The Chainlink

Driver's license required in Lake Forest to ride on a limited number of roads

http://www.cityoflakeforest.com/ps/pd/ps_pd2b4a.htm

Only a duly licensed motor vehicle operator with a valid motor vehicle operators license in their possession may operate a bicycle upon the streets in the central business district between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

No bicycle shall be operated upon the streets designated below, but shall be ridden upon the sidewalks where available, unless the operator of such bicycle is a duly licensed motor vehicle operator and has a valid motor vehicle operators license in their possession. Such streets include:

  • Waukegan Road
  • Route 41
  • Green Bay Road
  • Western Avenue from Westleigh Road north to business district. (a) Franklin to Thomas on east side.
  • Sheridan Road
  • Deerpath from Waukegan Road east to Oakwood Avenue
  • Deerpath east from Western Avenue to Lake Road
  • Westleigh Road from Route 41 east to Sheridan Road
  • McKinley Road
  • Old Elm Road from Route 41 to east limits
  • Route 60

I have a question for those attorneys that might be familiar with Illinois bicycle law.

Is it legal for a community to require that a cyclist must be a licensed driver in order to operate a bicycle on the roadway?

Looking at it another way, should a cyclist lose their permitted right to the road because they do not have a valid driver's license?

In October of 1998 in Boub v Township of Wayne, the Illinois Supreme Court decided that bicycles are permitted, not intended users of the road.

"In sum, there are no affirmative manifestations here that Wayne Township intended-rather than simply permitted-bicyclists to use the road and bridge where the accident occurred. We have no quarrel with the proposition that bicycle riders are permitted users of the road and bridge involved in this case; we do not believe, however, that they must also be considered intended users of those facilities, within the scope of section 3-102(a) of the Tort Immunity Act. There is no question of fact on this record, and summary judgment was appropriately entered in favor of the defendants."

Intended versus permitted status is a big deal in the State of Illinois.  If bicycles were intended uses, then the government entity would be liable for maintaining the roads in a condition that made cycling safe.  Since bicycles have been deemed permitted, it's ride at your own risk.

The attorneys here can tell me if I misinterpreted the supreme court decision.

By raising the bar for use of this very specific set of roads by cyclists, does the City of Lake Forest ordinance inadvertently give a restricted class of cyclists status as intended users of the road? 

Would the city then be held to a higher standard with regard to maintaining the roads in a safe condition for this restricted class of users?  

 

 

Views: 1395

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by rb on June 7, 2012 at 7:24am

I agree this is nonsense.

The majority of the roads above are narrow and pretty heavily traveled- I have wondered why their were "Ride on the sidewalk" signs.

I am thinking that this law is a possible defense against lawsuits. I would definitely concur that the roads above were not designed (and in some cases rebuilt- central Western Ave. for example) with cyclists in mind. They are not the safest cyclist friendly roads and these laws let the City of LF off the hook for maintenance or design for bikes as they are not intended users.

Totally bogus- but then again I have never seen anyone getting hassled about this either.

I still think that we are traffic- I need to get to the grocery store like everyone else- what difference does it make that I am on a bike vs. "rolling around town in a Range Rover."

Permalink Reply by Marcusn on June 7, 2012 at 7:38am

I ride in Lake forest weekly, and always get the impression from the various signage, that LF is not at all friendly to bicycles. Various signs say 'Ride on the sidewalk' and various signs on the sidewalk say 'walk your bike'. Thankfully, there are many great trails (McClory, Northshore, Desplaines River) that make biking a pleasure. At times I think it would be better if trails didn't exist, as more pressure would be put on LF to create road bikeways. Crazy times.

Permalink Reply by rb on June 7, 2012 at 8:06am

+1 on the trails. Also there are a ton of side streets that are very sparsely car traveled.

When they rebuilt the central business district road (Western) and decided to spend cash on additional car parking and brick crosswalks as opposed to painting a bike lane, I think that it is a fair assumption to make that LF is not that bike friendly.

Permalink Reply by Brendan Kevenides on June 7, 2012 at 8:26am

The Boub decision presents just one of several hurdles that must be overcome to successfully sue a local municipality for its failure to adequately maintain its roads for cycling.  Here's a blog post I've written on the subject:

http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2010/04/illinois-municipalities-overr...

Permalink Reply by rb on June 7, 2012 at 10:06am

Interesting post and the thoughts therein support my thoughts above- LF is scared of litigation. In my opinion more concerned than they should be.

I like how roads were put together originally for bikes- then cars took over. The Boub decision functionally reversed this in IL- now bikes are considered to be "guests" or users of lesser importance than their mechanized brethren.

I read a book about Ford recently -factories and production methods for the auto business were directly translated from the bike business.

Thanks for sharing.

Brendan Kevenides said:

The Boub decision presents just one of several hurdles that must be overcome to successfully sue a local municipality for its failure to adequately maintain its roads for cycling.  Here's a blog post I've written on the subject:

http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2010/04/illinois-municipalities-overr...

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on June 7, 2012 at 10:25am

I'd also like to know if it's legal for Lake Forest to require people who want to operate a bicycle on those roads to have a valid driver's license. 

Permalink Reply by spencewine on June 7, 2012 at 10:36am

I think it's time for a Critical Mass - Lake Forest edition. Let's see how the law holds up in court.

Permalink Reply by rb on June 7, 2012 at 11:05am

we are traffic

spencewine said:

I think it's time for a Critical Mass - Lake Forest edition. Let's see how the law holds up in court.

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on June 7, 2012 at 11:05am

Put it in the chainlink calendar, and please speak up as to what sort of help you need planning it.

spencewine said:

I think it's time for a Critical Mass - Lake Forest edition. Let's see how the law holds up in court.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on June 7, 2012 at 11:31am

I guess I won't be visiting Lake Forest any time soon -unless it is "en mass."  I'll continue to spend my money in the City of Chicago.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on June 7, 2012 at 11:48am

Unless it on a nice trail, or nearby a Metra station these bohonk exurbs don't even exist IMHO.  

Screw 'em.

Permalink Reply by Jared on June 7, 2012 at 12:06pm

I never really considered Lake Forest hostile to cyclists.  Is this law even enforced?

Daniel G said:

If Lake Forest maintains these roads 100% on their own dime, they can restrict them to clown cars of +12 occupancy with pink stripes only for all anyone cares. But they don't, and not even close, so they don't really get to make laws like this. Roads never really belong to the towns they lie in, regional thoroughfares like Sheridan especially so. On the other hand, who cares. If Lake Forest thinks its downtown can do just fine without cyclists or their money, then they can go ahead and try to make an environment hostile to them. I say focus on the city, because most of these suburbs are beyond help anyway. City of Chicago is not yet a good cycling city, and there's really no time to waste in making it one.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service