Here, plaintiff relies on evidence of historical and customary use of sidewalks by children on bicycles to avoid the hazards of vehicular traffic on busy city streets. Considered in conjunction with the other arguments advanced by plaintiff, we find that plaintiff's evidence of historical and customary use of sidewalks is compelling proof that an infant bicyclist is an intended user of the sidewalk. Defendant admits that children riding bicycles, tricycles, training bikes or roller skates have historically used the city's sidewalks and anticipates that they will continue to do so. While it is true that the map establishes certain bicycle routes throughout the city, the logical inference is that this route is to be used by adult bicyclists while they navigate the city. We do not believe that the city, in its designation of bicycle routes, intended for infant bicyclists to share busy city streets with motor vehicles.
Bicyclists are free to continue to use the sidewalks if they wish.
They do so, however, at their own peril and risk. While this argument may be valid in a case involving an adult bicyclist, it is not applicable here. We decline to give such weight and authority to a simple map depicting bicycle routes and to conclude, as the trial court did, that infant bicyclists are excluded from the city's duty of care to maintain its sidewalks. Rather than relying on the bicycle map as the definitive indicator of the City's intent, we next consider the intent expressed by the local entity in its ordinances or city codes. As the Boub court established, the intent expressed by the local entity is controlling.