So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:

"On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."

https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/

116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.

In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.

This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.

On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
>
> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
>
> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
>
> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
>
> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
>
> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.

I'll address this bullshit later.

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> > So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> >
> > "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> >
> > https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> >
> > 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> >
> > In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> >
> > This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> I'll address this bullshit later.

Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.

On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
>>>
>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
>>>
>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
>>>
>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
>>>
>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
>>>
>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
>> I'll address this bullshit later.
>
> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.

'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4

....

Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
public.'

<https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>

So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
couldn't even be bothered to check.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing".. That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> >>>
> >>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> >>>
> >>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> >>>
> >>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> >>>
> >>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> >>>
> >>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> >> I'll address this bullshit later.
> >
> > Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc.. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>
> ...
>
> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> public.'
>
> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
>
> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
> couldn't even be bothered to check.

This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.

My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.

* - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.

One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.

-hh

On 2023-01-10 13:48, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
>>>>>
>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
>>>>>
>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
>>>
>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
>> public.'
>>
>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
>>
>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
>
> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
>
> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
>
> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
>
> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.

I guess little Tommie is so upset that I haven't addressed enough of his
posts to fulfill his pity party quota...

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > >> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> > >>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> > >>>
> > >>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> > >>>
> > >>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> > >>>
> > >>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> > >>>
> > >>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> > >>>
> > >>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> > >> I'll address this bullshit later.
> > >
> > > Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
> > 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> > or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> > parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> > public.'
> >
> > <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
> >
> > So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
> > couldn't even be bothered to check.
> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
>
> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
>
> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
>
> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
>
>
> -hh
That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife. Happens all the time in urban traffic. The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit. As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us. She was in the right turn or go straight lane.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:15:16 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-10 13:48, -hh wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> >>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
> >>>
> >>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
> >> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> >> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> >> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> >> public.'
> >>
> >> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
> >>
> >> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
> >> couldn't even be bothered to check.
> >
> > This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
> >
> > My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> > by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> > That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> > slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> > were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> > illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
> >
> > * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
> >
> > One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> > place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> > they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> > pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> > realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> > traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> > which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> > is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
> I guess little Tommie is so upset that I haven't addressed enough of his
> posts to fulfill his pity party quota...

Now the other shoe drops. From the driver's manual cited above I quote from Page 40:

"A roundabout is a circular intersection in which
traffic enters or exits only through right turns
and proceeds in a counter-clockwise direction.
When approaching a roundabout, incoming
traffic always yields to the circulating traffic.
For multi-lane roundabouts where the circular
roadway has more than one lane, drivers should
know which lane they need to be in prior to
entering the roundabout. Drivers should not
change lanes in the circulatory roadway.
Signs, pavement markings, or both are
provided to guide drivers to the proper lane
in advance of the circulatory roadway."

The requirement is that you enter the roundabout in the correct lane for your intended direction of traffic. For a left turn in a 4 lane roundabout you must be in your left lane. If going straight either the left of right lane can be used. Nowhere is it required that you remain on the right unless passing. That would be unsafe in this situation.

See the typical signage in the lower left corner of this diagram from the manual: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lEDMbpSv1Vu9EFnsVdntSttYfjG6plRo/view?usp=sharing

Also see the red and blue cars and the directional arrows for their travel.

On 2023-01-10 13:48, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
>>>>>
>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
>>>>>
>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
>>>
>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
>> public.'
>>
>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
>>
>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
>
> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
>
> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
>
> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
>
> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
>
>
> -hh

So, HH:

What do you want to bet that little Tommie never replies to the same
post you replied to; the one where I completely obliterate his
"highways" only argument?

;-)

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > >> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > >>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> > > >> I'll address this bullshit later.
> > > >
> > > > Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
> > > 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> > > or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> > > parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> > > public.'
> > >
> > > <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
> > >
> > > So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
> > > couldn't even be bothered to check.
> > This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
> >
> > My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> > by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> > That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> > slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> > were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> > illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
> >
> > * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
> >
> > One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> > place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> > they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> > pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> > realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> > traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> > which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> > is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
>
>
> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
> Happens all the time in urban traffic.

Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
your blind spots.

> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.

Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.

> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.

Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.

> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.

Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
waiting to happen, again & again & again.

The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right..
c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.

Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.

-hh

On 2023-01-10 16:40, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
>>>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
>>>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
>>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
>>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
>>>> public.'
>>>>
>>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
>>>>
>>>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
>>>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
>>> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
>>>
>>> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
>>> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
>>> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
>>> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
>>> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
>>> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
>>>
>>> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
>>>
>>> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
>>> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
>>> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
>>> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
>>> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
>>> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
>>> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
>>> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
>>
>>
>> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
>> Happens all the time in urban traffic.
>
> Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
> your blind spots.
>
>> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
>
> Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
>
>> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
>
> Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
>
>> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
>
> Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
> of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
> execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
> waiting to happen, again & again & again.
>
> The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
> a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
> b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
> c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
>
> Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
> of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
> lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
> miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.

I called it, didn't it? 😎

Little Tommie has replied (checking)...

....pretty much every post in this thread...

....EXCEPT the one where I posted this:

"'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4

....

Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
public.'

<https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>"

He lacks the personal integrity to just say he was wrong.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > >> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > >>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> > > > >> I'll address this bullshit later.
> > > > >
> > > > > Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
> > > > 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> > > > or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> > > > parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> > > > public.'
> > > >
> > > > <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
> > > >
> > > > So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
> > > > couldn't even be bothered to check.
> > > This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
> > >
> > > My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> > > by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> > > That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> > > slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> > > were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> > > illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
> > >
> > > * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
> > >
> > > One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> > > place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> > > they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> > > pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> > > realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> > > traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> > > which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> > > is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
> >
> >
> > That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
> > Happens all the time in urban traffic.
> Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
> your blind spots.
> > The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
> Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
> > As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
> Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
> > She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
> Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
> of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
> execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
> waiting to happen, again & again & again.
>
> The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
> a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
> b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
> c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
>
> Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
> of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
> lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
> miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
>
> -hh
You still don't get it. The other driver crossed into our lane and hit us. That was in the police report.

On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:20:31 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-10 16:40, -hh wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> >>>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
> >>>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
> >>>>
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> >>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> >>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> >>>> public.'
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
> >>>>
> >>>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
> >>>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
> >>> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
> >>>
> >>> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> >>> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> >>> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> >>> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> >>> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> >>> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
> >>>
> >>> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
> >>>
> >>> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> >>> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> >>> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> >>> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> >>> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> >>> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> >>> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> >>> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
> >>
> >>
> >> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
> >> Happens all the time in urban traffic.
> >
> > Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
> > your blind spots.
> >
> >> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
> >
> > Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
> >
> >> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
> >
> > Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
> >
> >> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
> >
> > Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
> > of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
> > execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
> > waiting to happen, again & again & again.
> >
> > The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
> > a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
> > b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
> > c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
> >
> > Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
> > of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
> > lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
> > miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
> I called it, didn't it? 😎
>
> Little Tommie has replied (checking)...
>
> ...pretty much every post in this thread...
>
> ...EXCEPT the one where I posted this:
> "'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>
> ...
>
> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> public.'
>
> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>"
> He lacks the personal integrity to just say he was wrong.

Interesting. But you failed to quote the entire regulation pertaining lane use. There are exceptions. Typical of you to do this. Here it is:

Sec. 9 . (a) A vehicle that travels at a speed less than the established maximum shall travel in the right lanes to provide for better flow of traffic on the interstate highways.

(b) This subsection applies to the operation of a vehicle:

(1) on a roadway that has two (2) or more lanes of traffic in each direction;  and

(2) in the left most lane, other than a lane designated for high occupancy vehicles.

Except as provided in subsection (c), a person who knows, or should reasonably know, that another vehicle is overtaking from the rear the vehicle that the person is operating may not continue to operate the vehicle in the left most lane.

(c) Subsection (b) does not apply:

(1) when traffic conditions or congestion make it necessary to operate a vehicle in the left most lane;

(2) when inclement weather, obstructions, or hazards make it necessary to operate a vehicle in the left most lane;

(3) when compliance with a law, a regulation, an ordinance, or a traffic control device makes it necessary to operate a vehicle in the left most lane;

(4) when exiting a roadway or turning to the left;

(5) when paying a toll or user fee at a toll collection facility;

(6) to an authorized emergency vehicle operated in the course of duty;  or

(7) to vehicles operated or used in the course of highway maintenance or construction.

In our case c (1) applied.

On 2023-01-13 19:44, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
>>>>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
>>>>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
>>>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
>>>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
>>>>> public.'
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
>>>>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
>>>> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
>>>>
>>>> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
>>>> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
>>>> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
>>>> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
>>>> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
>>>> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
>>>>
>>>> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
>>>>
>>>> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
>>>> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
>>>> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
>>>> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
>>>> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
>>>> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
>>>> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
>>>> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
>>> Happens all the time in urban traffic.
>> Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
>> your blind spots.
>>> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
>> Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
>>> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
>> Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
>>> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
>> Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
>> of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
>> execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
>> waiting to happen, again & again & again.
>>
>> The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
>> a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
>> b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
>> c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
>>
>> Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
>> of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
>> lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
>> miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
>>
>> -hh
> You still don't get it. The other driver crossed into our lane and hit us. That was in the police report.

We get it fine.

She was definitely more in the wrong.

But you were in the wrong, too; well, your wife was.

On 2023-01-13 19:54, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:20:31 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-01-10 16:40, -hh wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
>>>>>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
>>>>>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
>>>>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
>>>>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
>>>>>> public.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
>>>>>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
>>>>> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
>>>>> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
>>>>> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
>>>>> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
>>>>> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
>>>>> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
>>>>>
>>>>> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
>>>>> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
>>>>> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
>>>>> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
>>>>> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
>>>>> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
>>>>> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
>>>>> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
>>>> Happens all the time in urban traffic.
>>>
>>> Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
>>> your blind spots.
>>>
>>>> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
>>>
>>>> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
>>>
>>> Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
>>>
>>>> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
>>> of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
>>> execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
>>> waiting to happen, again & again & again.
>>>
>>> The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
>>> a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
>>> b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
>>> c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
>>>
>>> Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
>>> of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
>>> lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
>>> miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
>> I called it, didn't it? 😎
>>
>> Little Tommie has replied (checking)...
>>
>> ...pretty much every post in this thread...
>>
>> ...EXCEPT the one where I posted this:
>> "'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
>> public.'
>>
>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>"
>> He lacks the personal integrity to just say he was wrong.
>
>
> Interesting. But you failed to quote the entire regulation pertaining lane use. There are exceptions. Typical of you to do this. Here it is:

I quoted what utterly refuted your claim that streets aren't highways,
Lying Little Shit.

Can you admit that?

On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 10:44:10 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > > On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > > >> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > >>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> > > > > >> I'll address this bullshit later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
> > > > > 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> > > > > or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> > > > > parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> > > > > public.'
> > > > >
> > > > > <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
> > > > >
> > > > > So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
> > > > > couldn't even be bothered to check.
> > > > This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
> > > >
> > > > My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> > > > by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> > > > That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> > > > slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> > > > were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> > > > illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
> > > >
> > > > * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
> > > >
> > > > One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> > > > place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> > > > they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> > > > pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> > > > realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> > > > traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> > > > which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> > > > is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
> > >
> > >
> > > That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
> > > Happens all the time in urban traffic.
> > Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
> > your blind spots.
> > > The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
> > Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
> > > As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
> > Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
> > > She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
> > Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
> > of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
> > execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
> > waiting to happen, again & again & again.
> >
> > The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
> > a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
> > b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
> > c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
> >
> > Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
> > of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
> > lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
> > miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
> >
> > -hh
> You still don't get it. The other driver crossed into our lane and hit us.. That was in the police report.

No, I totally get it: the PROCEDURAL controls for the crap road design is for drivers in the circle to
keep track of how many exits they pass and to not pass by 'too many' while in the right lane.

That's what it says on paper, but that's not necessarily what the ground truth reality is of how the
circles are navigated. This disconnect is most commonly seen when you have a primary thoroughfare
crossing a secondary (e.g., two lane road / single lane road) in that traffic volume on the two lane
wants to use both lanes going straight through the circle essentially unimpeded, even though that
pedantically violates the aforementioned procedural rule: its done anyway to maintain traffic volume.

That's why this architecture is flawed and an accident waiting to happen.

-hn

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 7:14:38 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 10:44:10 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > > > > >>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> > > > > > >> I'll address this bullshit later.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
> > > > > > 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> > > > > > or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> > > > > > parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> > > > > > public.'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
> > > > > > couldn't even be bothered to check.
> > > > > This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> > > > > by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> > > > > That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> > > > > slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> > > > > were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> > > > > illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
> > > > >
> > > > > * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> > > > > place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> > > > > they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> > > > > pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> > > > > realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> > > > > traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> > > > > which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> > > > > is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
> > > > Happens all the time in urban traffic.
> > > Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
> > > your blind spots.
> > > > The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
> > > Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
> > > > As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
> > > Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
> > > > She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
> > > Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
> > > of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
> > > execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
> > > waiting to happen, again & again & again.
> > >
> > > The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
> > > a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
> > > b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
> > > c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
> > >
> > > Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
> > > of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
> > > lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
> > > miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
> > >
> > > -hh
> > You still don't get it. The other driver crossed into our lane and hit us. That was in the police report.
> No, I totally get it: the PROCEDURAL controls for the crap road design is for drivers in the circle to
> keep track of how many exits they pass and to not pass by 'too many' while in the right lane.
>
> That's what it says on paper, but that's not necessarily what the ground truth reality is of how the
> circles are navigated. This disconnect is most commonly seen when you have a primary thoroughfare
> crossing a secondary (e.g., two lane road / single lane road) in that traffic volume on the two lane
> wants to use both lanes going straight through the circle essentially unimpeded, even though that
> pedantically violates the aforementioned procedural rule: its done anyway to maintain traffic volume.
>
> That's why this architecture is flawed and an accident waiting to happen.
>
> -hn

That's not the case here in Carmel. Modern roundabouts are not the same as traffic circles that were once common out east. Our lanes are clearly marked for intended direction of travel. There are no stop signs or lights. You always yield to vehicles as you enter. We have over 145 roundabouts in the city, so the locals are well-aware of the markings and correct procedures. Surrounding towns are starting to put them in as both retrofits and in new construction. Our city accident, injury and fatality rates are lower than average and have gone down as the city installed more. Please watch this 3-year old video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqcyRxZJCXc

The roundabout where our accident happened has 4 total lanes, 2 in each direction. The correct lanes for intended travel are clearly indicated on the pavement and on signs. Signage is consistent throughout the city. Towns around us have adopted the same standard.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RBZzlEuA4DTfiEavok_vvaAkT-1msVvE/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l9tURjPeay7lLHPir7MndB57e3P9oMif/view?usp=share_link

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:09:13 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-13 19:54, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:20:31 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-01-10 16:40, -hh wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> >>>>>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
> >>>>>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> >>>>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> >>>>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> >>>>>> public.'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
> >>>>>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
> >>>>> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> >>>>> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> >>>>> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> >>>>> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> >>>>> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> >>>>> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> >>>>> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> >>>>> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> >>>>> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> >>>>> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> >>>>> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> >>>>> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> >>>>> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
> >>>> Happens all the time in urban traffic.
> >>>
> >>> Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
> >>> your blind spots.
> >>>
> >>>> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
> >>>
> >>>> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
> >>>
> >>> Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
> >>>
> >>>> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
> >>> of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
> >>> execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
> >>> waiting to happen, again & again & again.
> >>>
> >>> The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
> >>> a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
> >>> b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
> >>> c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
> >>>
> >>> Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
> >>> of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
> >>> lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
> >>> miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
> >> I called it, didn't it? 😎
> >>
> >> Little Tommie has replied (checking)...
> >>
> >> ...pretty much every post in this thread...
> >>
> >> ...EXCEPT the one where I posted this:
> >> "'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> >> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> >> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> >> public.'
> >>
> >> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>"
> >> He lacks the personal integrity to just say he was wrong.
> >
> >
> > Interesting. But you failed to quote the entire regulation pertaining lane use. There are exceptions. Typical of you to do this. Here it is:
> I quoted what utterly refuted your claim that streets aren't highways,
> Lying Little Shit.
>
> Can you admit that?

No I cannot. A street and a highway are very different. Different speeds, different locations.

Street: the roads or public areas of a city or town
Highway: a main road, especially one connecting major towns or cities

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:08:18 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-13 19:44, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> >>>>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
> >>>>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> >>>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> >>>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> >>>>> public.'
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
> >>>>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
> >>>> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
> >>>>
> >>>> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> >>>> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> >>>> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> >>>> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> >>>> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> >>>> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
> >>>>
> >>>> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
> >>>>
> >>>> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> >>>> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> >>>> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> >>>> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> >>>> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> >>>> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> >>>> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> >>>> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
> >>> Happens all the time in urban traffic.
> >> Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
> >> your blind spots.
> >>> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
> >> Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
> >>> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
> >> Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
> >>> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
> >> Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
> >> of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
> >> execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
> >> waiting to happen, again & again & again.
> >>
> >> The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
> >> a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
> >> b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
> >> c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
> >>
> >> Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
> >> of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
> >> lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
> >> miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
> >>
> >> -hh
> > You still don't get it. The other driver crossed into our lane and hit us. That was in the police report.
> We get it fine.
>
> She was definitely more in the wrong.
>
> But you were in the wrong, too; well, your wife was.

WHAT? We were in the correct lane for the traffic conditions, the other driver was not. What about that don't you get?

On 2023-01-14 13:12, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:09:13 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-01-13 19:54, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:20:31 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-01-10 16:40, -hh wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
>>>>>>>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
>>>>>>>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
>>>>>>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
>>>>>>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
>>>>>>>> public.'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
>>>>>>>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
>>>>>>> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
>>>>>>> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
>>>>>>> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
>>>>>>> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
>>>>>>> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
>>>>>>> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
>>>>>>> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
>>>>>>> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
>>>>>>> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
>>>>>>> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
>>>>>>> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
>>>>>>> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
>>>>>>> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
>>>>>> Happens all the time in urban traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
>>>>> your blind spots.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
>>>>>
>>>>>> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
>>>>> of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
>>>>> execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
>>>>> waiting to happen, again & again & again.
>>>>>
>>>>> The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
>>>>> a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
>>>>> b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
>>>>> c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
>>>>> of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
>>>>> lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
>>>>> miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
>>>> I called it, didn't it? 😎
>>>>
>>>> Little Tommie has replied (checking)...
>>>>
>>>> ...pretty much every post in this thread...
>>>>
>>>> ...EXCEPT the one where I posted this:
>>>> "'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
>>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
>>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
>>>> public.'
>>>>
>>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>"
>>>> He lacks the personal integrity to just say he was wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting. But you failed to quote the entire regulation pertaining lane use. There are exceptions. Typical of you to do this. Here it is:
>> I quoted what utterly refuted your claim that streets aren't highways,
>> Lying Little Shit.
>>
>> Can you admit that?
>
> No I cannot. A street and a highway are very different. Different speeds, different locations.
>
> Street: the roads or public areas of a city or town
> Highway: a main road, especially one connecting major towns or cities

On 2023-01-14 13:13, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:08:18 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-01-13 19:44, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
>>>>>>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
>>>>>>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
>>>>>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
>>>>>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
>>>>>>> public.'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
>>>>>>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
>>>>>> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
>>>>>> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
>>>>>> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
>>>>>> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
>>>>>> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
>>>>>> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
>>>>>> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
>>>>>> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
>>>>>> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
>>>>>> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
>>>>>> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
>>>>>> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
>>>>>> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
>>>>> Happens all the time in urban traffic.
>>>> Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
>>>> your blind spots.
>>>>> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
>>>> Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
>>>>> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
>>>> Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
>>>>> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
>>>> Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
>>>> of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
>>>> execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
>>>> waiting to happen, again & again & again.
>>>>
>>>> The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
>>>> a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
>>>> b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
>>>> c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
>>>>
>>>> Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
>>>> of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
>>>> lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
>>>> miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
>>>>
>>>> -hh
>>> You still don't get it. The other driver crossed into our lane and hit us. That was in the police report.
>> We get it fine.
>>
>> She was definitely more in the wrong.
>>
>> But you were in the wrong, too; well, your wife was.
>
> WHAT? We were in the correct lane for the traffic conditions, the other driver was not. What about that don't you get?

The Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles requires you to have been in
the right lane unless you were passing other vehicles.

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 5:45:26 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-14 13:13, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:08:18 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-01-13 19:44, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> >>>>>>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
> >>>>>>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> >>>>>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> >>>>>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> >>>>>>> public.'
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
> >>>>>>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
> >>>>>> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> >>>>>> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> >>>>>> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> >>>>>> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> >>>>>> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> >>>>>> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> >>>>>> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> >>>>>> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> >>>>>> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> >>>>>> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> >>>>>> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> >>>>>> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> >>>>>> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
> >>>>> Happens all the time in urban traffic.
> >>>> Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
> >>>> your blind spots.
> >>>>> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
> >>>> Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
> >>>>> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
> >>>> Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
> >>>>> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
> >>>> Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
> >>>> of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
> >>>> execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
> >>>> waiting to happen, again & again & again.
> >>>>
> >>>> The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
> >>>> a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
> >>>> b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
> >>>> c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
> >>>> of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
> >>>> lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
> >>>> miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
> >>>>
> >>>> -hh
> >>> You still don't get it. The other driver crossed into our lane and hit us. That was in the police report.
> >> We get it fine.
> >>
> >> She was definitely more in the wrong.
> >>
> >> But you were in the wrong, too; well, your wife was.
> >
> > WHAT? We were in the correct lane for the traffic conditions, the other driver was not. What about that don't you get?
> The Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles requires you to have been in
> the right lane unless you were passing other vehicles.

That is a flat out lie. Here is the law:

"A vehicle that travels at a speed less than the established maximum shall travel in the right lanes to provide for better flow of traffic"

You are NOT required to move to the right if you are at or above the posted limit.

On 2023-01-16 06:58, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 5:45:26 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-01-14 13:13, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:08:18 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-01-13 19:44, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
>>>>>>>>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
>>>>>>>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
>>>>>>>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
>>>>>>>>> public.'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
>>>>>>>>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
>>>>>>>> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
>>>>>>>> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
>>>>>>>> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
>>>>>>>> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
>>>>>>>> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
>>>>>>>> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
>>>>>>>> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
>>>>>>>> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
>>>>>>>> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
>>>>>>>> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
>>>>>>>> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
>>>>>>>> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
>>>>>>>> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
>>>>>>> Happens all the time in urban traffic.
>>>>>> Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
>>>>>> your blind spots.
>>>>>>> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
>>>>>> Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
>>>>>>> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
>>>>>> Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
>>>>>>> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
>>>>>> Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
>>>>>> of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
>>>>>> execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
>>>>>> waiting to happen, again & again & again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
>>>>>> a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
>>>>>> b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
>>>>>> c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
>>>>>> of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
>>>>>> lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
>>>>>> miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh
>>>>> You still don't get it. The other driver crossed into our lane and hit us. That was in the police report.
>>>> We get it fine.
>>>>
>>>> She was definitely more in the wrong.
>>>>
>>>> But you were in the wrong, too; well, your wife was.
>>>
>>> WHAT? We were in the correct lane for the traffic conditions, the other driver was not. What about that don't you get?
>> The Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles requires you to have been in
>> the right lane unless you were passing other vehicles.
>
> That is a flat out lie. Here is the law:
>
> "A vehicle that travels at a speed less than the established maximum shall travel in the right lanes to provide for better flow of traffic..."

"... to provide for better flow of traffic on the interstate highways."

Now who is leaving out words, Lying Little Shit?

That is section (a) of "I.C. § 9-21-5-9"

>
> You are NOT required to move to the right if you are at or above the posted limit.

An actual Indiana LAWYER disagrees:

'In a nutshell, if a driver on a road with more than two lanes is
driving in the left lane and another car is in the left lane and trying
to get around this driver, then the slower driver has a duty to move
over into the right lane unless one of the exceptions applies. '

On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 11:35:41 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-16 06:58, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 5:45:26 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-01-14 13:13, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:08:18 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-01-13 19:44, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
> >>>>>>>>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
> >>>>>>>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
> >>>>>>>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
> >>>>>>>>> public.'
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
> >>>>>>>>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
> >>>>>>>> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
> >>>>>>>> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
> >>>>>>>> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
> >>>>>>>> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
> >>>>>>>> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
> >>>>>>>> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
> >>>>>>>> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
> >>>>>>>> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
> >>>>>>>> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
> >>>>>>>> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
> >>>>>>>> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
> >>>>>>>> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
> >>>>>>>> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
> >>>>>>> Happens all the time in urban traffic.
> >>>>>> Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
> >>>>>> your blind spots.
> >>>>>>> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
> >>>>>> Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
> >>>>>>> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
> >>>>>> Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
> >>>>>>> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
> >>>>>> Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
> >>>>>> of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
> >>>>>> execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
> >>>>>> waiting to happen, again & again & again.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
> >>>>>> a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
> >>>>>> b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
> >>>>>> c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
> >>>>>> of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
> >>>>>> lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
> >>>>>> miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -hh
> >>>>> You still don't get it. The other driver crossed into our lane and hit us. That was in the police report.
> >>>> We get it fine.
> >>>>
> >>>> She was definitely more in the wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> But you were in the wrong, too; well, your wife was.
> >>>
> >>> WHAT? We were in the correct lane for the traffic conditions, the other driver was not. What about that don't you get?
> >> The Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles requires you to have been in
> >> the right lane unless you were passing other vehicles.
> >
> > That is a flat out lie. Here is the law:
> >
> > "A vehicle that travels at a speed less than the established maximum shall travel in the right lanes to provide for better flow of traffic..."
>
>
> "... to provide for better flow of traffic on the interstate highways."
>
> Now who is leaving out words, Lying Little Shit?
>
> That is section (a) of "I.C. § 9-21-5-9"
> >
> > You are NOT required to move to the right if you are at or above the posted limit.
> An actual Indiana LAWYER disagrees:
>
> 'In a nutshell, if a driver on a road with more than two lanes is
> driving in the left lane and another car is in the left lane and trying
> to get around this driver, then the slower driver has a duty to move
> over into the right lane unless one of the exceptions applies. '
>
> <https://chrismartindalelaw.com/2021/09/08/the-left-lane-law-and-who-needs-to-get-out-of-it/>
>
> 'Law Office of Christopher J. Martindale
> Legal Service for Hoosiers'
>
> 'Locations:
>
> 333 N Alabama St., Ste. 350, Indianapolis, IN 46204
>
> 8888 Keystone Crossing, Ste. 1300, Indianapolis, IN 46240'

On 2023-01-17 07:29, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 11:35:41 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-01-16 06:58, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 5:45:26 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-01-14 13:13, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:08:18 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-01-13 19:44, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 5:18:55 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 4:48:30 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:13:01 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-10 08:02, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:03 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-01-09 12:19, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So years ago Baker and I had quite the discussion about a fender-bender accident I was involved in. It was at a 4 lane (2 lanes each way) roundabout. We were in our left lane, going straight on and a driver in the right lane making a left turn ran into us. Baker insisted that we should have been in the right lane. His justification was "stay right except for passing". That is in fact an Indiana road rule, as it is in most states. In fact, it's mentioned in the Indiana Driver's manual. Here is the quote, page 37:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "On the highway, slower vehicles should use the right lane."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://driving-tests.org/indiana/in-bmv-drivers-handbook-manual/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 116th Street in the Carmel Indiana city limits is a street, not a highway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any event, on 4-lane city streets it is mandatory that you turn left out of the left lane. In the left lane, roundabout or not you, can go straight or turn left, but not right. That other driver violated the rules by trying to turn left out of the right lane. This was mentioned in the police accident report, and the other driver's insurance paid for our repairs, no questions asked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is how Baker lies. He leaves out any details that contradict his narrative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll address this bullshit later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Riiiight. You know you tried to apply a highway "stay right" rule to city traffic where it simply cannot apply. Either you lied or are ignorant of basic driving rules. People pass on the right all the time in city traffic, and it's perfectly legal unless you are speeding, weaving in and out, etc. What is important is that the lane you are in is correct for your intended travel direction, including anticipated turns.
>>>>>>>>>>> 'Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles § 9-25-2-4
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sec. 4 . “Public highway” means a street, an alley, a road, a highway,
>>>>>>>>>>> or a thoroughfare in Indiana, including a privately owned business
>>>>>>>>>>> parking lot and drive, that is used by the public or open to use by the
>>>>>>>>>>> public.'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-sect-9-25-2-4.html>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So not only are you a lying little shit, you're a lazy little shit who
>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't even be bothered to check.
>>>>>>>>>> This again? Thought this had gotten beaten to death years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My recollection is that Tom had admitted that they were being passed
>>>>>>>>>> by at least one car on the right before they slowed (further) for the circle.
>>>>>>>>>> That statement made the scenario pretty clear: a left lane sitter going
>>>>>>>>>> slower than the speed limit or typical flow of traffic such that other drivers
>>>>>>>>>> were getting frustrated and passing on the right…even though that can be
>>>>>>>>>> illegal* when on a non-divided highway/road.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * - it is illegal in NJ; don’t know about IN.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One of these "get around the slowpoke" had the bad luck of being in the wrong
>>>>>>>>>> place when the slow left lane sitter changed lanes *within* the circle while
>>>>>>>>>> they were preparing to exit. You can say all you want regarding how one is
>>>>>>>>>> pedantically supposed to navigate within a multi-lane circle, but one needs to
>>>>>>>>>> realize that that a procedural rule is a band-aid on the problem, namely having a
>>>>>>>>>> traffic circle (not roundabout) with more than a single lane, especially those
>>>>>>>>>> which also have multi-lane exits. These are a known hazardous road design which
>>>>>>>>>> is why places like NJ have been systematically getting rid of such traffic circles.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is correct in that the other driver was passing on the right but not yet in view of my wife.
>>>>>>>>> Happens all the time in urban traffic.
>>>>>>>> Indeed it does, which is why one always should monitor your surroundings and especially
>>>>>>>> your blind spots.
>>>>>>>>> The problem was the other driver was intending to make a left turn at the NEXT exit.
>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter that she made a mistake.
>>>>>>>>> As we exited correctly to go straight she hit us.
>>>>>>>> Which only happened because *you* crossed a lane.
>>>>>>>>> She was in the right turn or go straight lane.
>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter, because the two-lane circle to two-lane exits is the root case design flaw
>>>>>>>> of that roadway design: that configuration relies heavily on completely error-free procedural
>>>>>>>> execution by all drivers, and when that fails, you have this mode of collisions: its a failure
>>>>>>>> waiting to happen, again & again & again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The sole recourse for drivers are basically only two:
>>>>>>>> a) Despite its presence (and how you're "supposed to", do not use the left lane at all
>>>>>>>> b) If one is in the left lane, be more aggressive in yielding to the right.
>>>>>>>> c) Move from left lane to right prior to your exit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something else to keep in mind with (b) & (c) is that if there's the risk of a 'surprise'
>>>>>>>> of a car to your right (including blind spot) which does (or *might*) obstruct your
>>>>>>>> lane-crossing to exit, its a bloody --> CIRCLE <-- so just keep to your left lane and
>>>>>>>> miss the exit on your first try: just go around 360 and make another attempt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>> You still don't get it. The other driver crossed into our lane and hit us. That was in the police report.
>>>>>> We get it fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She was definitely more in the wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you were in the wrong, too; well, your wife was.
>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT? We were in the correct lane for the traffic conditions, the other driver was not. What about that don't you get?
>>>> The Indiana Code Title 9. Motor Vehicles requires you to have been in
>>>> the right lane unless you were passing other vehicles.
>>>
>>> That is a flat out lie. Here is the law:
>>>
>>> "A vehicle that travels at a speed less than the established maximum shall travel in the right lanes to provide for better flow of traffic..."
>>
>>
>> "... to provide for better flow of traffic on the interstate highways."
>>
>> Now who is leaving out words, Lying Little Shit?
>>
>> That is section (a) of "I.C. § 9-21-5-9"
>>>
>>> You are NOT required to move to the right if you are at or above the posted limit.
>> An actual Indiana LAWYER disagrees:
>>
>> 'In a nutshell, if a driver on a road with more than two lanes is
>> driving in the left lane and another car is in the left lane and trying
>> to get around this driver, then the slower driver has a duty to move
>> over into the right lane unless one of the exceptions applies. '
>>
>> <https://chrismartindalelaw.com/2021/09/08/the-left-lane-law-and-who-needs-to-get-out-of-it/>
>>
>> 'Law Office of Christopher J. Martindale
>> Legal Service for Hoosiers'
>>
>> 'Locations:
>>
>> 333 N Alabama St., Ste. 350, Indianapolis, IN 46204
>>
>> 8888 Keystone Crossing, Ste. 1300, Indianapolis, IN 46240'
>
> I agree with this. However, in none of the instances I have cited or the videos posted was another driver trying to get around me. Checkmate.