Spring in Illinois has arrived and many people are tuning up their bicycles to hit the road. This post describes a little-known legal nuance that prevents hundreds of cyclists injured by road defects from suing the municipalities responsible for maintaining roads. But there’s hope. A new bill introduced during this year’s Illinois General Assembly’s legislative session has the potential to wipe out esoteric legal nuances and return to common sense.
The “intended” vs “permitted” paradox
The law can be odd sometimes. The distinction between an “intended” and “permitted” user of a street is a prime example. This distinction is critical to whether Illinois cyclists can sue a municipality (like a city or a town) for common road defects (like dangerous cracks or potholes).
Here’s the paradox. It’s illegal to bike on sidewalks, so most people are required by law to ride on the street. The government “permits” you to ride a bike on the street. But it doesn’t “intend” for you to ride anywhere on the street except when there is designated bike infrastructure. As anyone knows, on the whole, most streets across our state do not have bike infrastructure. So, if a cyclist is injured by a road defect on a street that doesn’t have any bike infrastructure, then the government cannot be sued because under Illinois law the government never intended for the cyclist to ride on that street.
Ride Illinois, a nonprofit advocating for cyclists throughout the state, commented in its 2025 Legislative Priorities, “It’s worth noting that Illinois is the only state in the country that recognizes bicyclists as permitted, but not intended users of the road, unless bicycle infrastructure available and/or signage is present.”
This paradox seems so contradictory to commonsense that a quick discussion of how the legal framework developed might be helpful. Two court cases are key.
How Illinois Courts created the distinction between an intended and permitted user.
The Boub v. Wayne decision in 1998 created the distinction between intended and permitted users of a public road. John Boub was riding his bike across a bridge that needed repair. His front wheel lodged into a road defect at the bridge. He was hurt. Mr. Boub tried to sue Wayne Township, the township responsible for maintaining the bridge, but the court threw out his case. According to the court, the government can only be on the hook for road defects when the people using the roads are both intended and permitted to use the road. The court focused on the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act ("Tort Immunity Act"), which is found at 745 ILCS 10/3-102(a). Cyclists are allowed—i.e. “permitted”—to be on the road. However, unless a municipality puts up specific signage or builds infrastructure like bike lanes, bicyclists are not “intended” to use the roads.
Since the Boub decision, the popularity of cycling exploded and cities across Illinois began touting bike friendly policies. Bike share programs also blossomed in various cities across Illinois, like the Fox Valley Bike Share in Aurora or the Divvy program in Chicago and Evanston. Bike share injuries were also on the rise.
Then, in 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court had an opportunity to revisit the issue of who is an intended and permitted user of the road in Clark Alave v. The City of Chicago. The City of Chicago enabled Divvy to build a bike share station on a corner. Near that same corner, a large pothole developed. One might think that if a city is developing bike infrastructure, like a ride share Divvy station, then the city was also intending citizens use the bike station and bike on the roads near the station. The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed.
Following the Boub decision, the Alave Court concluded that the Tort Immunity Act prevented Mr. Alave from suing the government. Despite the presence of a Divvy station, the state’s high court decided that the City of Chicago never intended Divvy riders to ride on the street. The City of Chicago never built specific markings on the pavement or gave any physical manifestations that people should ride on the streets near the Divvy station. The Divvy station was a sign that the City of Chicago permitted Mr. Alave to ride, but not evidence that the City of Chicago intended him to ride on the nearby roads. The legal distinction between intended and permitted remains the law today.
The Boub and Alave decisions have dangerous consequences for cyclists.
Practically speaking, the distinction between intended and permitted users becomes the key shield for municipalities to avoid any liability for roads that are falling apart and endangering bicyclists. Municipal entities, like the City of Chicago in the Alave case, use the Tort Immunity Act to avoid paying anything even if they negligently fail to maintain streets. Municipalities are immune to legal claims from cyclists who are injured by road defects unless the injured cyclist happens to be injured at a spot where the government both permitted and intended the cyclist to ride.
The analysis of the Tort Immunity Act or the distinction between permission and intention is a great topic for law school seminars. And while the conceptual exercise might invigorate cerebral attorneys, the real-world consequences for cyclists are dire. Cycling is a healthy and practical means of transportation. Cities are right to promote it. Yet when governments don't maintain roads and people get injured, injured cyclists often face crippling loads of medical debt, can't work, can't support their loved ones, can't live their normal lives anymore. A municipality should be encouraged to maintain their roadways, not protected from liability when they don't. The legal distinction between permitted and intended users of the roadway has dangerous consequences for cyclists.
HB2454 provides some hope.
Fortunately, Democrats in the Illinois House have introduced HB2454. The bill revises the Tort Immunity Act. If the bill becomes law, cyclists would be deemed intended users of every roadway on which cyclists are permitted. The potent distinction between intended and permitted users of a road that has plagued cyclists for years would collapse if HB2454 becomes law. Municipalities would have a harder time hiding behind the Tort Immunity Act when a road isn’t maintained. Cyclists who are injured by derelict roads would have a chance at recouping their losses.
Reuland Law represents injured cyclists in Illinois. For years, attorney Tom Reuland has heard from too many cyclists who are badly injured by a dangerous road defect. These cyclists do not have any legal recourse when they are riding in the street but not within designated bicycle infrastructure. Tort immunity for the government has a rightful place in Illinois. But when it comes to civic goods as basic as building and maintaining roads, Reuland Law applauds legislators who believe that our towns and cities can rise to the challenge of maintaining roads so that our citizens stop getting injured from road defects while biking.
As of writing, HB2454 is working its way through committee. You can track the bill here. You can also call your local state representative to voice your support. Find out who your local legislators are by searching here. And if you'd like any more information about how a personal injury attorney can help you are injured in a cycling accident, you can contact Reuland Law for a free consultation here.
Reuland Law, LLC is an Illinois law firm that helps people make meaningful recoveries when the negligence of a person or company changes lives for the worse. The firm's mission includes zealous representation of people injured or killed by the negligence of others. A large part of the practice involves representing injured cyclists in Illinois in cases involving doorings, right hooks, left hooks, and road defects. Consultations are available through our contact page.