Bill
HB 2454
Bicyclists are officially deemed intended users of all roadways where riding is permitted, expanding local governments' duty to maintain those roads in a reasonably safe condition.
Status: Re‑referred to Rules Committee (Rule 19(a))
Introduced: Feb 4–5, 2025
Primary sponsor: Rep. Maura Hirschauer (with multiple co‑sponsors added in Feb–Mar 2025)
Companion bills: SB 465, SB 1333
Statute amended: 745 ILCS 10/3‑102 (Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act)
NOTE: The legislative document also contains an unrelated Arizona bill (also labeled HB 2454) that appropriates $2,000,000 each to five Arizona community college districts for law enforcement training in FY2025‑26. The summary below focuses on the Illinois tort‑immunity bill (matching the title “TORT IMMUNITY‑LOC GOVT‑BIKES”).
Purpose / Intent
- To clarify that bicyclists are “intended users” of roadways where bicycling is permitted, thereby bringing bicyclists explicitly within the duty of local public entities to maintain roadways in a reasonably safe condition under the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act.
Key provisions
- Amends Section 3‑102 of the Tort Immunity Act by adding: “A person operating a bicycle is deemed to be an intended user of every roadway and portion of roadway on which bicyclists are permitted to ride.”
- Leaves intact the Act’s existing framework for when a public entity is liable (duty to maintain property in reasonably safe condition for intended users) and the constructive‑notice rules in subsection (b) that can defeat liability if the condition would not have been discovered by a reasonably adequate inspection system or if such a system was maintained with due care.
Who is affected
- Local public entities and their insurers (municipalities, counties, road districts, etc.): may face increased exposure to claims by bicyclists for roadway defects (potholes, debris, uneven pavement, inadequate signage, etc.) on routes where bicycling is permitted.
- Bicyclists: gain clearer statutory footing to pursue claims against public entities for injuries caused by unsafe roadway conditions.
- Governmental employees: continued protection under existing immunity rules is not eliminated but may be implicated depending on facts and notice.
- Potential fiscal impact for local governments: possible increase in liability costs, insurance premiums, and pressure to enhance inspection and maintenance programs for bicycle‑accessible roadways.
Legal effect and limits
- The amendment does not create a new standard of care beyond the Act’s existing “reasonably safe” requirement; it specifies that bicyclists are among the class of users the duty covers.
- Existing defenses in Section 3‑102(b)—relating to constructive notice and adequacy of inspection systems—remain available to public entities.
Procedural timeline (high level)
- Filed/Introduced: early Feb 2025 (Feb 3–5 filings/first readings recorded)
- Referred to Rules Committee; assigned to Judiciary – Civil Committee; committee actions and co‑sponsor additions in Feb–Mar 2025
- Re‑referred to Rules Committee under Rule 19(a) on 2025‑03‑21
Implications to watch
- Municipalities may revise inspection/maintenance policies for roadways used by bicyclists to reduce liability risk.
- Courts will interpret how the “intended user” designation interacts with constructive‑notice defenses and the practical standard of maintenance for mixed‑use roadways.
- If enacted, the provision could prompt local governments to accelerate bicycle infrastructure improvements and clearer signage delineating permitted bicycling routes.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
