these special interest groups kill me...

[NE2]

* Ride as close to the right edge of the road as practical. Certain conditions allow a
bicyclist to move farther to the left if necessary, such as broken glass, drain grates,
parked cars, left turns and passing.

It would be nice if people would quote the entire law:

When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

[vdeane]

You haven't had many situations where you were stopped at a light for five minutes and not one car went through the green phase, and it was clear none were coming?

Cars aren't the only thing you might hit. There's always the possibility of a jogger coming from behind an obstruction.

In those times I could see that there were no joggers or anyone else coming.  You might think that timers are used only in dense urban areas where such situations are unlikely to occur, but you'd be wrong.  NY uses them everywhere... even in the middle of nowhere.

[english si]

Ride as close to the right edge of the road as practical.

I've said it several times, but I'll say it again - this way of riding is how cyclists on the road get killed.

There's two options for cyclists in IL - bad and unsafe cycling, or legal cycling.

For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

UK traffic regulations recommend leaving the same width between you and the curb when passing a cyclist, motorcyclist, horse or other vulnerable road user (Highway code rules 163 and 211). I'm not sure that definition of 'too narrow' will stand up in court in IL for cycling defensively, given that you are meant to hug the curb and if the car can run 3ft to your left - ie 4ft, maybe 5ft from the edge of the roadway, without crossing the line, then it's a legal overtake, so anything over 10ft wide is going to be good enough for the law. Forcing cyclists into a dangerous corridor alongside the curb, isn't sharing the road, it's hogging the lane.

There's also this:

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

I'd hope that IL would have such advice to drivers on their books, especially since their advice to cyclists encourages an erratic and dangerous mix of avoiding obstacles (a lot of which wouldn't be visible to a car) and going back to hug the curb like a good playtime-fun-thing that isn't a real vehicle.* This weaving about the lane was given as an example of bad cycling upthread, and rightly so. So why does IL demand such bad cycling?

But I doubt IL would have such a warning to motorists about cyclists being dangerous while trying to obey the law, seeing how they use the word 'practical', rather than the word 'safe' when talking about cyclists' position on the road and obstacles - they don't give a rats ass about safety there.

*and given that that is how they are treated, is it surely no wonder why many cyclists break the sensible (ie not the stupid ones that put cyclists into a safe or legal dichotomy) traffic laws - they aren't treated as traffic, so why should they behave like traffic?

[hobsini2]

english, I personally treat cyclists as other traffic much like I treat pedestrians that way. My gripe is when the other traffic does not obey the laws and signals and signs that are there for the safety of all traffic. It is pretty common in Chicago that I have to yell at a pedestrian who is crossing the street against a don't walk signal when I have the green arrow.  There are also some cities in Illinois that have odinences against a cyclist or pedestrian to be on a cell phone or listening to music with headphones while crossing a street.

If the Illinois rule for a cyclist to share the road going as close to the white line as possible is more dangerous, what is the english rule of thumb for that?

[NE2]

the Illinois rule for a cyclist to share the road going as close to the white line as possible

Again, there is no such rule.

[english si]

english, I personally treat cyclists as other traffic much like I treat pedestrians that way.

So they shouldn't be on the road at all, but the sidewalk? (which is illegal in Britain as dangerous (Highways Act 1835 section 72) and motorists condemn them for that in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation)

If the Illinois rule for a cyclist to share the road going as close to the white line as possible is more dangerous, what is the english rule of thumb for that?

There's not one, but, the highway code says this, which would be our equivalent of the keep right rule.

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

The design manual for cycling facilities prefers cyclists to be in the rest of the traffic (though less of it, slower and with better junctions - in that order), so cycle lanes are for use only on busy and/or fast roads. They recommend a car overtaking at 30mph should be 5ft away, giving a 4.3m (~14ft) space between curb and curb-side edge of the car that's overtaking the cyclist. They recognize that they are being idealistic here, but not that extreme - they rounded up the amount of wobble, which is 0.8m at low speeds and 0.2m at faster speeds to be 1m, to take into account hazards and for simplicity.

They give a minimum clearance between curb and cyclist as 0.5m - something that should be increased wherever possible and state that on-road cycle lanes (with a few specific exceptional circumstances) must be at least 1.5m (5ft), if not 2m. Bare in mind that cycle lanes are for when they want to segregate bicycle and motor-vehicular traffic as there's too much traffic/too fast traffic.

The principles that they suggest in their design manual suggest that the cyclist should be cycling about a quarter of the way into a lane, certainly not less than 2ft from the curb, and drivers should treat half the lane as the cyclist's should they come across one. A cyclist turning right should do so from the center line providing it's safe to get to the center line (the highway code offers the option of dismounting and crossing the road, or jug-handling if a toucan crossing exists), and a cyclist shouldn't undertake other traffic (unless there's a cycle lane that they are in), but rather overtake.

Obviously common decency would mean that a cyclist, if safe and practical to do so, ought to move nearer the curb and perhaps slow down, if some traffic wants to overtake - same is true for all traffic.

Edit: found on this .pdf that the centre of the lane as 'primary position' and between 0.5 and 1 metre from the curb is 'secondary position'.

Cyclists should not cycle in the gutter. Where there is little other traffic and/or there is plenty
of room to be overtaken they may ride in the
secondary position.

Where the road is narrow and two-way traffic would
make it dangerous for the cyclist to be overtaken by
a following vehicle they may choose to ride in the
primary position.
If the cyclist is riding at the speed of other traffic
then they should do so in the primary position.

Reasoning
Cyclists may be wary of cycling in the primary
position as this will put them in the path of motor
traffic when their natural instinct might be to keep
away from it. However, where appropriate, it will
actually offer them more protection as they will be
able to see more, be seen more easily by other road
users and most importantly it will prevent drivers
from attempting to overtake them where the road is
too narrow.

If unsure, the default position is the primary position.

So there we go - middle of the lane is British Government policy for cyclists to ride in.

the Illinois rule for a cyclist to share the road going as close to the white line as possible

Again, there is no such rule.

So the lawmakers of IL are better than I give them credit for, or is it a guideline without force of law?

[NE2]

So the lawmakers of IL are better than I give them credit for, or is it a guideline without force of law?

Here's the actual law, not the misleading "summary" from the DMV:

When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Note that the vast majority of roads have "substandard width lanes". This is pretty normal across states, meaning it probably comes from the Uniform Vehicle Code.

[hobsini2]

the Illinois rule for a cyclist to share the road going as close to the white line as possible

Again, there is no such rule.

And once again you ignore the fact it IS in the Illinois Rules of The Road publication that I have sourced.
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a143.pdf
Page 7 dumbass!

[hobsini2]

english said:
So they shouldn't be on the road at all, but the sidewalk? (which is illegal in Britain as dangerous (Highways Act 1835 section 72) and motorists condemn them for that in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation)

That is not what I meant by the pedestrians and cyclists get the same treatment from me. I may have been too vague for you but what I mean is that I don't care what other traffic does as long as they are obeying the signs and signals and the rules of the road when sharing the road. How many times do I have to say that before you guys figure it out? If a cyclist wants to ride in the road, by all means do so as long as that cyclist obeys the rules. It is the disregard of such signals and signs I do object to.

[NE2]

the Illinois rule for a cyclist to share the road going as close to the white line as possible

Again, there is no such rule.

And once again you ignore the fact it IS in the Illinois Rules of The Road publication that I have3 sourced.
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a143.pdf
Page 7 dubmass!

That publication doesn't have the force of law. Dubmass [sic]!

[hobsini2]

NE2, so now you are saying that the Secretary of State's office has no "force of the law"?

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/police/about.html

By your logic, I guess all rules of the road can be thrown out. Run the red lights. Go 80 mph in a school zone. Hell go ahead and drink some vodka while going down the highway. Go ahead everyone. It's ok. NE2 has given his blessing for you to do so.

You see how stupid that sounds?

I don't know how Florida operates but here in Illinois the Secretary of State's office DOES have some enforcement power and does use it. We have the Secretary of State Police. They can (and will) issue tickets just as much as a local police, sheriff's officers, or state troopers.

Before you comment on someone else's state and how it's run, get some facts.

[NE2]

I don't know how Florida operates but here in Illinois the Secretary of State's office DOES have some enforcement power and does use it. We have the Secretary of State Police. They can (and will) issue tickets just as much as a local police, sheriff's officers, or state troopers.

And if those tickets are bullshit, they'll get thrown out by the courts (unless they too are corrupt). Dubmass!

[hobsini2]

I don't know how Florida operates but here in Illinois the Secretary of State's office DOES have some enforcement power and does use it. We have the Secretary of State Police. They can (and will) issue tickets just as much as a local police, sheriff's officers, or state troopers.

And if those tickets are bullshit, they'll get thrown out by the courts (unless they too are corrupt). Dubmass!

So now you say that any ticket issued by a police agency is bullshit?
My my. I think you need to see a doctor soon. Perhaps he can help with that stick up your ass.

In the meantime, let me give you some friendly advice. Stay out of Illinois. Certainly don't break an laws here that would get you a ticket. If you are issued a ticket, do pay it. Because if you refuse to pay that ticket, the state will come after you for "contempt of court" and until they find you, your license would be suspended. States do cooperate in that way. Just like if I went to Ohio, got a ticket and refused to pay, Ohio would say to Illinois to suspend my license.  So once again I say as friendly advice. Stay out of Illinois for your own good. I would really hate to see you lose your license.

Other than that, enjoy your day buddy.

[english si]

I don't care what other traffic does as long as they are obeying the signs and signals and the rules of the road when sharing the road. How many times do I have to say that before you guys figure it out?

I know you say that, it is irrelevant for the discussion we're having.

I'm saying that both the treatment that cyclists get from both the government and other road users encourage them to break the rules, especially the rules that create a safe/legal dichotomy, and that needs to be changed - in part by changing the bad rules, in part by changing the culture on the road - both of cyclists and of motorists.

If a cyclist wants to ride in the road, by all means do so as long as that cyclist obeys the rules. It is the disregard of such signals and signs I do object to.

Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?

How long do I have to keep saying it, some laws are dangerous for cyclists to follow, in which case why should a cyclist follow such a law? Certainly if I got ticketed for that in IL, I'd counter-sue the state for reckless endangerment, because that's what having to obey that law would be doing - endangering my life.

It seems to me that either you feel that projecting an image of being a gestapo-loving legalist, who is no doubt an unlikeable jobsworth, is better than someone who cares about the lives of cyclists, or your hogging the lane comment when talking about taking primary position is a showing of your true colours - a Mr Toad who doesn't like people getting in the way of his driving fun. Poop! Poop!

[NE2]

Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?

The point I'm making and hobsini is ignoring is that the law allows riding in the middle of the lane. The brochure he linked incorrectly summarizes the laws, calling riding all the way to the right a "bicycle safety tip". If you read that and don't realize it's full of shit, and then get into a crash, you might have a case against the state.

[myosh_tino]

Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?

The point I'm making and hobsini is ignoring is that the law allows riding in the middle of the lane. The brochure he linked incorrectly summarizes the laws, calling riding all the way to the right a "bicycle safety tip". If you read that and don't realize it's full of shit, and then get into a crash, you might have a case against the state.

Are you referring to Illinois law?  Florida law?  California law?  Please be more specific because your statement implies that riding the in the middle of a lane is OK nationwide (which is probably not the case).

[NE2]

Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?

The point I'm making and hobsini is ignoring is that the law allows riding in the middle of the lane. The brochure he linked incorrectly summarizes the laws, calling riding all the way to the right a "bicycle safety tip". If you read that and don't realize it's full of shit, and then get into a crash, you might have a case against the state.

Are you referring to Illinois law?  Florida law?  California law?  Please be more specific because your statement implies that riding the in the middle of a lane is OK nationwide (which is probably not the case).

Obviously I'm referring to Illinois law. But chances are it is OK nationwide. It appears to be allowed anywhere that uses the Uniform Vehicle Code at least.

[myosh_tino]

OK, so I went digging through the California Vehicle Code and here's California's laws regarding cyclists...

Operation on a Roadway with no bike lanes...

21202.  (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable

The way I read this is cyclists need to keep as far right as can safely be done.  It doesn't give them carte blanche to ride in the middle of the right lane although subsection (3) is very, very vague (perhaps too vague) and it seems to be an easy out for cyclists... "but officer, there are a couple of pebbles on the right shoulder and it's too dangerous".

Permitted Movements from Bicycle Lanes

21208.  (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.

I find subsection (b) the most interesting because if a cyclist needs to move out of the bike lane into a travel lane, he/she needs to do so WHEN IT'S SAFE, not whenever the cyclist feels like it.  Bicycles have brakes too so if they see someone pulling out of a driveway up ahead, use your brakes and slow down instead of swerving right in front of a car and expecting the driver to slam on his/her brakes.

Of interest is Section 21656 which states that on a two-lane highway, a slow moving vehicle must pull off into a designated turnout *OR* wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists to allow vehicles to pass.  This part of the CVC also applies to cyclists.  I find it highly annoying when I and other motorists get stuck behind a slow-moving cyclist on a two-lane highway with no way to pass and the cyclist doesn't pull off the road per section 21656 of the CVC.

Finally, I will agree with hobsini2 on one major point... All vehicle operators (drivers AND cyclists) need to obey the rules of the road and that includes stop signs and signals.  While I do see drivers not stopping at stop signs (usually by doing the "California Stop"), cyclists don't even slow down at stop signs... they blow though at full speed.  There is an ongoing case in San Francisco where a cyclist blew through a red light and struck and killed a elderly man in the crosswalk.  Shortly after the accident, the cyclist dedicated his post on a local cycling group's website to his broken helmet (very self-centered IMO).  The cyclist was charged with felony vehicular manslaughter and is currently awaiting trial.  He could get 16 months in jail if convicted and I hope they throw the book at him.

[NE2]

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Yep, the normal "substandard width lane" criterion.

Finally, I will agree with hobsini2 on one major point... All vehicle operators (drivers AND cyclists) need to obey the rules of the road and that includes stop signs and signals.  While I do see drivers not stopping at stop signs (usually by doing the "California Stop"), cyclists don't even slow down at stop signs... they blow though at full speed.

Bigot.

There is an ongoing case in San Francisco where a cyclist blew through a red light and struck and killed a elderly man in the crosswalk.  Shortly after the accident, the cyclist dedicated his post on a local cycling group's website to his broken helmet (very self-centered IMO).  The cyclist was charged with felony vehicular manslaughter and is currently awaiting trial.  He could get 16 months in jail if convicted and I hope they throw the book at him.

Yep, he's an asshole. Doesn't mean you should be an asshole to other cyclists.

[myosh_tino]

Finally, I will agree with hobsini2 on one major point... All vehicle operators (drivers AND cyclists) need to obey the rules of the road and that includes stop signs and signals.  While I do see drivers not stopping at stop signs (usually by doing the "California Stop"), cyclists don't even slow down at stop signs... they blow though at full speed.

Bigot.

How so?  Please explain yourself.

There is an ongoing case in San Francisco where a cyclist blew through a red light and struck and killed a elderly man in the crosswalk.  Shortly after the accident, the cyclist dedicated his post on a local cycling group's website to his broken helmet (very self-centered IMO).  The cyclist was charged with felony vehicular manslaughter and is currently awaiting trial.  He could get 16 months in jail if convicted and I hope they throw the book at him.

Yep, he's an asshole. Doesn't mean you should be an asshole to other cyclists.

Are you serious?  How in the hell can you make that type of wild assumption based on a person's post in this forum.  Trust me, that kind of crap is NOT APPRECIATED!  Just because I don't adhere to your philosophy that cyclists can do no wrong doesn't mean you can make comments like that about me.  When you're throwing the word "asshole" around, go look in the mirror... sheesh! 

Note to Mods:  I've done my best to keep my cool but NE2 really pushed my buttons.  This will be my last post to this discussion thread... IMO, this should be locked because it's turned into a flame war with NE2 right in the middle of it.

[NE2]

There is an ongoing case in San Francisco where a cyclist blew through a red light and struck and killed a elderly man in the crosswalk.  Shortly after the accident, the cyclist dedicated his post on a local cycling group's website to his broken helmet (very self-centered IMO).  The cyclist was charged with felony vehicular manslaughter and is currently awaiting trial.  He could get 16 months in jail if convicted and I hope they throw the book at him.

Yep, he's an asshole. Doesn't mean you should be an asshole to other cyclists.

Are you serious?  How in the hell can you make that type of wild assumption based on a person's post in this forum.  Trust me, that kind of crap is NOT APPRECIATED!  Just because I don't adhere to your philosophy that cyclists can do no wrong doesn't mean you can make comments like that about me.  When you're throwing the word "asshole" around, go look in the mirror... sheesh! 

The fuck?

[Central Avenue]

Are you serious?  How in the hell can you make that type of wild assumption based on a person's post in this forum.  Trust me, that kind of crap is NOT APPRECIATED!  Just because I don't adhere to your philosophy that cyclists can do no wrong doesn't mean you can make comments like that about me.  When you're throwing the word "asshole" around, go look in the mirror... sheesh! 

Um...you do realize he's referring to the cyclist you referenced as "asshole", not you, right?

[english si]

There seems to be a fallacy at work in this thread where "cyclists can do right" is taken as "cyclists can do no wrong". It's also coupled with a related fallacy "cyclists do wrong, therefore cyclists can't do right". There's also the legal=safe and illegal=dangerous non sequitors.

Maybe logic should be taught at schools as well as proper safe cycling.

NE2 - you are right, the vehicular code has "keep to the curb unless x is the case", but x applies most of the time (though people like hobsini think it's safe to overtake when it's not, just because it might be legal, so get out of these reckless menace's way) - it's basically saying the same thing as the British "keep to the middle of the lane unless y is the case", but backwards, which is misleading drivers - needs to be re-written without changing sentiment. It's a lot stricter on cycle lanes - note how the British regulation recommending their use by cyclists goes out of it's way to say "you don't have to use them, but it might <weasel word> be safer if you do".

myosh_tino - sure a cyclist should pull over to let people overtake if it's possible that an overtake can occur safely (and the cyclist doesn't lose too much momentum, or worse have to stop - a motor vehicle can just put their foot on the gas, a cyclist has to do a lot of work to get back lost speed). It's a courtesy of a nature that most drivers don't extend to cyclists.

[agentsteel53]

there is a world of difference between not coming to a full stop, because you've ascertained that conditions do not warrant it ...

and blowing through an intersection because ascertaining takes too much effort.

I don't care if you blow through an intersection without thinking.  go right ahead.  but if you obstruct my legally defined right of way, and I cannot evade you in time, I'm just gonna kill you.  tough break, bubbakins.

[kphoger]

It is pretty common in Chicago that I have to yell at a pedestrian who is crossing the street against a don't walk signal when I have the green arrow.

Yeah, pedestrian signals in Chicago are just decoration.  I'm amazed there's actually someone out there who shouts at the pedestrians crossing against the signal, since the whole city operates that way.  I have mixed feelings about it.

NE2, so now you are saying that the Secretary of State's office has no "force of the law"?

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/police/about.html

By your logic, I guess all rules of the road can be thrown out. Run the red lights. Go 80 mph in a school zone. Hell go ahead and drink some vodka while going down the highway. Go ahead everyone. It's ok. NE2 has given his blessing for you to do so.

You see how stupid that sounds?

I don't know how Florida operates but here in Illinois the Secretary of State's office DOES have some enforcement power and does use it. We have the Secretary of State Police. They can (and will) issue tickets just as much as a local police, sheriff's officers, or state troopers.

Before you comment on someone else's state and how it's run, get some facts.

OK, I am from Illinois.  I was born there, lived there until age eight, then lived there again from 1999 to 2008.  While I lived there (and even still), I spent a lot of time reading the exact wording of Illinois law.  And.....

A traffic law is a rule found in the Illinois Vehicle Code (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ChapterID=49&ActID=1815).  The link you provided states that the Secretary of State police's job is to enforce the Illinois Vehicle Code.  Its job is not to enforce inaccurate summaries of the actual law found in brochures, websites, and driver's ed literature.  If it's not in the Illinois Vehicle Code, then it's not a traffic law.

I once had a Secretary of State police officer stop and bother me while I was hitchhiking home from work one evening in southern Illinois.  His saying that hitchhiking is illegal even if done from off the pavement does not make it so.  I know the law, and I was obeying it by standing in the grass.  Anyway, after he called his brother to come rescue him because he'd locked his keys in the patrol car, the officer actually gave me a ride home.  On another occasion, I had a local (Wheaton) officer force me to walk out of town because I'd been hitchhiking from a sidewalk along Roosevelt Road.  I had the law on my side, and I knew it, so I emailed the chief of police a few days later; the deputy chief apologized to me for my being harassed.

Just because an officer says something is a law, just because a pamphlet says something is a law–that doesn't mean it is a law.