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?