The Court of Appeals incorrectly characterized Bicycle Operators pleadings limiting them to “…seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was nconstitutionally vague, arbitrary and capricious, and an unreasonable exercise of police power….” Opinion, p. 3. The Court of Appeals incorrectly found that Bicycle Operators “…failed to allege any threat of an irreparable injury to property or personal rights.” Opinion, p. 4. The Court of Appeals inexplicably (and dismissively) found that Bicycle Operators asserted a danger arising from “…being required to dismount their bicycles and cross to the other side of the street in areas where sidewalks appear on alternate sides of the roadway…” does not rise to being a “vested property interest”, Opinion, p. 5. The Court of Appeals misapprehends the nature of the complaint which is akin to asking a motorist to turn their engine off and push their vehicle through the City to avoid both pollution and noise. The Court of Appeals further incorrectly vested the City Engineer with the authority to erect signs banning bicycles from the “roadways,” despite the fact that the ordinance uses the phrase “public street.” Opinion, p. 2. The Ordinance never uses the word “roadway,” and instead requires the signs to give notice of the requirements of the ordinance. These and additional facts not mentioned by the court of appeals, essential to the case by appellants, are set forth below to assist the Court.