Electric bicycles are booming in popularity, but their presence in Chicago’s bike lanes raises serious safety concerns. The bike injury lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. have noted first had the increase of bike related injury victims that call our office.
E‑bikes can reach speeds up to 28 mph, significantly faster than most pedal bikes. Studies show:
A personal injury victim comes to our office. He was crossing the road in a crosswalk when a driver failed to stop and plows into him. He has a fractured hip with surgery and has over $100,000 in medical bills alone. It sounds like a strong case. Expect there is one major problem. The driver only has $25,000.00 in liability coverage; the minimum coverage allowed in the state of Illinois. The victim does not drive a car so does not have under-insured motorist insurance coverage. Unfortunately, this is a scenario that the personal injury lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. encounter quite often. Perhaps it is time that the mandatory minimums are raised to keep up with inflation.
Illinois’ current minimum liability coverage requires drivers to carry only $25,000 per person for bodily injury and $50,000 per accident. These limits were last adjusted in 2015, when they rose from $20,000, a figure that had been in place since 1990.
That means in over 30 years, the state has increased coverage by only $5,000—just a 25% increase. During the same period, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has soared by over 169%, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data. In other words, a $20,000 policy in 1990 would need to be over $53,000 today just to keep up with general inflation. And that doesn’t even account for skyrocketing medical costs.
As anyone living in Chicago has noticed, the number of e-scooters on Chicago streets has grown drastically over the last few years. According to Chicago data, more than 3.7 million trips have been logged on rental scooters between 2022 and 2023 and this number is certainly growing. With this rapid growth have there been a corresponding increase of e-scooter injuries? The answer is unclear. Unlike some cities that maintain detailed injury reports, Chicago currently lacks centralized data tracking for scooter-related accidents. The Chicago Department of Transportation has confirmed it does not track the number of riders injured in e-scooter crashes, and scooter vendors like Bird and Lime don’t publish specific local statistics either (chicago.suntimes.com).
Although the 2020 CDPH pilot collected limited emergency department data, it remains partial at best—capturing only certain ED visits and lacking proper labeling of scooter injures. (chicago.gov).
The e-scooter injury lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. have certainly noted a sharp increase of injured scooter riders contacting our office for legal representation.
The Chicago bike injury lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. have handled a number of cases where bicyclists or scooter riders were injured after hitting a defect on the bike path or road way. A recent Illinois Supreme Court decision, Alave v. City of Chicago, highlights a harsh legal reality: even when the City encourages bicycling, it may not be legally responsible for unsafe streets unless the road is officially designated for bike use.
In Alave, the plaintiff, Clark Alave, was seriously injured while riding his own bicycle at night near the intersection of West Leland Avenue and North Western Avenue. As he crossed the street near a Divvy station, his front wheel dropped into a deep pothole hidden in the crosswalk. The fall knocked out teeth, caused facial scarring, and left him with hip and shoulder injuries. He sued the City of Chicago for negligence, alleging that the City knew or should have known about the hazardous road condition.
Alave’s attorneys pointed to the Divvy station located just 100 feet from the crash site, as well as City ordinances that restrict sidewalk riding for adults and treat bicyclists like vehicle drivers on the road. They argued that the City intended for cyclists to ride in that area and therefore had a duty to maintain the street in a safe condition.
If you have been injured in a trucking crash in Chicago or anywhere in Illinois, it is important to understand all the factors that may have contributed to the accident—including whether the driver was qualified to operate a commercial vehicle under federal law. At Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C., a leading Chicago personal injury law firm, we represent victims of serious truck crashes and fight to hold trucking companies accountable when they put unsafe or unqualified drivers on the road.
A recent federal Executive Order, issued on April 28, 2025, now requires strict enforcement of a rule that has existed for years: truck drivers must be able to speak and read English. The Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will begin placing drivers out of service if they cannot demonstrate English proficiency.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(b)(2), commercial motor vehicle drivers must be able to:
Read and understand road signs and warning labels
Converse with police and emergency personnel
Follow detour instructions and directions from dispatchers
Complete safety records and logbooks in English
The purpose of this regulation is to protect public safety, but the impact may be far-reaching. Many owner-operators and immigrant truck drivers are simply trying to earn a living and support their families. For drivers who struggle with English fluency, this new enforcement policy may result in loss of work or fines, even if they have driven safely for years.
At Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C., we believe in road safety and fairness. We also believe drivers deserve support—not just penalties. Trucking schools and community colleges should offer specialized English programs for truck drivers, focusing on the real-world vocabulary and situations they face on the road. By giving drivers the tools they need to comply, we can reduce the risk of accidents without marginalizing workers. Continue reading
Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C. is a highly respected Chicago law firm with deep experience in both personal injury and immigration law. Our attorneys regularly represent victims injured in trucking accidents, and we also assist individuals navigating the complex immigration system, including commercial drivers working under valid immigration status. We follow closely all trucking regulations.
On April 28, 2025, the White House issued a new Executive Order requiring strict enforcement of English proficiency requirements for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. This move, combined with action from the Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), represents a major shift in federal trucking regulation—one that directly affects the safety of Illinois highways and the liability of commercial carriers.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(b)(2), commercial drivers must be able to read and speak English well enough to converse with the public, understand highway signs and signals, respond to official inquiries, and make entries on required reports. Despite this longstanding rule, enforcement had been largely suspended since 2016. That has now changed, and we anticipate more drivers will be ordered out of service.
The Department of Transportation has rescinded the prior guidance that prohibited placing drivers out-of-service for violating the English proficiency standard. Moving forward, drivers who cannot meet the English language requirement will be deemed unqualified to operate a CMV and subject to out-of-service orders.
Trucking companies and drivers must now take proactive steps to ensure compliance with federal English proficiency standards to avoid regulatory violations, liability exposure, and out-of-service orders. Carriers should revise their hiring and training protocols to include clear assessments of a driver’s ability to read and speak English as required under 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(b)(2). This may include conducting internal language evaluations, requiring proof of English coursework or certification, and offering employer-sponsored English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. Drivers who struggle with language fluency should be encouraged to enroll in ESL classes, many of which are available through community colleges, adult education centers, or online platforms tailored to commercial driving vocabulary and real-world communication. Addressing language deficiencies not only ensures legal compliance but also promotes safer roads for all motorists. Continue reading
Written and Reviewed by Peter Zneimer, Zneimer & Zneimer P.C.
Chicago has built over 200 miles of on-street, protected, buffered, and shared bike lanes over the last few years. Chicago has also engaged in initiatives like the Divvy bike-sharing system, which recorded over 11 million bike and scooter trips in 2024. The expansion of bike lanes in Chicago has sparked heated debates among residents, city planners, and and local businesses . The bike injury lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C. note that protected bike lanes is the best way to keep bicyclists safe from motor vehicles. While biking advocates highlight the benefits of dedicated cycling infrastructure, some neighborhood groups express concerns about the implications for parking, traffic congestion, and seasonal usability.
Bike Lane Advantages
At the Chicago bicycle attorneys Zneimer & Zneimer, P.C., our attorneys have long championed the rights of bicyclists across Illinois. As avid advocates for 
safer streets and comprehensive accountability, we have represented cyclists injured due to roadway defects, negligent drivers, and flawed infrastructure. With the rise in bike commuting and recreational riding, our legal team stays on the cutting edge of developments affecting bicycle law. Recent Illinois appellate decisions draw attention to the legal limitations placed on injured cyclists seeking justice.
For Illinois bicyclists, the sight of a paved path or quiet sidewalk might offer the promise of a safer ride. But two recent appellate decisions—Johnson v. Village of Palatine and Mankame v. Bloomingdale Township—reveal the precarious legal terrain that cyclists must navigate when the infrastructure fails them. Each case involves a serious personal injury to a bicyclist caused by defects or dangerous designs in public ways. Yet in both, the courts found that the municipalities could not be held liable, despite what might seem to a layperson like negligence. These decisions show how immunity doctrines and legal definitions can quietly shift the burden of injury, the cost of medical expenses, from the state to the cyclist.
In Johnson, the plaintiff was riding his bike along a sidewalk adjacent to Quentin Road in Palatine. It was a sunny June morning in 2020. As he approached an uneven slab of sidewalk, Johnson’s tire caught on a raised portion. He lost control and flew over the handlebars, landing in a bush and suffering serious injuries. He sued the Village, alleging negligent maintenance of the sidewalk. But the Village asserted it owed him no duty. Why? Because he was not an “intended user” of the sidewalk.
This seemingly arcane distinction became dispositive. Under section 3-102(a) of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/3-102(a)), municipalities owe a duty of care only to those who are both permitted and intended users of public property. The Village conceded Johnson was permitted to ride on the sidewalk—its own ordinances allowed bicycles unless expressly prohibited. But permission was not enough. The Village argued that its infrastructure, policies, and even the physical dimensions of the sidewalk showed it was built for pedestrians, not cyclists. And the court agreed. Despite the absence of any signs telling Johnson not to ride there, he was held to be outside the scope of the Village’s legal duty. Summary judgment was affirmed in the Village’s favor and Johnson was left to bear his own cost for injuries, bills, and suffering.
Contrast this with Mankame, a tragic case arising from the death of Ramdas Mankame in September 2020. He was riding on the North Central DuPage Regional Trail, a 19-mile multi-jurisdictional path connecting forest preserves and suburban roads. His route that day took him from a boardwalk segment over a wetland onto an “on-road” portion of the trail along Lawrence Avenue. As he descended a slope toward an intersection with Garden Avenue, a car traveling north struck him. He died from his injuries.
The executor of his estate sued Bloomingdale Township and the Village of Bloomingdale, alleging negligent and willful conduct in trail design and maintenance. She claimed the transition from off-street trail to on-road segment, the downhill grade, and the absence of traffic control created a foreseeable and previously reported hazard. Another bicyclist had reportedly been hit at the same location earlier that year.
But the court dismissed the case. The key defense rested on section 3-104 of the Tort Immunity Act, which provides absolute immunity for a public entity’s Continue reading
The NHTSA did a groundbreaking study in 2008 to analyzed the cause of auto accidents. This study conducted by the University of Michigan closely studied 6,950 crashes using sensors and video cameras. From this study the researchers identified six major causes of car crashes. The findings were highlighted in an article entitled “Anatomy of a Car Crash” in Slate, November 21, 2017.
Right Turns on Red
The personal injury lawyers of Zneimer & Zneimer P.C. highlighted the dangers of right turns on red in a blog dated February 15, 2025. The dangers from right turns on red stem from the natural behavior of a driver who is engaging in a right turn on red. When a person pulls up to a red light with the intention of making a right turn, the driver’s attention is focused to the left to see if any cars are coming from that direction. If a car is coming from the left but is far enough away that the right on red can completed, the average driver proceed into the right turn while still being mindful of any cars coming from the left. What happens is the driver then fails to check for pedestrians crossing from the right or any bicyclist coming from the right. A U.S. Department of Transportation study found that pedestrian being hit by cars rose 43% to 107% after permissive right on right laws were implemented. Whats even worse, the NHTSA reports that rolling right on red accidents account for 6 percent of pedestrian deaths and sadly, 21% of these deaths are children. It is easy to see why cities like New York and San Francisco have banned right on red in most of their downtown.
At Zneimer & Zneimer P.C., we handle personal injury cases involving injured bicyclists throughout Chicago and Illinois and have learned from experience that visibility plays a crucial role in bicycle accident cases. Both Illinois law and Chicago’s municipal code impose specific duties on bicyclists to help prevent crashes and to ensure that, if an accident happens, the bicyclist does not bear legal responsibility for failing to follow the rules.
The Rules of the Road Apply to Bicyclists
The Illinois Vehicle Code requires bicyclists to follow the same traffic laws that apply to motor vehicle drivers. Under 625 ILCS 5/11-1502, every person riding a bicycle upon a highway “shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle,” unless a provision of the Code clearly does not apply. This includes obeying signals, yielding when required, and using lighting and reflectors for visibility at night. When bicyclists ride in traffic, the law treats them as drivers. That means the duty to avoid contributing to an accident is the same.
Chicago Ordinances Underline the Visibility Requirements
Chicago’s municipal code goes further. Under Chicago Municipal Code § 9-52-080, a bicycle used at night must be equipped with:
These are not optional features. A bicyclist who rides at night without these elements violates the ordinance and may be found at fault in a collision. If the case proceeds to litigation, defense attorneys or insurance companies will likely use that violation to argue contributory negligence.
In addition, Section 9-52-100 makes clear that parents or guardians may not knowingly allow children to violate bicycle regulations, meaning that even adults who let their children ride without lights may face legal exposure.
Real Consequences in Real Cases
In Bolek v. West Shore Transport Co., a nine-year-old boy rode his bicycle at dusk and entered a street intersection where a tractor-trailer was turning. The boy had difficulty balancing the bicycle and did not have a headlamp. The trailer ran over him, causing fatal injuries. The plaintiff sued for wrongful death, arguing that the driver failed to keep a proper lookout or sound a warning. The court allowed the jury to consider whether the boy’s lack of a headlamp contributed to the collision. The jury returned a verdict for the defense. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, stating that the absence of a headlamp raised a valid question of contributory negligence. The court found that even though the driver may have failed to see the boy, the lack of a headlamp on the bicycle supported the defense theory that the boy’s visibility played a role in the accident.
In Savage v. Martin, a ten-year-old girl was struck by a car while crossing an intersection on her bicycle in Chicago. Her mother filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver, alleging that his negligence caused the accident. According to testimony, the child was 20 to 30 feet outside of the crosswalk when the collision occurred. As she was outside of the crosswalk, this may have affected her visibility to the driver, who claimed he did not expect a bicyclist to cross mid-block or outside the designated area.At trial, the court directed a verdict on contributory negligence, holding that the child was contributorily Continue reading
