I consider the article as more negative towards cyclist. It sets the tone that roads are for motorist not bicyclist, with the very first sentence.
Trouble is brewing in the bucolic hills and dales north of Alton, say some who use the roads there for their original purpose - to handle cars, trucks and farm vehicles.
Note that the words in red are put forward as a statement of fact and not as a viewpoint. And here I thought cyclist were the group who originally worked to get the streets paved. The author seemed to miss that point.
The article continues to build the position that bicycles do not serve a useful purpose with the implication that they are only used for fun, while on the other hand cars, trucks and farm vehicles serve only useful purposes. If the article were balanced, the author would point out that car and trucks are often used for recreation on weekends and that bicycles are often used for commuting and utility.
The cyclist was correct. Illinois State Police Safety Education Officer Ralph Timmins said bike riders legally can travel on the roadways as long as they allow motorists sufficient room.
Since the above was not placed in quotes, I wonder if the Illinois State Police Safety Education Officer really does not understand the meaning of Illinois law or if the author simply attributed her bias into general statements the officer made in reference to the law. I doubt the author even bothered to actually sit down and read the laws herself.
The author then moves into the bicycling is dangerous theme with her statistics and statement of there is going to be a head-on, along with the bicyclist should get on the bike path and out of my road statement of "I understand that the paths get crowded, but they're not using them at all." No effort by the author is made to note relative death rates to the intended users of the roads; cars, trucks and farm vehicles or is the point made that motorist could make the roads safer for cyclist with proper behavior and patience on their part.
After the reader gets halfway through the article (assuming they even read that far) they get a couple of neutral paragraphs. Then the reader finally gets to hear a bicyclist defend his use of the roads and point out how some in the charity riders were cycling improperly.
The author gets brownie points for including a few comments by a cyclist and by finishing with a neutral sentence (even though the lead into the last sentence was not neutral).