The appropriately named - "Boub decision".
Read the full article here. Any reactions? Experiences?

From the article:
In its now infamous decision, Boub v. Township of Wayne, 183 Ill.2d 520, 702 N.E.2d 535 (Ill. 1998), the Court held that bicyclists are permitted but not intended users of Illinois roadways, unless the road at issue is specifically designated for bike traffic, e.g. with signs, markings, etc. Unless a roadway is so designated, a local municipality is completely immune from liability for a bicyclist's injuries caused by roadway hazards. The Boub decision is an anomaly. Nowhere else in the United States has a state high court declared that bicyclists are not the intended users of the very paved streets for which their two-wheeling forebearers advocated. The fallout from the Court's decision has gone beyond merely barring individual bicyclists from pursuing justice. It has slowed progressive attempts to bring bicycle safe roads and streets to communities in Illinois.

The court case decision seems remarkably rational.

In the court decision cited, the cyclist approached a bridge that was currently undergoing maintenance. He attempted to ride across the bridge despite the clear visual evidence that the wood covered bridge had wide and gaps between the planking. He fell, and like so many, he decided that his fall was someone else's fault. It would be like someone in Texas, riding on rural roads, trying to sue the rancher because he fell while trying to ride across a cattle guard...

Let's consider another similar but hypothetical scenario. Someone driving a car in a karst region, lets say Florida, and while driving down a road notices a large pothole in the road. Instead of slowing and passing the obstruction with caution, they continue at speed, hit the hole, loose control and crash. How is this the fault of the city/county? The driver is responsible to proceed with due caution and clearly didn't.

Obstructions can and will occur. The city/county can and should maintain those roads; however, that requires funding. Something people seem unwilling to provide. How does allowing careless vehicle operators the ability to force someone else to pay for their carelessness help the situation. Unfortunately, the correct judgement to the above case should have been to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the operator was primarily negligent. My guess is that Illinois law already had precedent ignoring that motor vehicle operators are required to do so with due caution and that a road hazard caused accident is by definition evidence that they weren't operating with due caution... If so the solution to the problem is not to whine about the way cycling is unfairly treated, but to push for legislation granting immunity to public agencies for such hazards... regardless of the vehicle type.

Good points. And thanks for the clarification.
I had not read the facts surrounding the case. I was more struck by the apparent attitude of the Illinois Supreme court that roads were really "not for bicycles."

Apparently, the province of Alberta is the same way, at least when it comes to highways: Story

From the article:
A cherry stand?

Like former Governor Ventura said on many occasions regarding frivolous lawsuits: "You can't legislate against stupidity." As a result of the flooding in my area last May there were several bridges in various states of damage. Some of them are still in the process of being reconstructed. On my worst day it would never occur to me to ignore a "Bridge Closed" warning. Whata maroon!

That's the risk of bringing a lawsuit when you don't know the range of responses the judge(s) might be considering.

I think the troubling aspect of the case, as it was decided up through the state supreme court, was the rationale that was used. It was not, "You were stupid, you got hurt, deal with it." The court decided that bicycles are not intended users of the roadway. Based on that, there's no way you'll ever win a court case in Illinois for dangerous road conditions. It's possible some government agency or contractor could put in a longitudinal grate, like the classic wheel-catcher drainage grates of the early 60s, into the middle of a road. Since a bicycle is not an intended user, any harm that comes to you is your own fault. It's the beginning of a slippery slope that could end in a Spike Bike type of situation.

All comments are spot on. Congrats to court for stemming a tide of lawsuits by pedestrians and cyclists. There was a case regarding a girl about 12 or 14 who was texting while walking and walked into an open, but marked, manhole into a raw sewage. Unfortunately her parents sued the city and won.

To quote Lisa Simpson, "There is a dumbining down" in America.

Riding a bike is like backpacking in Yellowstone. Sometimes you make it to camp and other times you get eaten by a bear. You have to minimize your risks and now your surroundings. In this litigious society that we find ourselves in we keep seeing people routinely not accepting responsibility for the actions that they instigate. It is always someone else's fault.

Exception: Blind or other disabled people. I can't tell you how many times I have had calls from people that have fallen into potholes or tripped over them and broken various body parts.

The Illinois supreme court referred to the lack of bike lane markings or bike route signs as the primary indication that the road was not intended for bicyclists. If the case had been heard decades ago, before bike lanes and routes existed, the court could not have made that argument; everyone expected bicyclists to be using normal travel lanes. Unfortunately, the court bought into the framework created by some of the more enthusiastic bikeway proponents (who define "bicycle transportation networks" in terms of bicycle-specific traffic control devices) that normal roadways are for cars and that bicycling on them is dangerous and unintended even if is legal.

Whether one finds value in bicycle-specific traffic controls or not, I think it is important to avoid this marginalizing framing whenever discussing bicycle transportation. A superior framing is to insist that all roadways are bicycle facilities, intended for use by bicyclists, but that some are more enjoyable than others, and that certain routes have been marked as such to promote bicycling. Some municipalities explicitly adopt such policies, declaring all normal roadways as bicycle facilities in their transportation plans, particularly when they face challenges from a state that refuses to consider bicycling on roads not designated as such.

Does anyone know of an legal precedence that allows motorist to sue the government in a similar case in Illinois? I assume the court relied on such gerrymandered reasoning because such suits are possible. If so, that is the principal problem, not the exclusion for cyclists...

In the jurisdictions where I have worked, such a case would have been dismissed on the grounds that the city had performed reasonable safety notices... and that the accident was primarily the result of the vehicle operator, provided such notices were actually performed (ie, construction zone signs, etc...) with no need to exclude the bicycle.

The case description made me think of railroad crossings. They frequently have similar hazardous conditions for cyclists... And as such they require due caution of the cyclist to cross safely. Failure to do so should not be the responsibility of anyone other than the rider...

I ride through the community of Wayne, IL just about every day. It is a small enclave of mostly very wealthy individuals in the pretty far west suburbs of Chicago. It consists of quite a bit of forest preserve land and private land used for horse stables and riding. I am not sure about the town's financial situation since it does not have any industry to speak of, but the transportation infrastructure is maintained just ok. Some roads are recently paved and smooth, others are crap. I should say though that I do not know the boundaries of the town's roads vs the county's.

It is a popular area for clubs to ride through and from what I have seen the LEOs generally treat them well. And believe me, given the limited number of roads in that community, you are just as apt to see a Wayne police car than not when traveling through there.

I have always been dissapointed in the courts ruling in the Boub case. As others have said above, it would have been more reasonable for the court to dismiss the case instead of making a blanket statement that there is no obligation to maintain the roads for a bicyclist (a legal user and likely taxpayer who supports the maintenance of the roadway).

I've seen hikers ignore a "tunnel closed - EXTREME DANGER" sign before.

The case is actually pretty interesting. While I understand myrridin's point, it seems more complex than cyclist is at fault and wanted to blame someone else (if I am incorrectly paraphrasing feel free to correct me myriddin ).

1) a Bicycle is granted "all of the rights and . . . duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle" on roadways. 625 ILCS 5/11-1502. But that statute only makes the bicyclist a permitted user of Illinois roads, not necessarily an intended user of those roadways

2) "No special pavement markings or signs indicated that bicyclists, like motorists, were intended to ride on the road or bridge, or that bicycles, rather than vehicles, were the intended users of the route."

The issue i am wrestling with is "what makes vehicles then the intended users of this bridge" ? Was there a sign or pavement marking that indicated "motor vehicles" rather than anybody else is the intended user?

The slippery slope seems to be the assumption that all roadways are for motorists unless marked for others.

Good point. At least, it seems like one to my non-legally-trained brain.

I would consider this taxation without representation. Do you think the tea party will go to bat for us?

Doesn't seem much of a slippery slope given the age of the case quoted...

It is a simple fact that roads (or anything else) are designed for specific conditions. In the case of highways they are designed for vehicles of a certain size that exhibit certain characteristics... also known as motor vehicles. These criteria affect design issues, such as the width, signage requirements, etc... If the bridge in question was open to traffic, then certain requirements are in place to deal with any risks associated with construction on the bridge.

While I can't speak to Illinois law, in the jurisdictions I have worked the city/government is largely immune to such suits. The engineer and/or contractor are not. IF they didn't follow accepted practice for managing traffic in construction areas. In this case the bridge decking appears to have had significant gaps, which would likely have been safe for cars, but obviously not so for bicycles--much like railroad crossings...

It would have been better if the judge had simply denied the claim because of negligence on the part of the operator, but I assume he didn't in this case because of case law in Illinois that placed undue burden on the city...

I guess we won't be able to wear signs like that one thread, where it said "ALLOWED TO USE THE WHOLE LANE"

Oregon and I assume other states have administrative rules and laws that dictate what can be driven on what and when and where and no where are they marked except on city streets.

In Oregon the Administrative Rules clearly point out which roads/highways allow bicycles and which do not. Conversely, the laws state that if a bike lane is available it should be used in lieu of a non-marked biked lane. The rub is that some of the roads are "bike friendly" ie, wide, open, and sees low volumes of traffic. I could see an argument saying that these "bike friendly" streets amount to bike lanes due to the relative safety of the use of these lanes versus another unmarked bike lane.

Case in point. Goose Hollow in downtown Portland to the Zoo can be done one of two ways. You can climb US 26 to the Zoo. This is allowed under the OAR. Or your could climb the more bike friendly suburban streets to the Zoo. There are no marked bike lanes just the shoulder of 26 and the unmarked shoulder/lanes of Washington Park. Clearly Washington Park is "safer", however I argue that due to its blind curves, lack of sufficient guardrails, lane markers, and poor illumination I would rather be on a 55 mph highway riding the shoulder. It's as wide as a sidewalk, well lit, straight POV, has obvious lane markers and good illumination.

Actually just today I rode (slowly and carefully) through a construction site that had a big MOTORCYCLES USE EXTREME CAUTION sign. So I know it wasn't just 4 wheels good 2 wheels bad there. I made it through, by the way. If I had bogged in the gravel (which was the hazard) I would have gotten off and pushed.

And I braked like no tomorrow before hitting the gravel because I had prior experience locking the wheel and going over on an upward bounce in gravel...

When I'm driving a car and see one of those signs, I keep wondering if it means I can just close my eyes and mash the gas since I'm not on a motorcycle...

The first road in Illinois, "National Road", I70 was built specificalled for motorized transport in 1828. End of argument.

First off thank you myriddin and I_like_cereal for your input and explanations !

I just read the full text case of Boub v. Wayne Township.

After reading the case a few things still bother me regarding the "intended vs. permitted" users of roadways.

1. It seems 4 judges confused "predominant users" (motor vehicles) as the "intended users" (at least in part in determining this case) {Moreover, the accident in Molway (citing Molway v. City of Chicago) occurred in 1905, long before motorized vehicles became the predominant users of Illinois streets and highways.**

2. Just because markings are for the benefit of motor vehicles, does not mean it won't benefit others and makes no mention of whether those markings are for "intended or permitted users." {"To determine the intended use of the property involved here, we need look no further than the property itself. The roads are paved, marked and regulated by traffic signs and signals for the benefit of automobiles.**

3. In this case Boub was cycling across a one lane wooden planked bridge with asphalt packing. I would like to know the age and/or history of the bridge in this case as it seems that its intended use was not for motor vehicles.

The problems I seem to be having is that the "predominate use" is the "intended use" of these roadways. Also that the markings associated to this roadway indicate the exclusivity of "intended use" rather than "permitted use".

It seems that the underlying assumption by 4 judges is that roads are for cars only. And at least 3 judges agree with me that its not .

Motorized transport in 1828?

I think you've made an excellent point that most seem to be ignoring.

I'll save the rant and simply say, be careful what you wish for.

Excellent summation sggodri ! I think I really needed to read the case myself to fully understand what you were saying before I posted.