Avid cyclists might be shocked to learn that they are not necessarily intended users of public ways, including popular riding paths and trails. Given the growing popularity of cycling, and the major improvements some municipalities have undertaken to protect and encourage bike ridership, this notion seems counterintuitive to say the least. But an 18-year-old Illinois Supreme Court ruling sets precisely that precedent.

In Boub v. Township of Wayne, 183 Ill. 2d 520 (1998), the court held that a cyclist is only a permitted user of a roadway, not an intended user. It pointed to past precedents indicating that while intended users are also permitted users, permitted users are not necessarily intended users. Making an analogy to crosswalks, the court found that, absent signs or other markings specifically indicating that bicycle use was intended, cyclists are not intended users of a roadway.

Justice Heipel's dissent in Boub notes that the majority's holding is "both irrational and dangerous as a principle of public policy." Id. at 539. Quite simply, the majority holding in Boub "discourage[s] municipalities from taking any measures to make roads safer and more hospitable for bicyclists." Id.

The dissent in Boub was described as prescient by Chicago lawyer Michael Keating, who says Illinois law hasn't kept pace with the rapid growth in bicycle ridership since 1998. Find out more about the problems caused by outdated Illinois bike law -- and the simple fix -- in the July Illinois Bar Journal.