I don't own an ebike but doesn't this go against the idea that bikes are valid forms of transportation that deserve the same rights and privileges as cars? I don't see the difference between an ebike and a regular bike outside of one is faster and able to keep up with cars much better?

The e-bikes seem like a good idea for people who live in hilly areas and are using their bikes to commute for longer distances. At least riders are getting some exercise from those. The motorized scooters and skateboards are absolute hazards. I saw a college kid on a motorized skateboard absolutely level someone last spring. The guy who got hit wound up with a pretty bad head injury and a shattered knee.

I have no problem with e-bikes on roads. But I'm sure Nardi and Simple don't want them there.

Why not on bike trails though?

Why should motorized vehicles be on trails where people are walking dogs and pushing strollers?

As long as the motorized vehicles are being careful of the dog and people pushing strollers what is the issue?

Motorized and non-motorized transportation can and should co-exist. If they can do it on roadways then why not on something where larger motorized transportation is banned?

It almost seems impossible for a person operating a motorized vehicle to be careful.

I think this is a fair assessment. Motorized and non-motorized vehicles cannot co-exist. You believe that to be true on bike trails even with vehicles that have pretty similar weights.

The question becomes why do we allow bikes of any kind and cars to be on the roadway where the difference is far larger and the danger is much greater?

Never took Jorr for a guy who allows his four speed tricycle to self identify as a motor vehicle.

[Fields will] be the starting QB on an NFL roster at the start of next season. Book It!

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

So he comes around the corner and there's a marked bike lane with an amazon truck parked there?

Depending on the city, it isn't illegal to temporarily park in a bike lane in Illinois. I don't know if that was true for Glencoe.

I can see how, especially on a day as hot as it was last Wednesday, you could get into a good cadence and just drop your head. I've done it myself. Apparently, there's video and he didn't even attempt to swerve or stop. He probably just wasn't looking. That doesn't excuse the guy parked in the bike lane but it's pretty hard to blame him for a guy's death when the dead guy wasn't looking ahead.

[Fields will] be the starting QB on an NFL roster at the start of next season. Book It!

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

JORR do you do races? Here is one for you. CFMB biking outing?

https://open.substack.com/pub/trailrunn ... dium=email

Bicycles Still Not 'Intended' On Roads, Illinois Supreme Court Finds
The state's highest court reversed a ruling that found Chicago clearly intended people to ride bicycles near Divvy bike rental stations.
Jonah Meadows,
Patch Staff
Posted Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 12:00 pm CT

SPRINGFIELD, IL — The Illinois Supreme Court found that people riding bicycles are not intended users of roads outside of bike lanes, even if they are permitted to ride on them.

The state's highest court sided with attorneys for the city of Chicago, reversing an appellate court ruling that a man could sue the city over his injuries caused by crashing into a 5-inch-deep pothole located in a crosswalk within 100 feet of a Divvy bike rental station.

"[W]e find that — assuming private bicycle use is to be treated the same as Divvy bicycle use for the purpose of analyzing the City’s intent — the Divvy station and sign establish only that the City permitted bicycling as a use of the adjacent West Leland Avenue," Justice David Overstreet said in a unanimous ruling issued Thursday.

“[W]e conclude that the Divvy station and sign are not affirmative physical manifestations that the City intended bicycling as a use of West Leland Avenue at the accident site," Overstreet said.

Clark Alave suffered broken teeth, cuts and injuries to his hip and shoulder in the June 2019 crash at the corner of Leland and Western avenues in Chicago.

Alave filed suit later that year, arguing that the city meant for bicycles to be rented and operated in the area and city officials therefore had the duty to exercise reasonable care for intended road users, as required by state law.

Chicago's lawyers got a trial judge to dismiss the suit in 2021 by asserting that neither Leland nor Western was a designated bicycle route and the intersection did not have any signs declaring that the city intended for people to use bicycles there.

Then, last year, a appellate panel reversed the lower court. Judges cited a trio of factors to find an "implied intent" that bicycles were intended users of the roadway: that adults are forbidden from bicycling on most sidewalks, that city officials foresaw people would not necessarily walk their bikes when outside of bike lanes and that they intentionally placed a Divvy station at the accident site.

"[F]or so long as an ordinance exists prohibiting adult use of bicycles on sidewalks," the appellate court found, "it is reasonable to conclude that the City intended the use that common sense, custom, and necessity all indicate: that they be ridden in the streets in close proximity to Divvy stations."

City attorneys appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in the case in September.

"The city of Chicago is openly proclaiming itself as a bike-friendly city. Is that an indication of the city's intent?" Justice Liz Rochford asked a lawyer for the city.

"No, your honor," replied Stephen Collins, Chicago's assistant corporation counsel.

Collins argued the city did not owe Alave a duty of reasonable care because he was not an intended user of the road — despite its proximity to one of the city-owned bicycle share system's more than 650 docking stations.

"A Divvy station, by its nature, does not designate any particular roadway as being intended for bicycle riding," Collins contended.

"And that makes them different from things like street signs and pavement markings, which are affirmative manifestations in that they do designate specific roadways as places where the city intends bicycling," he said.

Justice Joy Cunningham asked about the apparent logical shortcomings of the city's argument.

"It seems like it makes no sense to say that it wasn't attended for bike riding at that location, because the bike stand is right there," Cunningham said. "So how do you get the bike from there to wherever you want to go without riding on the street?"

Erron Fisher, who represented Alave, argued that the city of Chicago has been making millions of dollars through its ownership of the Divvy system, which it has contracted with Lyft to operate.

"The city of Chicago put itself in the bicycle rental business," Fisher said.

"They own these bicycles, they approve, through aldermanic process, where all these Divvy bicycle rental stations go. Apart from all that, the city's now asking you to believe that it has no intent when it places these bicycle stations that bicycle be rode away from the stations in their legal means," Fisher said. "That's just a foolish argument."

Last week's 32-page ruling from the state's highest court means that municipal officials have no duty to keep roads safe enough to ride on, leaving cyclists to ride at their own risk any time they are not on a designated bike path.

Justices upheld the precedent set a quarter-century ago in the case Jon P. Boub v. Township of Wayne, a state Supreme Court decision finding that cyclists in Illinois are permitted — but not intended — users of roads without specific markings, signage or other indications local governments intend people to ride.

Illinois lawmakers have declined to intervene legislatively in the question of who is an intended road user since the 1998 ruling, which discourages local government officials to designate roads as safe for cycling if they want to remain immune from lawsuits.

It would probably be a lot cheaper to just fix the potholes.

I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.

Which would be the worst to be stuck in an elevator with: a vegan, a born-again Christian or an avid biker?

Because you are stupid, maybe read some books educate yourself.

We walk, talk, and won't shit our pants

A typical impatient motorist who pushes the button seven times and stands right in front of the door twitching like he has somewhere very important to get to and an extra two seconds in the elevator is going to ruin his life.