyone sounds ridiculous.
The original Burlingame Police Department statement on the crash did call it a sedan. This was not accurate, however. This was not accurate. It was a Mazda CX-5 SUV.
The type of car is indeed important. SUVs have worse visibility than smaller cars, increasing the likelihood of a crash. Also, their higher front ends result in more deadly crashes, especially for children pedestrians.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-safety/new-suvs-have-worse-visibility-iihs-study-a1569733585/
Stephanie - "I feel so very, very sorry for that 19-year-old who is getting the brunt of this very sad accident". That is like feeling sorry for Charles Manson because Sharon Tate should not have been accessible in her home and get murdered. Are you a defense lawyer?
This is a telling statement on why those who kill with their vehicles get away with it. Juries identify with the drivers. Everyone drives and fears that they could one day hit and kill someone.
Meanwhile, the driver who killed the 4 year-old is probably on our streets as we speak.
Correct. Unless a driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol... or driving demonstrably recklessly... it's not unusual for charges not to be filed even when a collision results in the death of a pedestrian. Why? For the very reason you stated... there's probably at least one juror who will identify with the driver and say to themselves, "That could have been me." They will not support a guilty verdict. However, the extremely young age of the pedestrian victim in this case may make it difficult for the DA not to file. We'll see.
Did anything occur at the scene of the investigation that may suggest law enforcement's response was inappropriate? Was there any part of this tragedy that supports locking up the SUV driver to wait for a decision by the DA? Was that driver released OR? Did the driver post bail? If any of the other DJ readers joining this conversation had been behind the wheel of that SUV, would you expect them to be cooling their heels in CJ?
Stephanie, the police and press have said that the bicycle was traveling in the right of way, following all laws. The car pulled out and hit the bicycle. Please stop spreading information that has been discredited by Burlingame Police.
If both vehicles were in motion, neither "hit" the other - they collided, end of story. The angle of the collision is irrelevant and shouldn't be used to intimate blame or causality.
You're correct. It's a collision not an accident. However, it's possible the SUV driver entered traffic at an angle making it difficult to see oncoming traffic. Regardless, the driver has a duty to yield to oncoming traffic including two-wheeled conveyances. If the BPD report determined that the SUV driver violated Vehicle Code Section 21804, then the SUV driver's failure to yield will be the proximate cause of the collision leading to the tragic death of a child. in that case, culpability will be assigned to the SUV driver.
Ray - do you have any idea why there were allowed to have so many outlets who reported the blame at the E bike and then others the SUV? Seems reprehensible that so many people have to wag their tongue prior to all facts being reported by the proper sources.
Oh, and I heard from the current White House admin and staff, and loud and clear the message was, do not, in any capacity leave the SMDJ, do not silence your subscription and 'DT' said his subscription is so he can read your titillating reports, retorts, refrains and all around input.
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.