• The Court’s Decision Misstates the Law
  
• Cyclists Are Not Required to Walk Their Bikes
  
• The Signs Are the Problem; the Ordinance is Ancillary
  
• Public Safety Is Involved
  
• Fundamental and Constitutional Rights Are Involved
  
• The Decision Does Not Apply the Correct Standard of Review
  
• The Court Rejected the Presumption of the Truth of Jurisdictional Facts
  to Which Pleader Is Entitled, Substituting Its Own (Erroneous) Findings of
  Fact
  
• The Court’s Decision Fails to Consider the Possibility that the Pleadings
  Could Have Been Amended to Allege Sufficient Jurisdictional Facts
  
• The Decision Ignores Appellants’ Requested Relief for the Removal of the
  Bike Ban Signs
  
• Cyclists Qualify for a Morales-Type Challenge
  

To learn more, read the full document (300 kB pdf) here.