Operator's Insurance

Car free cyclists run the risk of being victimized by uninsured or under insured motorists. As I have stated many times in the past, most people in Illinois don't care about under insured or uninsured drivers because most people in the state of Illinois drive cars. Since most people are drivers, they probably have their own uninsured motorist coverage under their auto policy. Most auto policies offer $100,000 to $250,000 in uninsured or under insured motorist coverage. Driver's don't care about uninsured motorists, becuase they have their own insurance coverage that will be activated by a collision with an under insured or uninsured motorist.

This is not the case with car-free cyclists.

I estimate that over half of all drivers in the City of Chicago only have the mandatory minimum insurance limits of $20,000 or are totally uninsured. You can't even spend one night in the hospital for $20,000. If you are seriously injured by someone with 20k in coverage you're probably going to be stuck with the bill unless you have your own coverage.

What's the significance? Lets take the example of a driver and a car free cyclist who are the victims of an uninsured driver's negligence.

Example Driver:
Victim Driver is struck by Uninsured Driver. The collision is Uninsured Driver's fault. Victim Driver is hospitalized and suffers severe injuries. After his treatment is concluded he has $50,000 in medical bills. Uninsured Driver has no assets and no insurance. What does Victim Driver do? He makes a claim against his own uninsured motorist coverage. His uninsured motorist insurance carrier steps into the shoes of Uninsured Driver and covers Victim Driver's medical bills and other losses related to his injuries.

Example Car Free Cyclist:
Car-Free is struck by Uninsured Driver. The collision is Uninsured Driver's fault. Car-Free is hospitalized and suffers severe injuries. After his treatment is concluded he has $50,000 in medical bills. Uninsured Driver has no assets and no insurance. What does Car-Free do? He pays his bills or goes bankrupt because there is no insurance coverage to cover the loss caused by Uninsured Driver.

What can I do as a car-free cyclist?

You can purchase an operator's insurance policy. This is a special automobile insurance policy that specifically covered people who do not own cars. There are only a couple companies I know of who will write operator's policies, and those companies require the policy to be issued by a broker. Most insurance brokers may not understand why you're looking for an operator's policy as a cyclist- a smart one will.

I use Dan at D&D Insurance on Chicago. D & D Insurance, 2115 W Chicago Ave, Chicago, IL 60622 (773) 489-0080. I don't advocate him or his company, but if you call him he'll know what you're looking for and why.

Uninsured motorist coverage is also activated by a hit and run collision, even when the driver gets away. I estimate that in about 20% of accidents involving cyclists in Chicago the driver flees the scene of the accident. Most of the time they are not identified. If the driver flees the scene and gets away your uninsured motorist coverage steps in to cover your loss.

This coverage is especially important for car-free cyclists who have a family or dependants. If people are counting on you to support them you have to be prepared for the worst case scenario (if I had dependents I'd have an umbrella policy on top of the 250K underlying policy).

An operator's policy is also a cheaper alternative for health insurance (maybe $30.00 a month for 100K and about $50.00 a month for 250k in coverage), but it has certain limitations. If you can't afford health insurance, maybe you can afford an operator's policy. That way you assume the risk of your own negligence, but if you are injured because of an uninsured, under insured or hit and run driver's negligence you are covered.

Parking Mopeds on Bike Racks and Sidewalks.

Jerome e-mailed me regarding bike racks and mopeds.

Jerome wrote:

As the weather turns warm the bike rack outside my downtown office building is literally teaming with bikes. Lately there have been a couple scooters parked at the bike rack. One typically has a note stuck to it that quotes a law that seems to allow scooters to use bike racks. Today I noticed that the scooter had been ticketed despite the note. Is it legal for scooters to lock to bike racks?

Thanks,

Jerome

While I think scooters in bike lanes are dangerous and illegal, when it comes to parking I actually sympathize with moped users. They tend to have a hard time no matter where they park. If they park in the street they risk theft and car drivers tend to move their mopeds so a car can share the spot, but if they park on a sidewalk they risk being ticketed. There exists a long standing myth among moped users that they are allowed to park on sidewalks, and that any ticket issued for parking on a sidewalk is a mistake.

Part of the misconception about mopeds in Chicago has probably evolved from a misunderstanding of the applicable law. Illinois Law distinguishes between motorcycles and "motorized pedalcycles." See the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code:

(625 ILCS 5/1‑148.2)
Sec. 1‑148.2. Motorized Pedalcycle. A motorized pedalcycle is a motor‑driven cycle whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less, which is equipped with a motor that produces 2 brake horsepower or less. If an internal combustion engine is used, the displacement shall not exceed 50 cubic centimeter displacement and the power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears.

Further, The Illinois Vehicle Code provides that some bicycle laws (Article 15) apply to Motorized Pedalcycles:

(625 ILCS 5/11‑1403.1)
Sec. 11‑1403.1. Riding on motorized pedalcycles.
(b) The provisions of Article XV shall be applicable to the operation of motorized pedalcycles, except for those provisions which by their nature can have no application to motorized pedalcycles.

What laws are applicable to motorized pedalcycles under article 15? In relevant part:

(625 ILCS 5/11‑1513)
Sec. 11‑1513. Bicycle parking.
(a) A person may park a bicycle on a sidewalk unless prohibited or restricted by an official traffic‑control device.

According to Illinois law, at first glance it would appear that a vehicle matching the description of a motorized pedalcycle (capable of speeds not in excess of 30mph, not more than 50 cubic centimeters of displacement, 2 hp or less, an no gears) is allowed to park on sidewalks. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the City of Chicago.

Chicago has it's own regulations regarding parking and the definition of motor driven cycles. In fact, in Chicago all vehicles are prohibited from parking on the sidewalk.

The motorized pedalcyclist may feel that they are exempt from this prohibition becuase they do not operate a "vehicle," however, the Chicago Municipal Code prohibition against parking on sidewalks does not distinguish between types of vehicles. It simply defines a "vehicle" as:

9-4-010 Definitions. “Vehicle” means every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a street or highway, except motorized wheelchairs, devices moved solely by human power, devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and snowmobiles, as defined in the Snowmobile Registration and Safety Act of Illinois.

According to the Chicago Municipal Code, all "vehicles" are prohibited from parking on sidewalks within the City of Chicago.

9-64-110 Parking prohibited It shall be unlawful to stand or park any vehicle in any of the following places...
(d) On a sidewalk...

Since all mopeds, regardless of their displacement, fall within the definition of a "vehicle," mopeds parked on sidewalks are in violation of the Chicago Municipal Ordinance, and therefore, are subject to being ticketed for that violation. While moped parkers can't be ticketed for a violation of Illinois State Law, they are also subject to the Chicago Municipal Ordinance. State law does not prohibit municipalities from passing their own restrictions on where vehicles may park. To the contrary, the state statute clearly contemplates the right of a local governmental entity to prohibit parking on sidewalks. If you get a ticket for parking your moped on the sidewalk you are probably going to be stuck with a fine or have your moped towed and impounded.

A Helmet Law I Like...

Deerfield did it right with respect to their helmet law. Excerpted below, Deerfield's village code requires persons under the age of 16 to use a helmet, it provides for standards the helmet must meet, and it allows that proof of compliance within 10 days after the violation may be used as a defense. More importantly, Deerfield built in language that prohibits a lack of helmet to be used against a cyclist in a civil suit. This means that drivers who negligently hit a cyclist who was not wearing a helmet will not be able to assert the lack of helmet as evidence of contributory negligence.

If Illinois or Chicago is to entertain a helmet law, this would be the proper way to do it. A good helmet law would provide for penalties for lack of helmet, but it should not be used by careless or reckless drivers to defend themselves against claims for injuries they cause.

Sec. 22-121A. Helmets Required:

(a) Every person under the age of sixteen (16) years shall wear a protective helmet that meets the standards promulgated by the American National Standards Institute or the American Society for Testing and Materials or the Snell Memorial Foundation, Inc., whenever that person is upon a public highway, sidewalk, bicycle path or other public right of way within the corporate limits of the Village and is riding or being carried on any bicycle or any carrier attached to or pulled by a bicycle, or is skateboarding or using in-line skates.

(b) The provisions of Section 22-160A of this Chapter shall apply to any violation of any provision of subsection (a) of this Section, provided, however, notwithstanding anything contained herein or in said Section 22-160A of this Chapter to the contrary, compliance may be demonstrated within ten (10) days following issuance of a compliance ticket at the Village Police Station by proof of possession of a helmet that meets the standards specified in subsection (a) of this Section; and, solely with respect to the first such violation, there shall be no requirement to pay any fee as specified in Section 22-160A of this Chapter.

(c) A violation of this Section shall not constitute negligence, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, be considered in mitigation of damages of whatever nature, be admissible in evidence, or be the subject of comment by counsel in any action for the recovery of damages arising out of the operation of any bicycle, or participation in skateboarding or in-line skating, nor shall anything in this Section change any existing law, rule or procedure pertaining to any civil action. (Ord. 0-97-29, 7-7-1997)

Arlington Heights Bicycle Laws

I'll be giving a presentation and answering questions about bicycling and the law at the upcoming Arlington Heights Bicycle Club meeting. The meeting will be held on May 27, 2009 at 7:30pm at 500 E. Miner Avenue (Recreation Park) in Arlington Heights. In anticipation of my presentation I thought it appropriate to examine the local law relating to the use and operation of bicycles. The Arlington Heights Village Code bicycle regulations are listed on the Village of Arlington Heights' web site- here.

As of the date of this post, there are several things one should be aware of when operating a bicycle within Arlington Heights:

1. Bicycles must have a bell or other device capable of giving a signal audible for a distance of 100 feet. No sirens or whistles. Article V, Section 18-501
2. No bicycles on sidewalks downtown. Article V, Section 18-503
3. No riding two abreast- only single file riding is allowed. Article V, Section 18-504(a)
4. No riding under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Article V, Section 18-504(c)

Specific provisions as of the date of this post are excerpted below.

Article V: Bicycles

Section 18-501 Bicycle Equipment. No person shall operate a bicycle not equipped with a bell or other device capable of giving a signal audible for a distance of at least 100 feet, except that a bicycle shall not be equipped with nor shall any person use upon a bicycle any siren or whistle.

Section 18-502 Rental Agencies. Bicycles offered for rent by a rental agency shall be equipped by such agency with the lights and other safety equipment required by this Article, and shall be kept in good and safe working order. Rental agencies shall comply with all the provisions of this Article and shall be responsible for the condition of the bicycles they rent. The Police Chief shall make or cause to be made inspections from time to time to insure compliance with the provisions of this Article. (Ord. #07-039)

Section 18-503 Operation of Bicycles on Certain Sidewalks Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to ride a bicycle on any sidewalk in the Downtown District which is that area bounded by and including Sigwalt Street from Highland Avenue to Arlington Heights Road; Arlington Heights Road from Sigwalt Street to St. James Street; St. James Street from Arlington Heights Road to Highland Avenue; and Highland Avenue from St. James Street to Sigwalt Street.

Section 18-504 Riding Regulations.

a. When two or more persons in a group are operating bicycles, they shall not ride abreast but in single file.

b. The owner, operator of any bicycle emerging from any alley, driveway or garage shall stop immediately prior to driving onto or across a sidewalk or onto a sidewalk line projected across an alley, and shall exercise extreme care in those cases.

c. It shall be unlawful for any person under the influence of liquor or drugs to operate a bicycle in the Village.

d. Bicycles, when parked in a business district, shall be parked in zones, officially designated for that purpose. Bicycles shall not, at any time, in any place, be indiscriminately parked by anyone along buildings, in such a manner as to interfere with pedestrians or along roadways or sidewalks where they may interfere with traffic, or with persons getting into or out of automobiles. No person shall move, or in any manner interfere with any bicycle which is properly parked, nor shall any person interfere, or in any manner hinder any person from properly parking a bicycle, except that the members of the Police Department or Fire Department may move, or, in proper cases, prevent the parking of a bicycle when, in their judgment, such action is necessary in order to properly safeguard persons or property.

e. All bicycles, when operated on roadways, shall be kept to the right and shall be operated as nearly as practicable at the right hand edge of the roadway.

f. No bicycle shall be operated faster than is reasonable and proper, and each bicycle shall be operated with reasonable regard for the safety of the rider or other persons and property.

g. It shall be unlawful for any person operating a bicycle in the Village to guide the bicycle in any manner except through the use of both hands upon the handlebars thereof. It shall be unlawful to engage in any kind of trick or unsafe riding.

h. Turns in traffic shall be in accordance with the provisions relating to turns in traffic in this Chapter.

i. All bicycles shall obey all applicable traffic regulations.

My source is here. Be advised that information contained within this post is only current as of the date of this post. Municipal and village codes are subject to change.

Single file in the burbs...

Many suburbs require cyclists to ride single file. Although Illinois Law allows that cyclists may ride two abreast, municipalities can pass their own restrictions regarding the manner and operation of bicycles within their city limits. Accordingly, in Chicago, and many suburbs cyclists are required to ride single file.

The list below is not meant to be all inclusive (there are, in fact, many other suburbs that require riders to ride single file), rather the codes excerpted below are meant to illustrate that we must be cognizant of restrictions on riding two abreast in Chicago and suburbs.

Hoffman Estates: HE-11-201 Bicycles:
A. Single file riding. All persons operating a bicycle shall ride single file, in a straight line, when riding upon sidewalks and streets. When riding upon any street, such single file riding shall be as near as possible to the right hand curb, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Deerfield: Sec. 22-122. Operation Of Bicycles:
(f) Riding In A Group: When more than two (2) persons in a group are operating bicycles on a street or roadway, they shall ride single file and it shall be unlawful for them to ride abreast of each other.

Barrington: 6-6-4: OPERATION OF BICYCLES:
D. Riding Single File: Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride other than single file except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. (1973 Code § 14-280)

Barrington Hills: 9-8-3: MANDATE OF SINGLE FILE BICYCLE RIDING:
(A) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway within the village shall only ride single file. Persons riding bicycles on a roadway are hereby prohibited from riding side by side.

Clarendon Hills: 42.4: RIDING RESTRICTIONS:
A. Abreast; Single File: When two (2) or more persons in a group are operating bicycles on a public roadway, they shall not ride abreast, but shall ride in single file. Hinsdale6-13-4: OPERATION OF BICYCLES: F. Riding in a Group: Persons operating bicycles shall ride in single file. (1965 Code, sec. 14-1.08)

Lisle: 10-6-2: RULES FOR RIDING AND OPERATING:
(A) Riding Abreast: When more than two (2) persons in a group are operating bicycles upon a roadway, they shall ride single file.

Rear Lights are Required in Many Chicago Suburbs.

Most Chicago cyclists know that a white headlight and red rear reflector is required under Illinois State Law and the Chicago Municipal Ordinance. While Illinois State law does not specifically require a red rear light, many municipalities do require red taillights. Municipalities can require bicyclists to use equipment in addition to that which is required under Illinois Law, so if you are caught in such a municipality without required equipment you may be cited for a violation of the municipal code. Worse yet, if you are struck by a car and you don't have the required equipment you may be blamed for the collision.

The excerpts below are by no means a complete listing of suburbs that require front and rear lights. This list is not meant to be all inclusive, rather it is meant to illustrate the fact that if you are riding in the suburbs the best bet is to be sure your bike is equipped with a white front headlight, red rear light and red rear reflector.

Schaumburg Village Code Title 7 § 73.13 LIGHTS, HORNS, SIGNALS AND EQUIPMENT.

(A) Every bicycle when in use at nighttime shall be equipped with a lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet (500') in the direction toward which the bicycle is proceeding and at least one lighted lamp mounted on the rear showing a red light visible for at least five hundred feet (500') to the rear. In lieu of such rear lighted red lamp, a red reflector button not less than one and one-half inches (1¹/₂") in diameter may be mounted securely on the rear and must be visible from at least five hundred feet (500') to the rear.

Lisle Village Code 10-6-3: EQUIPMENT:

(A) Lights: No bicycle shall be operated within the period from sunset to sunrise without having a properly lighted headlight attached to the front of the bicycle, visible under normal atmospheric conditions from the front thereof for a distance of not less than five hundred feet (500') nor without having a red light attached to the rear of the bicycle which is clearly visible from a distance of five hundred feet (500') from the rear.

Lyons Village Code 9-8-3: LIGHTS:

D. Bicycles: Every bicycle, when upon a street during the period from sunset to sunrise, shall be equipped with at least one lighted lamp exhibiting a white light, or light of a yellow or amber tint, visible from a distance of five hundred feet (500') to the front of the bicycle and with at least one lighted lamp exhibiting a red light visible from a distance of five hundred feet (500') to the rear.

Streamwood Village Code 5-6-8: LIGHTED LAMPS AND AUDIBLE SIGNALING DEVICES:

A. Every bicycle when in use at nighttime shall be equipped with a headlamp which shall emit a white light visible from a minimum distance of five hundred feet (500') from the front and with a rear red lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet (500') from the rear.

Bensenville Village Code 5-5-8: LIGHTS:

It shall be unlawful for any person to ride with a bicycle on the streets of the Village after dark without a headlight and taillight.

Distracted Driving.

The Illinois Legislature is considering a measure that would amend the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code to specifically prohibit text messaging while driving. HB0072 provides that a person may not operate a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read an electronic message.

This change was one of "Matt's" laws, so named after Matthew Willhelm. Mr. Wilhelm was 25 when he was killed while riding his bicycle on the shoulder of a road outside of Urbana. The teenage driver who killed Matt was attempting to download new ringtones for her cell phone when she veered off the road so far that she struck Matt from behind with the driver's side of her car. The driver was only charged with improper lane usage and given a fine of $1,000.

Messenger Helmet Laws in Chicago...

While there is no state wide helmet law, many municipalities have municipal ordinances requiring helmets. If you are riding through any city with a helmet law and you have no helmet you risk being charged and convicted of a helmet violation. You should be aware of local helmet laws to avoid any trouble.

In Chicago there is a requirement that bicycle messengers have a helmet and safety vest:

4-168-070 Helmet and visible identification – Required. (a) Every licensee shall supply each bicycle operator operating on the licensee's behalf: (1) a safety helmet meeting nationally recognized safety requirements; and (2) a safety vest or other garment of a bright color, prominently displaying the name of the licensee in letters at least one and one-half inches high, and a number or letters or a combination thereof at least four inches high which, in conjunction with the displayed name of the licensee, will form a unique combination permitting identification of the bicycle operator. All letters and numbers shall be of a color contrasting with the background of the garment. The identification number or letters required by this paragraph shall also appear on the bicycle in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the commissioner. (b) The operation of a bicycle in the central business area on behalf of any licensee without the equipment required by this section is a violation of this section and shall create a rebuttable presumption that the licensee has violated this section.

There are a couple things I would note about the ordinance language. First, the language of the statute requires that bicycle messengers be provided with a helmet and safety vest by the messenger service. Second, the violation is intended to be charged to the messenger service, rather than the individual messenger.

If you are charged with a helmet violation you will have to appear at 401 W. Superior as a representative of your messenger service. The messenger service will be listed as the actual defendant, and if a fine is ultimately issued it is technically charged to the messenger company. I recommend taking a helmet to the hearing to show compliance. That may be enough to get the charge dismissed.

The worst thing you can do is blow off a hearing. If you miss the hearing they will issue the maximum penalty. Getting the charge and penalty vacated after the fact is exponentially more difficult than just dealing with the ticket at the initial hearing.

Helmet Laws.

Insurance adjusters are typically not experienced in dealing with bicycle accidents. Sometimes they are provided with a list of questions to address when evaluating bicycle claim, but they don't typically seem to be familiar with laws that apply to cyclists in Illinois. One of the questions insurance adjusters always ask me about my bicycle cases is, "Was he/she wearing a helmet?"

Consider the example set by headlight laws. Current Illinois and Chicago laws require cyclists to use a white headlight and red rear reflector, but since there is no enforcement of this law in Chicago cyclists are largely unaware of the legal requirements for proper lighting equipment. If a headlight lacking cyclist is involved in a collision with an inattentive driver the cyclist is often found to be at fault. Lack of proper lighting equipment provides a tremendously effective defense for negligent drivers. In my experience the no-headlight defense kills more bicycle claims than any other single factor.

Once a law is on the books in Illinois it is a person's duty to comply with that law regardless of whether or not the law is actually enforced by the police. If one is found to be in violation of a law, the violation itself is considered to be evidence of negligence on it's face. The defense goes like this:

The driver says, "I didn't see the cyclist, and they didn't have a headlight as required by law. If they had a headlight I would have seen them."

Their attorney then argues that the accident is actually the bicyclists fault. "You wouldn't drive a car without headlights would you?"

I'm not concerned about cyclists getting ticket, rather I'm concerned about them not getting tickets. If CPD just handed out occasional tickets for headlight violations everyone would be aware of the requirements and many people would comply.

Helmet laws would provide a similar defense to negligent drivers. If a driver negligently hits a cyclist they would be allowed to point out that the cyclist was in violation of a statute that required helmet use. In cases where the cyclist suffers a head injury this would be a tremendous defense toward the injury aspect of the claim, and allow the driver to shirk responsibility for injuries he/she caused.

There are other ways of promoting helmet use. In my opinions education is the key to promoting proper helmet use. By educating cyclists about the dangers of cycling without proper equipment and the benifits of helmet use more people will choose to wear helmets. The last thing we need is another unenforced law on the books that will only be used to protect negligent people who injure bicyclists.

Doorings by Taxi Passengers.

Mario sent the following e-mail:

Lawyer Jim, I have heard of people getting doored by cabbie passengers. How would that be handled?

If you are doored or caused to crash by a taxi passenger who opens a door in your path you should get the information of not only the driver, but also the passenger who open the door. You should call the police and report the dooring immediately. If there is more than $1,500.00 in property damage ($500.00 if the accident involves an uninsured driver) or any injury the police should make a traffic accident report. You want to be sure to get the taxi's information, but also the passenger's information: name, address, phone number, and insurance information. Be wary of people who refuse to show you their identification, I have seen many case where bicyclists were unable to recover because they left the scene with a false name and number for the defendant driver- another reason it is always good to have the police come to the scene.

Usually in such an instance the driver's insurance is primary, but in the event that the taxi is uninsured or the cabbie doesn't have enough insurance you want to be sure you preserve the option of pursuing the passenger's auto or liability insurance.

FYI- the same procedure applies to doorings by non-taxi passengers. Get info of the driver and passenger.

Potholes in the Street.

This week I got a call from a guy who was injured when he hit a pothole on Chicago Avenue. The pothole was deep, and an obvious hazard to bicyclists who might venture across that stretch of Chicago Avenue. The stretch of Chicago avenue where the crash occurred was not a marked bike route or bike lane. The cyclist was injured in the fall. He called me wanting to know if there was any recourse against the City for failure to maintain the roadway.

In such an instance there is no recourse against a city or county unless the pothole is located in a marked bicycle lane or along a marked bicycle route. This is a result of the Tort Immunity Act, as interpreted through the infamous case of Boub v. Wayne Township.

On September 8, 1992, John Boub was riding his bicycle on St. Charles Road in Wayne Township. Mr. Boub came upon and attempted to cross a bridge. What he didn't realize as he approached the bridge is that construction crews had removed planks from the bridge surface in preparation for the installation of a new deck. The crews had left the bridge in a condition that was adequate for cars to cross, but apparently unsafe for bicycles. As Mr. Boub attempted to cross the bridge his front wheel became lodged between two pieces of decking and he was violently thrown from his bike. He suffered several injuries as a result of the crash.

His case eventually worked it's way up to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Court threw out Mr. Boub's claim based on the argument that as a bicyclist, Mr. Boub was not an intended user of the road. In order to recover from a city, county or any other governmental entity for defects in the road one must start by showing two things: permission and intent. First, the injured person must show that the government permitted them to use the road. Second, the person must show that the government intended that the individual use the roadway. The Illinois Supreme Court noted that bicycles have a legal right to use roads in Illinois, therefore bicyclists are clearly permitted users of the roads. With respect to the intended use, the Court held that bicycles are intended only in instances where the government marks or designates roads for use by bicycles through bicycle routes or bicycle lanes.

The end result is that cities, counties and governmental entities cannot be sued by bicyclists for defects on roadways that are not designated for use by bicycles through marked bicycle routes or bike lanes, such as the pothole on Chicago Avenue. There are some efforts in the works to change the effects of this decision, however, any real change is probably years away at the least. In the meantime cyclists must be cautious of defects in the roadways. Go around potholes.