From a Windsor Ontario site:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I

Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in Vancouver he needs a lesson.

At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn you MUST move to the left lane before entering the roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane and stay there until you exit. Watch the blue car.

At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn you MUST move to the right lane before entering the roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the right lane and stay there until you exit.

At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light green cars as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars transit together, side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through straight on by itself in the left lane the entire time.

The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and emergency vehicles.

These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those in Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require signaling exits. Our reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's too easy to make an error, confusing other drivers.

What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule you assume must apply in this situation is contradicted by the path of the green car at 3:55.

With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these rules. She was intending to make a left turn from the right lane. My wife did not break any rules. The other car was not in sight to my wife, and even if it was she would have expected it stay in its lane, go straight on, and not cross into our lane. The other driver had no reason to assume that we might not be turning left. Our lane was marked for straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line and hit our car.

This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer and the other driver's insurance company. We had no liability for this accident.

End of argument.

On 2023-02-07 10:59, Thomas E. wrote:
> From a Windsor Ontario site:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I
>
> Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
> Vancouver he needs a lesson.

Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane roundabouts all
the time...

>
> At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn you MUST
> move to the left lane before entering the roundabout. Then you must
> wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane and stay
> there until you exit. Watch the blue car.

Look, you Lying Little Shit:

I have never suggested that your wife should have changed lanes IN THE
ROUNDABOUT.

That is a lie.

>
> At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn you MUST
> move to the right lane before entering the roundabout. Then you must
> wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the right lane and stay
> there until you exit.
>
> At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can use
> EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light green cars
> as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars transit together,
> side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through straight on by
> itself in the left lane the entire time.
>
> The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and emergency
> vehicles.
>
> These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those in
> Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require signaling exits.
> Our reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's too easy to make
> an error, confusing other drivers.
>
> What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars going
> straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule you assume must
> apply in this situation is contradicted by the path of the green car
> at 3:55.
>
> With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these rules. She
> was intending to make a left turn from the right lane. My wife did
> not break any rules. The other car was not in sight to my wife, and
> even if it was she would have expected it stay in its lane, go
> straight on, and not cross into our lane. The other driver had no
> reason to assume that we might not be turning left. Our lane was
> marked for straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line and
> hit our car.
>

Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have been in
BEFORE you reached the roundabout.

> This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer and the
> other driver's insurance company. We had no liability for this
> accident.
>
> End of argument.

And he didn't mention speeding or agressive driving....

....which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the first place.

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-02-07 10:59, Thomas E. wrote:
> > From a Windsor Ontario site:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I
> >
> > Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
> > Vancouver he needs a lesson.
> Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane roundabouts all
> the time...
> >
> > At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn you MUST
> > move to the left lane before entering the roundabout. Then you must
> > wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane and stay
> > there until you exit. Watch the blue car.
> Look, you Lying Little Shit:
>
> I have never suggested that your wife should have changed lanes IN THE
> ROUNDABOUT.
>
> That is a lie.
> >
> > At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn you MUST
> > move to the right lane before entering the roundabout. Then you must
> > wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the right lane and stay
> > there until you exit.
> >
> > At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can use
> > EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light green cars
> > as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars transit together,
> > side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through straight on by
> > itself in the left lane the entire time.
> >
> > The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and emergency
> > vehicles.
> >
> > These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those in
> > Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require signaling exits.
> > Our reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's too easy to make
> > an error, confusing other drivers.
> >
> > What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars going
> > straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule you assume must
> > apply in this situation is contradicted by the path of the green car
> > at 3:55.
> >
> > With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these rules. She
> > was intending to make a left turn from the right lane. My wife did
> > not break any rules. The other car was not in sight to my wife, and
> > even if it was she would have expected it stay in its lane, go
> > straight on, and not cross into our lane. The other driver had no
> > reason to assume that we might not be turning left. Our lane was
> > marked for straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line and
> > hit our car.
> >
> Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have been in
> BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
> > This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer and the
> > other driver's insurance company. We had no liability for this
> > accident.
> >
> > End of argument.
> And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
>
> ...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the first place.

The officer was not there when the accident happened. He cannot write up what he did not see.

Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it goes through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay right rule does not always apply in this situation.

You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable to move to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the time.

You are the one that is lying here.

On 2023-02-07 11:25, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-02-07 10:59, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> From a Windsor Ontario site:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I
>>>
>>> Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
>>> Vancouver he needs a lesson.
>> Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane roundabouts
>> all the time...

Look!

Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!

:-)

>>>
>>> At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn you
>>> MUST move to the left lane before entering the roundabout. Then
>>> you must wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane
>>> and stay there until you exit. Watch the blue car.
>> Look, you Lying Little Shit:
>>
>> I have never suggested that your wife should have changed lanes IN
>> THE ROUNDABOUT.
>>
>> That is a lie.

Look!

Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!

:-)

>>> At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn you
>>> MUST move to the right lane before entering the roundabout. Then
>>> you must wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the right
>>> lane and stay there until you exit.
>>>
>>> At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can use
>>> EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light green
>>> cars as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars transit
>>> together, side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through
>>> straight on by itself in the left lane the entire time.
>>>
>>> The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and
>>> emergency vehicles.
>>>
>>> These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those in
>>> Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require signaling
>>> exits. Our reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's too
>>> easy to make an error, confusing other drivers.
>>>
>>> What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars going
>>> straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule you assume
>>> must apply in this situation is contradicted by the path of the
>>> green car at 3:55.
>>>
>>> With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these rules.
>>> She was intending to make a left turn from the right lane. My
>>> wife did not break any rules. The other car was not in sight to
>>> my wife, and even if it was she would have expected it stay in
>>> its lane, go straight on, and not cross into our lane. The other
>>> driver had no reason to assume that we might not be turning left.
>>> Our lane was marked for straight on or a left turn. She crossed
>>> the lane line and hit our car.
>>>
>> Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have been in
>> BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
>>> This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer and
>>> the other driver's insurance company. We had no liability for
>>> this accident.
>>>
>>> End of argument.
>> And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
>>
>> ...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the first
>> place.
>
> The officer was not there when the accident happened. He cannot write
> up what he did not see.

So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!

The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a determination of
agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit. It was literally written on
the form.

>
> Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it goes
> through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay right rule does
> not always apply in this situation.

It doesn't apply...

....IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!

>
> You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable to move
> to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the time.

I know that when you initially told the story, you had a car going
faster than you were that you saw coming and it was in the right lane
and you were in the left lane.

It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and blocked your
view.

A car was approaching from behind with the obvious intention to overtake
yours.

Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In fact, she should
have (as a matter of proper driving ettiquette if not law) been in the
right lane to begin with. For your intended travel direction there was
no need to be in the left lane in the roundabout.

>
> You are the one that is lying here.

Really?

What do you claim I'm lying about?

Would it be akin to you lying when you said:

"Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in Vancouver
he needs a lesson."

That's a lie by mistating the issue. The number of roundabouts is not
germane to the question of whether or not I have lots of experience with
driving in roundabouts.

There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all of the Lower
Mainland, but I could still be very experienced with their use.

As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane roundabouts with which I
am VERY familiar.

The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used regularly while
traveling out to UBC to play hockey:

<https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2550803,-123.2389851,374m/data=!3m1!1e3>

The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto McCallum
Road:

<https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0341631,-122.2931191,303a,35y,84.88h,2.22t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m2!1e4!1e1>

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-02-07 11:25, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-02-07 10:59, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> From a Windsor Ontario site:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I
> >>>
> >>> Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
> >>> Vancouver he needs a lesson.
> >> Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane roundabouts
> >> all the time...
> Look!
>
> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
>
> :-)
> >>>
> >>> At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn you
> >>> MUST move to the left lane before entering the roundabout. Then
> >>> you must wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane
> >>> and stay there until you exit. Watch the blue car.
> >> Look, you Lying Little Shit:
> >>
> >> I have never suggested that your wife should have changed lanes IN
> >> THE ROUNDABOUT.
> >>
> >> That is a lie.
> Look!
>
> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
>
> :-)
> >>> At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn you
> >>> MUST move to the right lane before entering the roundabout. Then
> >>> you must wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the right
> >>> lane and stay there until you exit.
> >>>
> >>> At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can use
> >>> EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light green
> >>> cars as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars transit
> >>> together, side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through
> >>> straight on by itself in the left lane the entire time.
> >>>
> >>> The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and
> >>> emergency vehicles.
> >>>
> >>> These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those in
> >>> Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require signaling
> >>> exits. Our reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's too
> >>> easy to make an error, confusing other drivers.
> >>>
> >>> What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars going
> >>> straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule you assume
> >>> must apply in this situation is contradicted by the path of the
> >>> green car at 3:55.
> >>>
> >>> With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these rules.
> >>> She was intending to make a left turn from the right lane. My
> >>> wife did not break any rules. The other car was not in sight to
> >>> my wife, and even if it was she would have expected it stay in
> >>> its lane, go straight on, and not cross into our lane. The other
> >>> driver had no reason to assume that we might not be turning left.
> >>> Our lane was marked for straight on or a left turn. She crossed
> >>> the lane line and hit our car.
> >>>
> >> Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have been in
> >> BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
> >>> This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer and
> >>> the other driver's insurance company. We had no liability for
> >>> this accident.
> >>>
> >>> End of argument.
> >> And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
> >>
> >> ...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the first
> >> place.
> >
> > The officer was not there when the accident happened. He cannot write
> > up what he did not see.
> So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
>
> The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a determination of
> agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit. It was literally written on
> the form.
> >
> > Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it goes
> > through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay right rule does
> > not always apply in this situation.
> It doesn't apply...
>
> ...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
> >
> > You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable to move
> > to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the time.
> I know that when you initially told the story, you had a car going
> faster than you were that you saw coming and it was in the right lane
> and you were in the left lane.
>
> It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and blocked your
> view.
>
> A car was approaching from behind with the obvious intention to overtake
> yours.
>
> Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In fact, she should
> have (as a matter of proper driving ettiquette if not law) been in the
> right lane to begin with. For your intended travel direction there was
> no need to be in the left lane in the roundabout.
> >
> > You are the one that is lying here.
> Really?
>
> What do you claim I'm lying about?
> Would it be akin to you lying when you said:
>
> "Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in Vancouver
> he needs a lesson."
> That's a lie by mistating the issue. The number of roundabouts is not
> germane to the question of whether or not I have lots of experience with
> driving in roundabouts.
>
> There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all of the Lower
> Mainland, but I could still be very experienced with their use.
>
> As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane roundabouts with which I
> am VERY familiar.
>
> The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used regularly while
> traveling out to UBC to play hockey:
>
> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2550803,-123.2389851,374m/data=!3m1!1e3>
>
> The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto McCallum
> Road:
>
> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0341631,-122.2931191,303a,35y,84.88h,2.22t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m2!1e4!1e1>

Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer know that you monitor this group constantly looking for an excuse to post?

Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like I said, few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in this city by the end of the year. You still need a lesson.

As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout when the other car was seen by me for the first time just before the collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in the circular. We had no reason to think that driver was going to ignore the signage or think we were intending to turn left. We do know that she was heading east before entering the intersection and in the wrong lane to turn left. There was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.

I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there was heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in the left lane.

That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by itself, approaching, going through and exiting the intersection. It's done all the time. I have shown numerous videos and pictures of cars in the left lane all by themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC driver where a BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told no, if traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left lane.

Stop lying and admit the truth.

On 2023-02-07 14:16, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-02-07 11:25, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-07 10:59, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> From a Windsor Ontario site:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I
>>>>>
>>>>> Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
>>>>> Vancouver he needs a lesson.
>>>> Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane
>>>> roundabouts all the time...
>> Look!
>>
>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
>>
>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn
>>>>> you MUST move to the left lane before entering the
>>>>> roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic and
>>>>> enter in the left lane and stay there until you exit. Watch
>>>>> the blue car.
>>>> Look, you Lying Little Shit:
>>>>
>>>> I have never suggested that your wife should have changed lanes
>>>> IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
>>>>
>>>> That is a lie.
>> Look!
>>
>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
>>
>> :-)
>>>>> At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn
>>>>> you MUST move to the right lane before entering the
>>>>> roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic and
>>>>> enter in the right lane and stay there until you exit.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can
>>>>> use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light
>>>>> green cars as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars
>>>>> transit together, side-by-side, straight on. The green car
>>>>> goes through straight on by itself in the left lane the
>>>>> entire time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and
>>>>> emergency vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>> These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those
>>>>> in Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require
>>>>> signaling exits. Our reasoning is that transit is so quick
>>>>> that it's too easy to make an error, confusing other
>>>>> drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars
>>>>> going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule
>>>>> you assume must apply in this situation is contradicted by
>>>>> the path of the green car at 3:55.
>>>>>
>>>>> With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these
>>>>> rules. She was intending to make a left turn from the right
>>>>> lane. My wife did not break any rules. The other car was not
>>>>> in sight to my wife, and even if it was she would have
>>>>> expected it stay in its lane, go straight on, and not cross
>>>>> into our lane. The other driver had no reason to assume that
>>>>> we might not be turning left. Our lane was marked for
>>>>> straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line and hit
>>>>> our car.
>>>>>
>>>> Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have been
>>>> in BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
>>>>> This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer
>>>>> and the other driver's insurance company. We had no liability
>>>>> for this accident.
>>>>>
>>>>> End of argument.
>>>> And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
>>>>
>>>> ...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the
>>>> first place.
>>>
>>> The officer was not there when the accident happened. He cannot
>>> write up what he did not see.
>> So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
>>
>> The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a determination
>> of agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit. It was literally
>> written on the form.
>>>
>>> Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it goes
>>> through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay right rule
>>> does not always apply in this situation.
>> It doesn't apply...
>>
>> ...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
>>>
>>> You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable to
>>> move to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the time.
>> I know that when you initially told the story, you had a car going
>> faster than you were that you saw coming and it was in the right
>> lane and you were in the left lane.
>>
>> It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and blocked
>> your view.
>>
>> A car was approaching from behind with the obvious intention to
>> overtake yours.
>>
>> Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In fact, she
>> should have (as a matter of proper driving ettiquette if not law)
>> been in the right lane to begin with. For your intended travel
>> direction there was no need to be in the left lane in the
>> roundabout.
>>>
>>> You are the one that is lying here.
>> Really?
>>
>> What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to you lying
>> when you said:
>>
>> "Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
>> Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by mistating the issue.
>> The number of roundabouts is not germane to the question of whether
>> or not I have lots of experience with driving in roundabouts.
>>
>> There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all of the
>> Lower Mainland, but I could still be very experienced with their
>> use.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane roundabouts with
>> which I am VERY familiar.
>>
>> The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used regularly
>> while traveling out to UBC to play hockey:
>>
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2550803,-123.2389851,374m/data=!3m1!1e3>
>>
>>
>>
>> The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
McCallum Road:
>>
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0341631,-122.2931191,303a,35y,84.88h,2.22t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m2!1e4!1e1>
>
>>
> Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
> sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer know
> that you monitor this group constantly looking for an excuse to
> post?

Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer knows, Lying
Little Shit.

>
> Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like I said,
> few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in this city by the
> end of the year. You still need a lesson.

You think the overall number is what is important, Lying Little Shit?

Fascinating.

>
> As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout when the
> other car was seen by me for the first time just before the
> collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in the circular. We
> had no reason to think that driver was going to ignore the signage or
> think we were intending to turn left. We do know that she was heading
> east before entering the intersection and in the wrong lane to turn
> left. There was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.

And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE ROUNDABOUT for a
left turn, Lying Little Shit.

But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the circular...

....as Indiana law required.

>
> I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there was heavy
> morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in the left lane.

You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of the oncoming
car that eventually hit you, Lying Little Shit.

Shall I produce the quotes?

:-)

>
> That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by itself,
> approaching, going through and exiting the intersection. It's done
> all the time. I have shown numerous videos and pictures of cars in
> the left lane all by themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that
> everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC driver where a
> BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told no, if traffic is
> not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left lane.

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 5:16:47 PM UTC-5, Thomas E. wrote:
> …
> Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups.

Pretty rich coming from the OP, particularly on a revisit to an incident …how many years ago now?

-hh

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:41:33 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-02-07 14:16, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-02-07 11:25, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-02-07 10:59, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> From a Windsor Ontario site:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
> >>>>> Vancouver he needs a lesson.
> >>>> Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane
> >>>> roundabouts all the time...
> >> Look!
> >>
> >> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left turn
> >>>>> you MUST move to the left lane before entering the
> >>>>> roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic and
> >>>>> enter in the left lane and stay there until you exit. Watch
> >>>>> the blue car.
> >>>> Look, you Lying Little Shit:
> >>>>
> >>>> I have never suggested that your wife should have changed lanes
> >>>> IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is a lie.
> >> Look!
> >>
> >> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>>>> At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right turn
> >>>>> you MUST move to the right lane before entering the
> >>>>> roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic and
> >>>>> enter in the right lane and stay there until you exit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you can
> >>>>> use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow and light
> >>>>> green cars as they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars
> >>>>> transit together, side-by-side, straight on. The green car
> >>>>> goes through straight on by itself in the left lane the
> >>>>> entire time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and
> >>>>> emergency vehicles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly those
> >>>>> in Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not require
> >>>>> signaling exits. Our reasoning is that transit is so quick
> >>>>> that it's too easy to make an error, confusing other
> >>>>> drivers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars
> >>>>> going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right rule
> >>>>> you assume must apply in this situation is contradicted by
> >>>>> the path of the green car at 3:55.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With regard to the accident, the other driver broke these
> >>>>> rules. She was intending to make a left turn from the right
> >>>>> lane. My wife did not break any rules. The other car was not
> >>>>> in sight to my wife, and even if it was she would have
> >>>>> expected it stay in its lane, go straight on, and not cross
> >>>>> into our lane. The other driver had no reason to assume that
> >>>>> we might not be turning left. Our lane was marked for
> >>>>> straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line and hit
> >>>>> our car.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have been
> >>>> in BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
> >>>>> This was the conclusion of the investigating police officer
> >>>>> and the other driver's insurance company. We had no liability
> >>>>> for this accident.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> End of argument.
> >>>> And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
> >>>>
> >>>> ...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the
> >>>> first place.
> >>>
> >>> The officer was not there when the accident happened. He cannot
> >>> write up what he did not see.
> >> So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
> >>
> >> The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a determination
> >> of agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit. It was literally
> >> written on the form.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it goes
> >>> through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay right rule
> >>> does not always apply in this situation.
> >> It doesn't apply...
> >>
> >> ...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
> >>>
> >>> You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable to
> >>> move to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the time.
> >> I know that when you initially told the story, you had a car going
> >> faster than you were that you saw coming and it was in the right
> >> lane and you were in the left lane.
> >>
> >> It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and blocked
> >> your view.
> >>
> >> A car was approaching from behind with the obvious intention to
> >> overtake yours.
> >>
> >> Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In fact, she
> >> should have (as a matter of proper driving ettiquette if not law)
> >> been in the right lane to begin with. For your intended travel
> >> direction there was no need to be in the left lane in the
> >> roundabout.
> >>>
> >>> You are the one that is lying here.
> >> Really?
> >>
> >> What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to you lying
> >> when you said:
> >>
> >> "Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
> >> Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by mistating the issue.
> >> The number of roundabouts is not germane to the question of whether
> >> or not I have lots of experience with driving in roundabouts.
> >>
> >> There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all of the
> >> Lower Mainland, but I could still be very experienced with their
> >> use.
> >>
> >> As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane roundabouts with
> >> which I am VERY familiar.
> >>
> >> The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used regularly
> >> while traveling out to UBC to play hockey:
> >>
> >> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2550803,-123.2389851,374m/data=!3m1!1e3>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
> McCallum Road:
> >>
> >> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0341631,-122.2931191,303a,35y,84.88h,2.22t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m2!1e4!1e1>
> >
> >>
> > Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
> > sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer know
> > that you monitor this group constantly looking for an excuse to
> > post?
> Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer knows, Lying
> Little Shit.
> >
> > Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like I said,
> > few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in this city by the
> > end of the year. You still need a lesson.
> You think the overall number is what is important, Lying Little Shit?
>
> Fascinating.
> >
> > As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout when the
> > other car was seen by me for the first time just before the
> > collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in the circular. We
> > had no reason to think that driver was going to ignore the signage or
> > think we were intending to turn left. We do know that she was heading
> > east before entering the intersection and in the wrong lane to turn
> > left. There was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.
> And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE ROUNDABOUT for a
> left turn, Lying Little Shit.
>
> But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the circular...
>
> ...as Indiana law required.
> >
> > I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there was heavy
> > morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in the left lane.
> You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of the oncoming
> car that eventually hit you, Lying Little Shit.
>
> Shall I produce the quotes?
>
> :-)
> >
> > That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by itself,
> > approaching, going through and exiting the intersection. It's done
> > all the time. I have shown numerous videos and pictures of cars in
> > the left lane all by themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that
> > everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC driver where a
> > BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told no, if traffic is
> > not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left lane.
> BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
>
> I quoted the law that required you to be in the right lane.
>
> Must I quote it again?
>
> :-)
> >
> > Stop lying and admit the truth.
> What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?

On 2023-02-20 06:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:41:33 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-02-07 14:16, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-07 11:25, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-02-07 10:59, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> From a Windsor Ontario site:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this
>>>>>>> in Vancouver he needs a lesson.
>>>>>> Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane
>>>>>> roundabouts all the time...
>>>> Look!
>>>>
>>>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left
>>>>>>> turn you MUST move to the left lane before entering the
>>>>>>> roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic
>>>>>>> and enter in the left lane and stay there until you exit.
>>>>>>> Watch the blue car.
>>>>>> Look, you Lying Little Shit:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have never suggested that your wife should have changed
>>>>>> lanes IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a lie.
>>>> Look!
>>>>
>>>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>>>> At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right
>>>>>>> turn you MUST move to the right lane before entering the
>>>>>>> roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic
>>>>>>> and enter in the right lane and stay there until you
>>>>>>> exit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you
>>>>>>> can use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow
>>>>>>> and light green cars as they go straight. Note that the 2
>>>>>>> yellow cars transit together, side-by-side, straight on.
>>>>>>> The green car goes through straight on by itself in the
>>>>>>> left lane the entire time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and
>>>>>>> emergency vehicles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly
>>>>>>> those in Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not
>>>>>>> require signaling exits. Our reasoning is that transit is
>>>>>>> so quick that it's too easy to make an error, confusing
>>>>>>> other drivers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars
>>>>>>> going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right
>>>>>>> rule you assume must apply in this situation is
>>>>>>> contradicted by the path of the green car at 3:55.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With regard to the accident, the other driver broke
>>>>>>> these rules. She was intending to make a left turn from
>>>>>>> the right lane. My wife did not break any rules. The
>>>>>>> other car was not in sight to my wife, and even if it was
>>>>>>> she would have expected it stay in its lane, go straight
>>>>>>> on, and not cross into our lane. The other driver had no
>>>>>>> reason to assume that we might not be turning left. Our
>>>>>>> lane was marked for straight on or a left turn. She
>>>>>>> crossed the lane line and hit our car.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have
>>>>>> been in BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
>>>>>>> This was the conclusion of the investigating police
>>>>>>> officer and the other driver's insurance company. We had
>>>>>>> no liability for this accident.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> End of argument.
>>>>>> And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the
>>>>>> first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> The officer was not there when the accident happened. He
>>>>> cannot write up what he did not see.
>>>> So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
>>>>
>>>> The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a
>>>> determination of agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit. It
>>>> was literally written on the form.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it
>>>>> goes through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay
>>>>> right rule does not always apply in this situation.
>>>> It doesn't apply...
>>>>
>>>> ...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
>>>>>
>>>>> You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable
>>>>> to move to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the
>>>>> time.
>>>> I know that when you initially told the story, you had a car
>>>> going faster than you were that you saw coming and it was in
>>>> the right lane and you were in the left lane.
>>>>
>>>> It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and
>>>> blocked your view.
>>>>
>>>> A car was approaching from behind with the obvious intention
>>>> to overtake yours.
>>>>
>>>> Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In fact,
>>>> she should have (as a matter of proper driving ettiquette if
>>>> not law) been in the right lane to begin with. For your
>>>> intended travel direction there was no need to be in the left
>>>> lane in the roundabout.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the one that is lying here.
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to you
>>>> lying when you said:
>>>>
>>>> "Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
>>>> Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by mistating the
>>>> issue. The number of roundabouts is not germane to the question
>>>> of whether or not I have lots of experience with driving in
>>>> roundabouts.
>>>>
>>>> There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all of
>>>> the Lower Mainland, but I could still be very experienced with
>>>> their use.
>>>>
>>>> As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane roundabouts
>>>> with which I am VERY familiar.
>>>>
>>>> The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used
>>>> regularly while traveling out to UBC to play hockey:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2550803,-123.2389851,374m/data=!3m1!1e3>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
>> McCallum Road:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0341631,-122.2931191,303a,35y,84.88h,2.22t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m2!1e4!1e1>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
>>> sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer
>>> know that you monitor this group constantly looking for an excuse
>>> to post?
>> Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer knows,
>> Lying Little Shit.
>>>
>>> Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like I
>>> said, few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in this
>>> city by the end of the year. You still need a lesson.
>> You think the overall number is what is important, Lying Little
>> Shit?
>>
>> Fascinating.
>>>
>>> As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout when
>>> the other car was seen by me for the first time just before the
>>> collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in the circular.
>>> We had no reason to think that driver was going to ignore the
>>> signage or think we were intending to turn left. We do know that
>>> she was heading east before entering the intersection and in the
>>> wrong lane to turn left. There was other traffic in the right
>>> lane going straight on.
>> And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE ROUNDABOUT for
>> a left turn, Lying Little Shit.
>>
>> But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the
>> circular...
>>
>> ...as Indiana law required.
>>>
>>> I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there was
>>> heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in the left
>>> lane.
>> You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of the
>> oncoming car that eventually hit you, Lying Little Shit.
>>
>> Shall I produce the quotes?
>>
>> :-)
>>>
>>> That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by itself,
>>> approaching, going through and exiting the intersection. It's
>>> done all the time. I have shown numerous videos and pictures of
>>> cars in the left lane all by themseves. It's not a hard and fast
>>> rule that everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC
>>> driver where a BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told
>>> no, if traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left
>>> lane.
>> BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
>>
>> I quoted the law that required you to be in the right lane.
>>
>> Must I quote it again?
>>
>> :-)
>>>
>>> Stop lying and admit the truth.
>> What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
>
> Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit. We were
> not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our right, turning
> right.

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 12:06:55 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-02-20 06:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:41:33 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-02-07 14:16, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-02-07 11:25, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-02-07 10:59, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> From a Windsor Ontario site:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this
> >>>>>>> in Vancouver he needs a lesson.
> >>>>>> Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane
> >>>>>> roundabouts all the time...
> >>>> Look!
> >>>>
> >>>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
> >>>>
> >>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left
> >>>>>>> turn you MUST move to the left lane before entering the
> >>>>>>> roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic
> >>>>>>> and enter in the left lane and stay there until you exit.
> >>>>>>> Watch the blue car.
> >>>>>> Look, you Lying Little Shit:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have never suggested that your wife should have changed
> >>>>>> lanes IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is a lie.
> >>>> Look!
> >>>>
> >>>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
> >>>>
> >>>> :-)
> >>>>>>> At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a right
> >>>>>>> turn you MUST move to the right lane before entering the
> >>>>>>> roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the traffic
> >>>>>>> and enter in the right lane and stay there until you
> >>>>>>> exit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight you
> >>>>>>> can use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the yellow
> >>>>>>> and light green cars as they go straight. Note that the 2
> >>>>>>> yellow cars transit together, side-by-side, straight on.
> >>>>>>> The green car goes through straight on by itself in the
> >>>>>>> left lane the entire time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks and
> >>>>>>> emergency vehicles.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> These lane use rules and the road markings are exactly
> >>>>>>> those in Carmel IN. One difference is that we do not
> >>>>>>> require signaling exits. Our reasoning is that transit is
> >>>>>>> so quick that it's too easy to make an error, confusing
> >>>>>>> other drivers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow cars
> >>>>>>> going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The stay-right
> >>>>>>> rule you assume must apply in this situation is
> >>>>>>> contradicted by the path of the green car at 3:55.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> With regard to the accident, the other driver broke
> >>>>>>> these rules. She was intending to make a left turn from
> >>>>>>> the right lane. My wife did not break any rules. The
> >>>>>>> other car was not in sight to my wife, and even if it was
> >>>>>>> she would have expected it stay in its lane, go straight
> >>>>>>> on, and not cross into our lane. The other driver had no
> >>>>>>> reason to assume that we might not be turning left. Our
> >>>>>>> lane was marked for straight on or a left turn. She
> >>>>>>> crossed the lane line and hit our car.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should have
> >>>>>> been in BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
> >>>>>>> This was the conclusion of the investigating police
> >>>>>>> officer and the other driver's insurance company. We had
> >>>>>>> no liability for this accident.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> End of argument.
> >>>>>> And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive driving....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in the
> >>>>>> first place.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The officer was not there when the accident happened. He
> >>>>> cannot write up what he did not see.
> >>>> So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
> >>>>
> >>>> The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a
> >>>> determination of agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit. It
> >>>> was literally written on the form.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as it
> >>>>> goes through by itself in the left lane. The strict stay
> >>>>> right rule does not always apply in this situation.
> >>>> It doesn't apply...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You were not there, you do not know if it was even advisable
> >>>>> to move to the right lane in the traffic as it existed at the
> >>>>> time.
> >>>> I know that when you initially told the story, you had a car
> >>>> going faster than you were that you saw coming and it was in
> >>>> the right lane and you were in the left lane.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and
> >>>> blocked your view.
> >>>>
> >>>> A car was approaching from behind with the obvious intention
> >>>> to overtake yours.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In fact,
> >>>> she should have (as a matter of proper driving ettiquette if
> >>>> not law) been in the right lane to begin with. For your
> >>>> intended travel direction there was no need to be in the left
> >>>> lane in the roundabout.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are the one that is lying here.
> >>>> Really?
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to you
> >>>> lying when you said:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this in
> >>>> Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by mistating the
> >>>> issue. The number of roundabouts is not germane to the question
> >>>> of whether or not I have lots of experience with driving in
> >>>> roundabouts.
> >>>>
> >>>> There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all of
> >>>> the Lower Mainland, but I could still be very experienced with
> >>>> their use.
> >>>>
> >>>> As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane roundabouts
> >>>> with which I am VERY familiar.
> >>>>
> >>>> The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used
> >>>> regularly while traveling out to UBC to play hockey:
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2550803,-123.2389851,374m/data=!3m1!1e3>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
> >> McCallum Road:
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0341631,-122.2931191,303a,35y,84.88h,2.22t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m2!1e4!1e1>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
> >>> sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer
> >>> know that you monitor this group constantly looking for an excuse
> >>> to post?
> >> Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer knows,
> >> Lying Little Shit.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like I
> >>> said, few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in this
> >>> city by the end of the year. You still need a lesson.
> >> You think the overall number is what is important, Lying Little
> >> Shit?
> >>
> >> Fascinating.
> >>>
> >>> As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout when
> >>> the other car was seen by me for the first time just before the
> >>> collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in the circular.
> >>> We had no reason to think that driver was going to ignore the
> >>> signage or think we were intending to turn left. We do know that
> >>> she was heading east before entering the intersection and in the
> >>> wrong lane to turn left. There was other traffic in the right
> >>> lane going straight on.
> >> And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE ROUNDABOUT for
> >> a left turn, Lying Little Shit.
> >>
> >> But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the
> >> circular...
> >>
> >> ...as Indiana law required.
> >>>
> >>> I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there was
> >>> heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in the left
> >>> lane.
> >> You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of the
> >> oncoming car that eventually hit you, Lying Little Shit.
> >>
> >> Shall I produce the quotes?
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>>
> >>> That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by itself,
> >>> approaching, going through and exiting the intersection. It's
> >>> done all the time. I have shown numerous videos and pictures of
> >>> cars in the left lane all by themseves. It's not a hard and fast
> >>> rule that everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC
> >>> driver where a BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told
> >>> no, if traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left
> >>> lane.
> >> BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
> >>
> >> I quoted the law that required you to be in the right lane.
> >>
> >> Must I quote it again?
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>>
> >>> Stop lying and admit the truth.
> >> What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
> >
> > Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit. We were
> > not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our right, turning
> > right.
> That's something you invented in your narrative later.
> >
> > https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-9/article-21/chapter-5/section-9-21-5-7/#:~:text=IC%209-21-5-7%20Reduction%20of%20speed%3B%20impeding%20normal%20and,safe%20operation%20or%20in%20compliance%20with%20the%20law.
> >
> > IC 9-21-5-7 Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable
> > movement; right-of-way to other vehicles; violation Sec. 7. (a) A
> > person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that impedes or
> > blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when
> > reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with
> > the law. A person who is driving:
> >
> > (1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of traffic in
> > each direction; and
> >
> > (2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are
> > blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;
> >
> > shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to the
> > right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable opportunity and
> > allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
> >
> > (b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by subsection
> > (a) commits a Class C infraction.
> You're doing it again, Lying Little Shit:
>
> Pointing something out to me as if you discovered it...
>
> ...when in fact, I first showed it to you...
>
> ...then you tried to claim it didin't apply because "not a highway"...
>
> ...and then I showed you that ALL roads in Indiana are highways.

On 2023-02-26 09:13, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 12:06:55 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-02-20 06:19, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:41:33 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-07 14:16, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-02-07 11:25, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-02-07 10:59, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From a Windsor Ontario site:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like
>>>>>>>>> this in Vancouver he needs a lesson.
>>>>>>>> Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane
>>>>>>>> roundabouts all the time...
>>>>>> Look!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left
>>>>>>>>> turn you MUST move to the left lane before entering
>>>>>>>>> the roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the
>>>>>>>>> traffic and enter in the left lane and stay there
>>>>>>>>> until you exit. Watch the blue car.
>>>>>>>> Look, you Lying Little Shit:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have never suggested that your wife should have
>>>>>>>> changed lanes IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is a lie.
>>>>>> Look!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>> At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a
>>>>>>>>> right turn you MUST move to the right lane before
>>>>>>>>> entering the roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap
>>>>>>>>> in the traffic and enter in the right lane and stay
>>>>>>>>> there until you exit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight
>>>>>>>>> you can use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the
>>>>>>>>> yellow and light green cars as they go straight. Note
>>>>>>>>> that the 2 yellow cars transit together,
>>>>>>>>> side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through
>>>>>>>>> straight on by itself in the left lane the entire
>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks
>>>>>>>>> and emergency vehicles.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These lane use rules and the road markings are
>>>>>>>>> exactly those in Carmel IN. One difference is that we
>>>>>>>>> do not require signaling exits. Our reasoning is that
>>>>>>>>> transit is so quick that it's too easy to make an
>>>>>>>>> error, confusing other drivers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow
>>>>>>>>> cars going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The
>>>>>>>>> stay-right rule you assume must apply in this
>>>>>>>>> situation is contradicted by the path of the green
>>>>>>>>> car at 3:55.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With regard to the accident, the other driver broke
>>>>>>>>> these rules. She was intending to make a left turn
>>>>>>>>> from the right lane. My wife did not break any rules.
>>>>>>>>> The other car was not in sight to my wife, and even
>>>>>>>>> if it was she would have expected it stay in its
>>>>>>>>> lane, go straight on, and not cross into our lane.
>>>>>>>>> The other driver had no reason to assume that we
>>>>>>>>> might not be turning left. Our lane was marked for
>>>>>>>>> straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line
>>>>>>>>> and hit our car.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should
>>>>>>>> have been in BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
>>>>>>>>> This was the conclusion of the investigating police
>>>>>>>>> officer and the other driver's insurance company. We
>>>>>>>>> had no liability for this accident.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> End of argument.
>>>>>>>> And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive
>>>>>>>> driving....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in
>>>>>>>> the first place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The officer was not there when the accident happened. He
>>>>>>> cannot write up what he did not see.
>>>>>> So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a
>>>>>> determination of agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit.
>>>>>> It was literally written on the form.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as
>>>>>>> it goes through by itself in the left lane. The strict
>>>>>>> stay right rule does not always apply in this situation.
>>>>>> It doesn't apply...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You were not there, you do not know if it was even
>>>>>>> advisable to move to the right lane in the traffic as it
>>>>>>> existed at the time.
>>>>>> I know that when you initially told the story, you had a
>>>>>> car going faster than you were that you saw coming and it
>>>>>> was in the right lane and you were in the left lane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and
>>>>>> blocked your view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A car was approaching from behind with the obvious
>>>>>> intention to overtake yours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In
>>>>>> fact, she should have (as a matter of proper driving
>>>>>> ettiquette if not law) been in the right lane to begin
>>>>>> with. For your intended travel direction there was no need
>>>>>> to be in the left lane in the roundabout.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are the one that is lying here.
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to you
>>>>>> lying when you said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this
>>>>>> in Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by mistating
>>>>>> the issue. The number of roundabouts is not germane to the
>>>>>> question of whether or not I have lots of experience with
>>>>>> driving in roundabouts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all
>>>>>> of the Lower Mainland, but I could still be very
>>>>>> experienced with their use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane
>>>>>> roundabouts with which I am VERY familiar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used
>>>>>> regularly while traveling out to UBC to play hockey:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2550803,-123.2389851,374m/data=!3m1!1e3>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
>>>> McCallum Road:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0341631,-122.2931191,303a,35y,84.88h,2.22t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m2!1e4!1e1>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
>>>>> sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer
>>>>> know that you monitor this group constantly looking for an
>>>>> excuse to post?
>>>> Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer
>>>> knows, Lying Little Shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like
>>>>> I said, few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in
>>>>> this city by the end of the year. You still need a lesson.
>>>> You think the overall number is what is important, Lying
>>>> Little Shit?
>>>>
>>>> Fascinating.
>>>>>
>>>>> As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout
>>>>> when the other car was seen by me for the first time just
>>>>> before the collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in
>>>>> the circular. We had no reason to think that driver was going
>>>>> to ignore the signage or think we were intending to turn
>>>>> left. We do know that she was heading east before entering
>>>>> the intersection and in the wrong lane to turn left. There
>>>>> was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.
>>>> And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE ROUNDABOUT
>>>> for a left turn, Lying Little Shit.
>>>>
>>>> But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the
>>>> circular...
>>>>
>>>> ...as Indiana law required.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there
>>>>> was heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in
>>>>> the left lane.
>>>> You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of the
>>>> oncoming car that eventually hit you, Lying Little Shit.
>>>>
>>>> Shall I produce the quotes?
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by
>>>>> itself, approaching, going through and exiting the
>>>>> intersection. It's done all the time. I have shown numerous
>>>>> videos and pictures of cars in the left lane all by
>>>>> themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that everybody
>>>>> follows. I cited a quote from an official BC driver where a
>>>>> BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told no, if
>>>>> traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left
>>>>> lane.
>>>> BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
>>>>
>>>> I quoted the law that required you to be in the right lane.
>>>>
>>>> Must I quote it again?
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop lying and admit the truth.
>>>> What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
>>>
>>> Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit. We
>>> were not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our right,
>>> turning right.
>> That's something you invented in your narrative later.
>>>
>>> https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-9/article-21/chapter-5/section-9-21-5-7/#:~:text=IC%209-21-5-7%20Reduction%20of%20speed%3B%20impeding%20normal%20and,safe%20operation%20or%20in%20compliance%20with%20the%20law.
>>>
>>>
>>>
IC 9-21-5-7 Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable
>>> movement; right-of-way to other vehicles; violation Sec. 7. (a)
>>> A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that
>>> impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic,
>>> except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in
>>> compliance with the law. A person who is driving:
>>>
>>> (1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of traffic
>>> in each direction; and
>>>
>>> (2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are
>>> blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;
>>>
>>> shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to
>>> the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable
>>> opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
>>>
>>> (b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by
>>> subsection (a) commits a Class C infraction.
>> You're doing it again, Lying Little Shit:
>>
>> Pointing something out to me as if you discovered it...
>>
>> ...when in fact, I first showed it to you...
>>
>> ...then you tried to claim it didin't apply because "not a
>> highway"...
>>
>> ...and then I showed you that ALL roads in Indiana are highways.

On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 12:07:26 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-02-26 09:13, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 12:06:55 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-02-20 06:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:41:33 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-02-07 14:16, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-02-07 11:25, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5, Alan
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2023-02-07 10:59, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> From a Windsor Ontario site:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like
> >>>>>>>>> this in Vancouver he needs a lesson.
> >>>>>>>> Despite having been told that I have to use multi-lane
> >>>>>>>> roundabouts all the time...
> >>>>>> Look!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a left
> >>>>>>>>> turn you MUST move to the left lane before entering
> >>>>>>>>> the roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap in the
> >>>>>>>>> traffic and enter in the left lane and stay there
> >>>>>>>>> until you exit. Watch the blue car.
> >>>>>>>> Look, you Lying Little Shit:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I have never suggested that your wife should have
> >>>>>>>> changed lanes IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That is a lie.
> >>>>>> Look!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>>> At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a
> >>>>>>>>> right turn you MUST move to the right lane before
> >>>>>>>>> entering the roundabout. Then you must wait for a gap
> >>>>>>>>> in the traffic and enter in the right lane and stay
> >>>>>>>>> there until you exit.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go straight
> >>>>>>>>> you can use EITHER the right or left lane. Watch the
> >>>>>>>>> yellow and light green cars as they go straight. Note
> >>>>>>>>> that the 2 yellow cars transit together,
> >>>>>>>>> side-by-side, straight on. The green car goes through
> >>>>>>>>> straight on by itself in the left lane the entire
> >>>>>>>>> time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The rest of the video covers encounters with trucks
> >>>>>>>>> and emergency vehicles.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> These lane use rules and the road markings are
> >>>>>>>>> exactly those in Carmel IN. One difference is that we
> >>>>>>>>> do not require signaling exits. Our reasoning is that
> >>>>>>>>> transit is so quick that it's too easy to make an
> >>>>>>>>> error, confusing other drivers.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What should have happened is shown by the 2 yellow
> >>>>>>>>> cars going straight on at 3:50 in the video. The
> >>>>>>>>> stay-right rule you assume must apply in this
> >>>>>>>>> situation is contradicted by the path of the green
> >>>>>>>>> car at 3:55.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> With regard to the accident, the other driver broke
> >>>>>>>>> these rules. She was intending to make a left turn
> >>>>>>>>> from the right lane. My wife did not break any rules.
> >>>>>>>>> The other car was not in sight to my wife, and even
> >>>>>>>>> if it was she would have expected it stay in its
> >>>>>>>>> lane, go straight on, and not cross into our lane.
> >>>>>>>>> The other driver had no reason to assume that we
> >>>>>>>>> might not be turning left. Our lane was marked for
> >>>>>>>>> straight on or a left turn. She crossed the lane line
> >>>>>>>>> and hit our car.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Your wife broke the rules about which lane she should
> >>>>>>>> have been in BEFORE you reached the roundabout.
> >>>>>>>>> This was the conclusion of the investigating police
> >>>>>>>>> officer and the other driver's insurance company. We
> >>>>>>>>> had no liability for this accident.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> End of argument.
> >>>>>>>> And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive
> >>>>>>>> driving....
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...which is what made you bring up the whole thing in
> >>>>>>>> the first place.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The officer was not there when the accident happened. He
> >>>>>>> cannot write up what he did not see.
> >>>>>> So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a
> >>>>>> determination of agressive driving, you Lying Little Shit.
> >>>>>> It was literally written on the form.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video as
> >>>>>>> it goes through by itself in the left lane. The strict
> >>>>>>> stay right rule does not always apply in this situation.
> >>>>>> It doesn't apply...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You were not there, you do not know if it was even
> >>>>>>> advisable to move to the right lane in the traffic as it
> >>>>>>> existed at the time.
> >>>>>> I know that when you initially told the story, you had a
> >>>>>> car going faster than you were that you saw coming and it
> >>>>>> was in the right lane and you were in the left lane.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It was only later on that a magical third car appeared and
> >>>>>> blocked your view.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A car was approaching from behind with the obvious
> >>>>>> intention to overtake yours.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over. In
> >>>>>> fact, she should have (as a matter of proper driving
> >>>>>> ettiquette if not law) been in the right lane to begin
> >>>>>> with. For your intended travel direction there was no need
> >>>>>> to be in the left lane in the roundabout.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are the one that is lying here.
> >>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to you
> >>>>>> lying when you said:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like this
> >>>>>> in Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by mistating
> >>>>>> the issue. The number of roundabouts is not germane to the
> >>>>>> question of whether or not I have lots of experience with
> >>>>>> driving in roundabouts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in all
> >>>>>> of the Lower Mainland, but I could still be very
> >>>>>> experienced with their use.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane
> >>>>>> roundabouts with which I am VERY familiar.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used
> >>>>>> regularly while traveling out to UBC to play hockey:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2550803,-123.2389851,374m/data=!3m1!1e3>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>
> The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
> >>>> McCallum Road:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0341631,-122.2931191,303a,35y,84.88h,2.22t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m2!1e4!1e1>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>
> Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
> >>>>> sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your employer
> >>>>> know that you monitor this group constantly looking for an
> >>>>> excuse to post?
> >>>> Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer
> >>>> knows, Lying Little Shit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave. Like
> >>>>> I said, few of these in your area. We will have 150 total in
> >>>>> this city by the end of the year. You still need a lesson.
> >>>> You think the overall number is what is important, Lying
> >>>> Little Shit?
> >>>>
> >>>> Fascinating.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As has been explained many times we were in the roundabout
> >>>>> when the other car was seen by me for the first time just
> >>>>> before the collision. You are NOT supposed to change lanes in
> >>>>> the circular. We had no reason to think that driver was going
> >>>>> to ignore the signage or think we were intending to turn
> >>>>> left. We do know that she was heading east before entering
> >>>>> the intersection and in the wrong lane to turn left. There
> >>>>> was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.
> >>>> And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE ROUNDABOUT
> >>>> for a left turn, Lying Little Shit.
> >>>>
> >>>> But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the
> >>>> circular...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...as Indiana law required.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say there
> >>>>> was heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to stay in
> >>>>> the left lane.
> >>>> You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of the
> >>>> oncoming car that eventually hit you, Lying Little Shit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Shall I produce the quotes?
> >>>>
> >>>> :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by
> >>>>> itself, approaching, going through and exiting the
> >>>>> intersection. It's done all the time. I have shown numerous
> >>>>> videos and pictures of cars in the left lane all by
> >>>>> themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that everybody
> >>>>> follows. I cited a quote from an official BC driver where a
> >>>>> BC driver asked if that was the case. He was told no, if
> >>>>> traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to be in the left
> >>>>> lane.
> >>>> BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
> >>>>
> >>>> I quoted the law that required you to be in the right lane.
> >>>>
> >>>> Must I quote it again?
> >>>>
> >>>> :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stop lying and admit the truth.
> >>>> What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
> >>>
> >>> Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit. We
> >>> were not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our right,
> >>> turning right.
> >> That's something you invented in your narrative later.
> >>>
> >>> https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-9/article-21/chapter-5/section-9-21-5-7/#:~:text=IC%209-21-5-7%20Reduction%20of%20speed%3B%20impeding%20normal%20and,safe%20operation%20or%20in%20compliance%20with%20the%20law.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> IC 9-21-5-7 Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable
> >>> movement; right-of-way to other vehicles; violation Sec. 7. (a)
> >>> A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed that
> >>> impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic,
> >>> except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in
> >>> compliance with the law. A person who is driving:
> >>>
> >>> (1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of traffic
> >>> in each direction; and
> >>>
> >>> (2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles are
> >>> blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;
> >>>
> >>> shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off to
> >>> the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable
> >>> opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
> >>>
> >>> (b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by
> >>> subsection (a) commits a Class C infraction.
> >> You're doing it again, Lying Little Shit:
> >>
> >> Pointing something out to me as if you discovered it...
> >>
> >> ...when in fact, I first showed it to you...
> >>
> >> ...then you tried to claim it didin't apply because "not a
> >> highway"...
> >>
> >> ...and then I showed you that ALL roads in Indiana are highways.
> Let's count the lies and evasions.
> >
> > Regardless of who found it first,
> I found it first... ...and you just pretended YOU found it.
>
> >the law is clear.
>
> You claimed that it didn't apply because the road involved wasn't a
> "highway"...
>
> ...until I showed you the law that statest that ALL Indiana roads are
> considered to be highways.
> > One more thing is
> > clear.
> That you've changed your story about what exactly happened multiple times..
> > You were not a witness to what happened.
> Wow! Something true!
> > You do not know if it
> > was reasonable for my wife to move to the right outside the
> > roundabout, or not.
> But I DO know that you've tried on multiple times to evade from the fact
> that I was talking about outside the roundabout and kept lying to
> pretend I was talking about inside the roundabout.
> > You did not see where that other car came from.
> And depending on which version of events you give, you saw it coming for
> a while...
>
> ...or there was another car that prevented you from seeing it.
> > Clearly it was not in front of or behind us where it belonged for a
> > left turn.
> Clearly, you weren't in the right lane before the roundabout...
>
> ...where you belonged if there was a car that wanted to overtake yours.
> >If behind or even beside us it was reasonable to expect
> > the other driver to exit with us,
> And the lie is that I ever claimed anything else.
> > not try a left turn from the right
> > lane. That's what the police report said and the other driver's
> > insurance adjuster agreed.
> The police report also said that it was not agressive driving, and the
> form REQUIRED the officer to make a determination about that.
> >
> > It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about what you
> > cannot even know.
> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
>
> How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions about things
> "you cannot even know"?

On 2023-02-26 14:04, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 12:07:26 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-02-26 09:13, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 12:06:55 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-20 06:19, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:41:33 PM UTC-5, Alan
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-02-07 14:16, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-02-07 11:25, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5,
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-02-07 10:59, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> From a Windsor Ontario site:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts
>>>>>>>>>>> like this in Vancouver he needs a lesson.
>>>>>>>>>> Despite having been told that I have to use
>>>>>>>>>> multi-lane roundabouts all the time...
>>>>>>>> Look!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a
>>>>>>>>>>> left turn you MUST move to the left lane before
>>>>>>>>>>> entering the roundabout. Then you must wait for a
>>>>>>>>>>> gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane and
>>>>>>>>>>> stay there until you exit. Watch the blue car.
>>>>>>>>>> Look, you Lying Little Shit:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have never suggested that your wife should have
>>>>>>>>>> changed lanes IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is a lie.
>>>>>>>> Look!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>>> At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a
>>>>>>>>>>> right turn you MUST move to the right lane
>>>>>>>>>>> before entering the roundabout. Then you must
>>>>>>>>>>> wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the
>>>>>>>>>>> right lane and stay there until you exit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go
>>>>>>>>>>> straight you can use EITHER the right or left
>>>>>>>>>>> lane. Watch the yellow and light green cars as
>>>>>>>>>>> they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars
>>>>>>>>>>> transit together, side-by-side, straight on. The
>>>>>>>>>>> green car goes through straight on by itself in
>>>>>>>>>>> the left lane the entire time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of the video covers encounters with
>>>>>>>>>>> trucks and emergency vehicles.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> These lane use rules and the road markings are
>>>>>>>>>>> exactly those in Carmel IN. One difference is
>>>>>>>>>>> that we do not require signaling exits. Our
>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's
>>>>>>>>>>> too easy to make an error, confusing other
>>>>>>>>>>> drivers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What should have happened is shown by the 2
>>>>>>>>>>> yellow cars going straight on at 3:50 in the
>>>>>>>>>>> video. The stay-right rule you assume must apply
>>>>>>>>>>> in this situation is contradicted by the path of
>>>>>>>>>>> the green car at 3:55.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With regard to the accident, the other driver
>>>>>>>>>>> broke these rules. She was intending to make a
>>>>>>>>>>> left turn from the right lane. My wife did not
>>>>>>>>>>> break any rules. The other car was not in sight
>>>>>>>>>>> to my wife, and even if it was she would have
>>>>>>>>>>> expected it stay in its lane, go straight on, and
>>>>>>>>>>> not cross into our lane. The other driver had no
>>>>>>>>>>> reason to assume that we might not be turning
>>>>>>>>>>> left. Our lane was marked for straight on or a
>>>>>>>>>>> left turn. She crossed the lane line and hit our
>>>>>>>>>>> car.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your wife broke the rules about which lane she
>>>>>>>>>> should have been in BEFORE you reached the
>>>>>>>>>> roundabout.
>>>>>>>>>>> This was the conclusion of the investigating
>>>>>>>>>>> police officer and the other driver's insurance
>>>>>>>>>>> company. We had no liability for this accident.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> End of argument.
>>>>>>>>>> And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive
>>>>>>>>>> driving....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...which is what made you bring up the whole thing
>>>>>>>>>> in the first place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The officer was not there when the accident happened.
>>>>>>>>> He cannot write up what he did not see.
>>>>>>>> So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a
>>>>>>>> determination of agressive driving, you Lying Little
>>>>>>>> Shit. It was literally written on the form.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video
>>>>>>>>> as it goes through by itself in the left lane. The
>>>>>>>>> strict stay right rule does not always apply in this
>>>>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>>>> It doesn't apply...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You were not there, you do not know if it was even
>>>>>>>>> advisable to move to the right lane in the traffic as
>>>>>>>>> it existed at the time.
>>>>>>>> I know that when you initially told the story, you had
>>>>>>>> a car going faster than you were that you saw coming
>>>>>>>> and it was in the right lane and you were in the left
>>>>>>>> lane.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was only later on that a magical third car appeared
>>>>>>>> and blocked your view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A car was approaching from behind with the obvious
>>>>>>>> intention to overtake yours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over.
>>>>>>>> In fact, she should have (as a matter of proper
>>>>>>>> driving ettiquette if not law) been in the right lane
>>>>>>>> to begin with. For your intended travel direction there
>>>>>>>> was no need to be in the left lane in the roundabout.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are the one that is lying here.
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to
>>>>>>>> you lying when you said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like
>>>>>>>> this in Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by
>>>>>>>> mistating the issue. The number of roundabouts is not
>>>>>>>> germane to the question of whether or not I have lots
>>>>>>>> of experience with driving in roundabouts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in
>>>>>>>> all of the Lower Mainland, but I could still be very
>>>>>>>> experienced with their use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane
>>>>>>>> roundabouts with which I am VERY familiar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used
>>>>>>>> regularly while traveling out to UBC to play hockey:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2550803,-123.2389851,374m/data=!3m1!1e3>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
>>>>>> McCallum Road:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0341631,-122.2931191,303a,35y,84.88h,2.22t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m2!1e4!1e1>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
>>>>>>> sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your
>>>>>>> employer know that you monitor this group constantly
>>>>>>> looking for an excuse to post?
>>>>>> Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer
>>>>>> knows, Lying Little Shit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave.
>>>>>>> Like I said, few of these in your area. We will have 150
>>>>>>> total in this city by the end of the year. You still need
>>>>>>> a lesson.
>>>>>> You think the overall number is what is important, Lying
>>>>>> Little Shit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fascinating.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As has been explained many times we were in the
>>>>>>> roundabout when the other car was seen by me for the
>>>>>>> first time just before the collision. You are NOT
>>>>>>> supposed to change lanes in the circular. We had no
>>>>>>> reason to think that driver was going to ignore the
>>>>>>> signage or think we were intending to turn left. We do
>>>>>>> know that she was heading east before entering the
>>>>>>> intersection and in the wrong lane to turn left. There
>>>>>>> was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.
>>>>>> And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE
>>>>>> ROUNDABOUT for a left turn, Lying Little Shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the
>>>>>> circular...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...as Indiana law required.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say
>>>>>>> there was heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to
>>>>>>> stay in the left lane.
>>>>>> You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of
>>>>>> the oncoming car that eventually hit you, Lying Little
>>>>>> Shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shall I produce the quotes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by
>>>>>>> itself, approaching, going through and exiting the
>>>>>>> intersection. It's done all the time. I have shown
>>>>>>> numerous videos and pictures of cars in the left lane all
>>>>>>> by themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that
>>>>>>> everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC
>>>>>>> driver where a BC driver asked if that was the case. He
>>>>>>> was told no, if traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to
>>>>>>> be in the left lane.
>>>>>> BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I quoted the law that required you to be in the right
>>>>>> lane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Must I quote it again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stop lying and admit the truth.
>>>>>> What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit.
>>>>> We were not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our
>>>>> right, turning right.
>>>> That's something you invented in your narrative later.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-9/article-21/chapter-5/section-9-21-5-7/#:~:text=IC%209-21-5-7%20Reduction%20of%20speed%3B%20impeding%20normal%20and,safe%20operation%20or%20in%20compliance%20with%20the%20law.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
IC 9-21-5-7 Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable
>>>>> movement; right-of-way to other vehicles; violation Sec. 7.
>>>>> (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed
>>>>> that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of
>>>>> traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
>>>>> operation or in compliance with the law. A person who is
>>>>> driving:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of
>>>>> traffic in each direction; and
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles
>>>>> are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;
>>>>>
>>>>> shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off
>>>>> to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable
>>>>> opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by
>>>>> subsection (a) commits a Class C infraction.
>>>> You're doing it again, Lying Little Shit:
>>>>
>>>> Pointing something out to me as if you discovered it...
>>>>
>>>> ...when in fact, I first showed it to you...
>>>>
>>>> ...then you tried to claim it didin't apply because "not a
>>>> highway"...
>>>>
>>>> ...and then I showed you that ALL roads in Indiana are
>>>> highways.
>> Let's count the lies and evasions.
>>>
>>> Regardless of who found it first,
>> I found it first... ...and you just pretended YOU found it.
>>
>>> the law is clear.
>>
>> You claimed that it didn't apply because the road involved wasn't
>> a "highway"...
>>
>> ...until I showed you the law that statest that ALL Indiana roads
>> are considered to be highways.
>>> One more thing is clear.
>> That you've changed your story about what exactly happened multiple
>> times.
>>> You were not a witness to what happened.
>> Wow! Something true!
>>> You do not know if it was reasonable for my wife to move to the
>>> right outside the roundabout, or not.
>> But I DO know that you've tried on multiple times to evade from the
>> fact that I was talking about outside the roundabout and kept lying
>> to pretend I was talking about inside the roundabout.
>>> You did not see where that other car came from.
>> And depending on which version of events you give, you saw it
>> coming for a while...
>>
>> ...or there was another car that prevented you from seeing it.
>>> Clearly it was not in front of or behind us where it belonged for
>>> a left turn.
>> Clearly, you weren't in the right lane before the roundabout...
>>
>> ...where you belonged if there was a car that wanted to overtake
>> yours.
>>> If behind or even beside us it was reasonable to expect the other
>>> driver to exit with us,
>> And the lie is that I ever claimed anything else.
>>> not try a left turn from the right lane. That's what the police
>>> report said and the other driver's insurance adjuster agreed.
>> The police report also said that it was not agressive driving, and
>> the form REQUIRED the officer to make a determination about that.
>>>
>>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about what
>>> you cannot even know.
>> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
>>
>> How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions about
>> things "you cannot even know"?
>
> I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do you
> have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?

On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 6:50:51 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-02-26 14:04, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 12:07:26 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-02-26 09:13, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 12:06:55 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-02-20 06:19, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 8:41:33 PM UTC-5, Alan
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-02-07 14:16, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-5, Alan
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2023-02-07 11:25, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 2:07:17 PM UTC-5,
> >>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-02-07 10:59, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> From a Windsor Ontario site:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKXirnvf_I
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts
> >>>>>>>>>>> like this in Vancouver he needs a lesson.
> >>>>>>>>>> Despite having been told that I have to use
> >>>>>>>>>> multi-lane roundabouts all the time...
> >>>>>>>> Look!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> At 2:00 in the video we are told that to make a
> >>>>>>>>>>> left turn you MUST move to the left lane before
> >>>>>>>>>>> entering the roundabout. Then you must wait for a
> >>>>>>>>>>> gap in the traffic and enter in the left lane and
> >>>>>>>>>>> stay there until you exit. Watch the blue car.
> >>>>>>>>>> Look, you Lying Little Shit:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I have never suggested that your wife should have
> >>>>>>>>>> changed lanes IN THE ROUNDABOUT.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That is a lie.
> >>>>>>>> Look!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Unanswered by the Lying Little Shit!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>> At 3:00 in the video we are told that to make a
> >>>>>>>>>>> right turn you MUST move to the right lane
> >>>>>>>>>>> before entering the roundabout. Then you must
> >>>>>>>>>>> wait for a gap in the traffic and enter in the
> >>>>>>>>>>> right lane and stay there until you exit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> At 3:47 in the video we are told that to go
> >>>>>>>>>>> straight you can use EITHER the right or left
> >>>>>>>>>>> lane. Watch the yellow and light green cars as
> >>>>>>>>>>> they go straight. Note that the 2 yellow cars
> >>>>>>>>>>> transit together, side-by-side, straight on. The
> >>>>>>>>>>> green car goes through straight on by itself in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the left lane the entire time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The rest of the video covers encounters with
> >>>>>>>>>>> trucks and emergency vehicles.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> These lane use rules and the road markings are
> >>>>>>>>>>> exactly those in Carmel IN. One difference is
> >>>>>>>>>>> that we do not require signaling exits. Our
> >>>>>>>>>>> reasoning is that transit is so quick that it's
> >>>>>>>>>>> too easy to make an error, confusing other
> >>>>>>>>>>> drivers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What should have happened is shown by the 2
> >>>>>>>>>>> yellow cars going straight on at 3:50 in the
> >>>>>>>>>>> video. The stay-right rule you assume must apply
> >>>>>>>>>>> in this situation is contradicted by the path of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the green car at 3:55.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> With regard to the accident, the other driver
> >>>>>>>>>>> broke these rules. She was intending to make a
> >>>>>>>>>>> left turn from the right lane. My wife did not
> >>>>>>>>>>> break any rules. The other car was not in sight
> >>>>>>>>>>> to my wife, and even if it was she would have
> >>>>>>>>>>> expected it stay in its lane, go straight on, and
> >>>>>>>>>>> not cross into our lane. The other driver had no
> >>>>>>>>>>> reason to assume that we might not be turning
> >>>>>>>>>>> left. Our lane was marked for straight on or a
> >>>>>>>>>>> left turn. She crossed the lane line and hit our
> >>>>>>>>>>> car.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Your wife broke the rules about which lane she
> >>>>>>>>>> should have been in BEFORE you reached the
> >>>>>>>>>> roundabout.
> >>>>>>>>>>> This was the conclusion of the investigating
> >>>>>>>>>>> police officer and the other driver's insurance
> >>>>>>>>>>> company. We had no liability for this accident.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> End of argument.
> >>>>>>>>>> And he didn't mention speeding or aggressive
> >>>>>>>>>> driving....
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ...which is what made you bring up the whole thing
> >>>>>>>>>> in the first place.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The officer was not there when the accident happened.
> >>>>>>>>> He cannot write up what he did not see.
> >>>>>>>> So according to you, then, he couldn't write anything!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The accident report REQUIRES the officer to make a
> >>>>>>>> determination of agressive driving, you Lying Little
> >>>>>>>> Shit. It was literally written on the form.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Wrong again Alan, look at the green car in the video
> >>>>>>>>> as it goes through by itself in the left lane. The
> >>>>>>>>> strict stay right rule does not always apply in this
> >>>>>>>>> situation.
> >>>>>>>> It doesn't apply...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...IN THEN ROUNDABOUT, YOU LYING LITTLE SHIT!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You were not there, you do not know if it was even
> >>>>>>>>> advisable to move to the right lane in the traffic as
> >>>>>>>>> it existed at the time.
> >>>>>>>> I know that when you initially told the story, you had
> >>>>>>>> a car going faster than you were that you saw coming
> >>>>>>>> and it was in the right lane and you were in the left
> >>>>>>>> lane.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It was only later on that a magical third car appeared
> >>>>>>>> and blocked your view.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A car was approaching from behind with the obvious
> >>>>>>>> intention to overtake yours.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Your wife should have seen it coming and moved over.
> >>>>>>>> In fact, she should have (as a matter of proper
> >>>>>>>> driving ettiquette if not law) been in the right lane
> >>>>>>>> to begin with. For your intended travel direction there
> >>>>>>>> was no need to be in the left lane in the roundabout.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You are the one that is lying here.
> >>>>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What do you claim I'm lying about? Would it be akin to
> >>>>>>>> you lying when you said:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Since Alan has few or no multi-lane roundabouts like
> >>>>>>>> this in Vancouver he needs a lesson." That's a lie by
> >>>>>>>> mistating the issue. The number of roundabouts is not
> >>>>>>>> germane to the question of whether or not I have lots
> >>>>>>>> of experience with driving in roundabouts.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There could only be a single multi-lane roundabout in
> >>>>>>>> all of the Lower Mainland, but I could still be very
> >>>>>>>> experienced with their use.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As a matter of fact, there are a few multi-lane
> >>>>>>>> roundabouts with which I am VERY familiar.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The multi-lane roundabouts on 16th avenue which I used
> >>>>>>>> regularly while traveling out to UBC to play hockey:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2550803,-123.2389851,374m/data=!3m1!1e3>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>
> The DOUBLE multi-lane roundabout at the exit of Highway 1 onto >>
> >>>>>> McCallum Road:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0341631,-122.2931191,303a,35y,84.88h,2.22t/data=!3m1!1e3!5m2!1e4!1e1>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>
> Unlike you I actually have a life outside of newsgroups. So I don't
> >>>>>>> sit around waiting for your lame replies. Does your
> >>>>>>> employer know that you monitor this group constantly
> >>>>>>> looking for an excuse to post?
> >>>>>> Do you worry your lying little head about what my employer
> >>>>>> knows, Lying Little Shit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, I did find two 4 lane roundabouts on W 16th Ave.
> >>>>>>> Like I said, few of these in your area. We will have 150
> >>>>>>> total in this city by the end of the year. You still need
> >>>>>>> a lesson.
> >>>>>> You think the overall number is what is important, Lying
> >>>>>> Little Shit?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fascinating.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As has been explained many times we were in the
> >>>>>>> roundabout when the other car was seen by me for the
> >>>>>>> first time just before the collision. You are NOT
> >>>>>>> supposed to change lanes in the circular. We had no
> >>>>>>> reason to think that driver was going to ignore the
> >>>>>>> signage or think we were intending to turn left. We do
> >>>>>>> know that she was heading east before entering the
> >>>>>>> intersection and in the wrong lane to turn left. There
> >>>>>>> was other traffic in the right lane going straight on.
> >>>>>> And I never said she wasn't in the wrong lane IN THE
> >>>>>> ROUNDABOUT for a left turn, Lying Little Shit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But you were supposed to be in the right lane BEFORE the
> >>>>>> circular...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...as Indiana law required.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I never said a third car blocked our view. I did say
> >>>>>>> there was heavy morning traffic that made it advisable to
> >>>>>>> stay in the left lane.
> >>>>>> You did later claim that a third car blocked the view of
> >>>>>> the oncoming car that eventually hit you, Lying Little
> >>>>>> Shit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Shall I produce the quotes?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That green car in the video was in the left lane, all by
> >>>>>>> itself, approaching, going through and exiting the
> >>>>>>> intersection. It's done all the time. I have shown
> >>>>>>> numerous videos and pictures of cars in the left lane all
> >>>>>>> by themseves. It's not a hard and fast rule that
> >>>>>>> everybody follows. I cited a quote from an official BC
> >>>>>>> driver where a BC driver asked if that was the case. He
> >>>>>>> was told no, if traffic is not trying to pass it's OK to
> >>>>>>> be in the left lane.
> >>>>>> BC is not Indiana, Lying Little Shit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I quoted the law that required you to be in the right
> >>>>>> lane.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Must I quote it again?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Stop lying and admit the truth.
> >>>>>> What lie have I told, Lying Little Shit?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Except that is not the applicable law, you lying little shit.
> >>>>> We were not impeding 3 vehicles. There was traffic on our
> >>>>> right, turning right.
> >>>> That's something you invented in your narrative later.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2018/title-9/article-21/chapter-5/section-9-21-5-7/#:~:text=IC%209-21-5-7%20Reduction%20of%20speed%3B%20impeding%20normal%20and,safe%20operation%20or%20in%20compliance%20with%20the%20law.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>
> IC 9-21-5-7 Reduction of speed; impeding normal and reasonable
> >>>>> movement; right-of-way to other vehicles; violation Sec. 7.
> >>>>> (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle at a slow speed
> >>>>> that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of
> >>>>> traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe
> >>>>> operation or in compliance with the law. A person who is
> >>>>> driving:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (1) on a roadway that has not more than one (1) lane of
> >>>>> traffic in each direction; and
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (2) at a slow speed so that three (3) or more other vehicles
> >>>>> are blocked and cannot pass on the left around the vehicle;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> shall give right-of-way to the other vehicles by pulling off
> >>>>> to the right of the right lane at the earliest reasonable
> >>>>> opportunity and allowing the blocked vehicles to pass.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (b) A person who fails to give right-of-way as required by
> >>>>> subsection (a) commits a Class C infraction.
> >>>> You're doing it again, Lying Little Shit:
> >>>>
> >>>> Pointing something out to me as if you discovered it...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...when in fact, I first showed it to you...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...then you tried to claim it didin't apply because "not a
> >>>> highway"...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...and then I showed you that ALL roads in Indiana are
> >>>> highways.
> >> Let's count the lies and evasions.
> >>>
> >>> Regardless of who found it first,
> >> I found it first... ...and you just pretended YOU found it.
> >>
> >>> the law is clear.
> >>
> >> You claimed that it didn't apply because the road involved wasn't
> >> a "highway"...
> >>
> >> ...until I showed you the law that statest that ALL Indiana roads
> >> are considered to be highways.
> >>> One more thing is clear.
> >> That you've changed your story about what exactly happened multiple
> >> times.
> >>> You were not a witness to what happened.
> >> Wow! Something true!
> >>> You do not know if it was reasonable for my wife to move to the
> >>> right outside the roundabout, or not.
> >> But I DO know that you've tried on multiple times to evade from the
> >> fact that I was talking about outside the roundabout and kept lying
> >> to pretend I was talking about inside the roundabout.
> >>> You did not see where that other car came from.
> >> And depending on which version of events you give, you saw it
> >> coming for a while...
> >>
> >> ...or there was another car that prevented you from seeing it.
> >>> Clearly it was not in front of or behind us where it belonged for
> >>> a left turn.
> >> Clearly, you weren't in the right lane before the roundabout...
> >>
> >> ...where you belonged if there was a car that wanted to overtake
> >> yours.
> >>> If behind or even beside us it was reasonable to expect the other
> >>> driver to exit with us,
> >> And the lie is that I ever claimed anything else.
> >>> not try a left turn from the right lane. That's what the police
> >>> report said and the other driver's insurance adjuster agreed.
> >> The police report also said that it was not agressive driving, and
> >> the form REQUIRED the officer to make a determination about that.
> >>>
> >>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about what
> >>> you cannot even know.
> >> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
> >>
> >> How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions about
> >> things "you cannot even know"?
> >
> > I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do you
> > have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
> The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up from
> behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of the accident.
>
> And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little Shit.
>
> Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
> > What proof do you
> > have that we were holding up traffic behind us.
> You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
> > Therefore what proof
> > do you have that we were obligated to move to the right lane you
> > lying little shit?
> The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's interpretation
> of it.
> >
> > The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
> > aggressively.
> Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you Lying
> Little Shit.
>
> '2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
> aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
>
> He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
> > He did not state that she was either. There was no
> > "requirement". He did not see the behavior, he could not say either
> > way, you lying little shit.
> He also didn't say she was speeding...
>
> ...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND aggressive
> driving, you Lying Little Shit:
>
> 'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can do'
>
> Remember? No?

On 2023-03-14 09:25, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
>>>>> what you cannot even know.
>>>> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
>>>>
>>>> How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
>>>> about things "you cannot even know"?
>>>
>>> I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
>>> you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
>> The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
>> from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
>> the accident.
>>
>> And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little
>> Shit.

Nothing to say, Little Shit?

Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
then you are slower.

>>
>> Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
>>> What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
>>> us.
>> You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
>>> Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
>>> to the right lane you lying little shit?
>> The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
>> interpretation of it.
>>>
>>> The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
>>> aggressively.
>> Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
>> Lying Little Shit.
>>
>> '2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
>> aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
>>
>> He was REQUIRED to answer that question.

What a pussy you are, Little Shit.

>>> He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
>>> He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
>>> lying little shit.
>> He also didn't say she was speeding...
>>
>> ...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
>> aggressive driving, you Lying Little Shit:
>>
>> 'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can
>> do'
>>
>> Remember? No?
>
> I'll not argue because none of that matters.

And yet here you are... ...arguing.

> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
> left from the right lane.

Something I never denied, Little Shit.

> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
> other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
> our lane to go straight.

Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
she ever got to the roundabout.

> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
> right front fender.

Something I never disputed, Little Shit.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-03-14 09:25, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
> >>>>> what you cannot even know.
> >>>> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
> >>>>
> >>>> How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
> >>>> about things "you cannot even know"?
> >>>
> >>> I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
> >>> you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
> >> The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
> >> from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
> >> the accident.
> >>
> >> And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little
> >> Shit.
> Nothing to say, Little Shit?
>
> Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
> then you are slower.
> >>
> >> Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
> >>> What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
> >>> us.
> >> You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
> >>> Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
> >>> to the right lane you lying little shit?
> >> The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
> >> interpretation of it.
> >>>
> >>> The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
> >>> aggressively.
> >> Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
> >> Lying Little Shit.
> >>
> >> '2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
> >> aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
> >>
> >> He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
> What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
> >>> He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
> >>> He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
> >>> lying little shit.
> >> He also didn't say she was speeding...
> >>
> >> ...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
> >> aggressive driving, you Lying Little Shit:
> >>
> >> 'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can
> >> do'
> >>
> >> Remember? No?
> >
> > I'll not argue because none of that matters.
> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
> > The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
> > left from the right lane.
> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
> > My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
> > other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
> > our lane to go straight.
> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
> she ever got to the roundabout.
> > The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
> > right front fender.
> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.

Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.

On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-03-14 09:25, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
>>>>>>> what you cannot even know.
>>>>>> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
>>>>>> about things "you cannot even know"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
>>>>> you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
>>>> The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
>>>> from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
>>>> the accident.
>>>>
>>>> And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little
>>>> Shit.
>> Nothing to say, Little Shit?
>>
>> Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
>> then you are slower.
>>>>
>>>> Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
>>>>> What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
>>>>> us.
>>>> You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
>>>>> Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
>>>>> to the right lane you lying little shit?
>>>> The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
>>>> interpretation of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
>>>>> aggressively.
>>>> Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
>>>> Lying Little Shit.
>>>>
>>>> '2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
>>>> aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
>>>>
>>>> He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
>> What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
>>>>> He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
>>>>> He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
>>>>> lying little shit.
>>>> He also didn't say she was speeding...
>>>>
>>>> ...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
>>>> aggressive driving, you Lying Little Shit:
>>>>
>>>> 'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can
>>>> do'
>>>>
>>>> Remember? No?
>>>
>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
>>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
>>> left from the right lane.
>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
>>> other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
>>> our lane to go straight.
>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
>> she ever got to the roundabout.
>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
>>> right front fender.
>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
>
> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.

I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving was not
a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim was an example
of what aggressive driving does, you Lying Little Shit.

The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.

Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.

But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened if your
wife had been in the right lane.

I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still move to the
right-hand lane whenever I can.

On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>> Remember? No?
>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
>>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
>>> left from the right lane.
>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
>>> other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
>>> our lane to go straight.
>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
>> she ever got to the roundabout.
>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
>>> right front fender.
>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.

Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where on at least a
couple of tellings.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-03-14 09:25, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
> >>>>>>> what you cannot even know.
> >>>>>> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
> >>>>>> about things "you cannot even know"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
> >>>>> you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
> >>>> The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
> >>>> from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
> >>>> the accident.
> >>>>
> >>>> And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little
> >>>> Shit.
> >> Nothing to say, Little Shit?
> >>
> >> Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
> >> then you are slower.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
> >>>>> What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
> >>>>> us.
> >>>> You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
> >>>>> Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
> >>>>> to the right lane you lying little shit?
> >>>> The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
> >>>> interpretation of it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
> >>>>> aggressively.
> >>>> Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
> >>>> Lying Little Shit.
> >>>>
> >>>> '2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
> >>>> aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
> >>>>
> >>>> He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
> >> What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
> >>>>> He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
> >>>>> He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
> >>>>> lying little shit.
> >>>> He also didn't say she was speeding...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
> >>>> aggressive driving, you Lying Little Shit:
> >>>>
> >>>> 'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can
> >>>> do'
> >>>>
> >>>> Remember? No?
> >>>
> >>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
> >> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
> >>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
> >>> left from the right lane.
> >> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
> >>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
> >>> other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
> >>> our lane to go straight.
> >> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
> >> she ever got to the roundabout.
> >>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
> >>> right front fender.
> >> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
> >
> > Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
> I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving was not
> a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim was an example
> of what aggressive driving does, you Lying Little Shit.
>
> The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
>
> Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.
>
> But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened if your
> wife had been in the right lane.
>
> I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still move to the
> right-hand lane whenever I can.

So you are insisting that regardless of road markings and other traffic she should have moved to the right lane?

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-03-14 09:25, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
> >>>>>>> what you cannot even know.
> >>>>>> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
> >>>>>> about things "you cannot even know"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
> >>>>> you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
> >>>> The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
> >>>> from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
> >>>> the accident.
> >>>>
> >>>> And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little
> >>>> Shit.
> >> Nothing to say, Little Shit?
> >>
> >> Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
> >> then you are slower.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
> >>>>> What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
> >>>>> us.
> >>>> You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
> >>>>> Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
> >>>>> to the right lane you lying little shit?
> >>>> The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
> >>>> interpretation of it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
> >>>>> aggressively.
> >>>> Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
> >>>> Lying Little Shit.
> >>>>
> >>>> '2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
> >>>> aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
> >>>>
> >>>> He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
> >> What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
> >>>>> He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
> >>>>> He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
> >>>>> lying little shit.
> >>>> He also didn't say she was speeding...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
> >>>> aggressive driving, you Lying Little Shit:
> >>>>
> >>>> 'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can
> >>>> do'
> >>>>
> >>>> Remember? No?
> >>>
> >>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
> >> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
> >>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
> >>> left from the right lane.
> >> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
> >>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
> >>> other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
> >>> our lane to go straight.
> >> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
> >> she ever got to the roundabout.
> >>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
> >>> right front fender.
> >> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
> >
> > Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
> I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving was not
> a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim was an example
> of what aggressive driving does, you Lying Little Shit.
>
> The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
>
> Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.
>
> But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened if your
> wife had been in the right lane.
>
> I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still move to the
> right-hand lane whenever I can.

Reply # 2 - The officer did not say anything about the other driver's aggressive driving or lack thereof. I did not mention it to him either. There was no need to. She told him she was in the wrong lane. That's all he needed to know.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:32:41 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>> Remember? No?
> >>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
> >> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
> >>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
> >>> left from the right lane.
> >> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
> >>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
> >>> other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
> >>> our lane to go straight.
> >> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
> >> she ever got to the roundabout.
> >>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
> >>> right front fender.
> >> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
> > Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
> Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where on at least a
> couple of tellings.

By the way, I notice that you have not replied to my latest email. LOL

On 2023-03-29 11:34, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-03-14 09:25, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
>>>>>>>>> what you cannot even know.
>>>>>>>> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
>>>>>>>> about things "you cannot even know"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
>>>>>>> you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
>>>>>> The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
>>>>>> from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
>>>>>> the accident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little
>>>>>> Shit.
>>>> Nothing to say, Little Shit?
>>>>
>>>> Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
>>>> then you are slower.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
>>>>>>> What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>> You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
>>>>>>> Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
>>>>>>> to the right lane you lying little shit?
>>>>>> The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
>>>>>> interpretation of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
>>>>>>> aggressively.
>>>>>> Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
>>>>>> Lying Little Shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> '2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
>>>>>> aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
>>>> What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
>>>>>>> He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
>>>>>>> He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
>>>>>>> lying little shit.
>>>>>> He also didn't say she was speeding...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
>>>>>> aggressive driving, you Lying Little Shit:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can
>>>>>> do'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember? No?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
>>>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
>>>>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
>>>>> left from the right lane.
>>>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
>>>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
>>>>> other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
>>>>> our lane to go straight.
>>>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
>>>> she ever got to the roundabout.
>>>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
>>>>> right front fender.
>>>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
>>>
>>> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
>> I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving was not
>> a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim was an example
>> of what aggressive driving does, you Lying Little Shit.
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
>>
>> Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.
>>
>> But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened if your
>> wife had been in the right lane.
>>
>> I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still move to the
>> right-hand lane whenever I can.
>
> So you are insisting that regardless of road markings and other traffic she should have moved to the right lane?

And you're playing your little shit games again.

On 2023-03-29 11:38, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-03-14 09:25, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
>>>>>>>>> what you cannot even know.
>>>>>>>> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
>>>>>>>> about things "you cannot even know"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
>>>>>>> you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
>>>>>> The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
>>>>>> from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
>>>>>> the accident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little
>>>>>> Shit.
>>>> Nothing to say, Little Shit?
>>>>
>>>> Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
>>>> then you are slower.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
>>>>>>> What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>> You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
>>>>>>> Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
>>>>>>> to the right lane you lying little shit?
>>>>>> The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
>>>>>> interpretation of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
>>>>>>> aggressively.
>>>>>> Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
>>>>>> Lying Little Shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> '2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
>>>>>> aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
>>>> What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
>>>>>>> He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
>>>>>>> He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
>>>>>>> lying little shit.
>>>>>> He also didn't say she was speeding...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
>>>>>> aggressive driving, you Lying Little Shit:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can
>>>>>> do'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember? No?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
>>>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
>>>>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
>>>>> left from the right lane.
>>>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
>>>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
>>>>> other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
>>>>> our lane to go straight.
>>>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
>>>> she ever got to the roundabout.
>>>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
>>>>> right front fender.
>>>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
>>>
>>> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
>> I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving was not
>> a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim was an example
>> of what aggressive driving does, you Lying Little Shit.
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
>>
>> Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.
>>
>> But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened if your
>> wife had been in the right lane.
>>
>> I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still move to the
>> right-hand lane whenever I can.
>
> Reply # 2 - The officer did not say anything about the other driver's aggressive driving or lack thereof.

You are lying.

The form required him to answer and he answered "No".

But a liar is who you are.

On 2023-03-29 11:39, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:32:41 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>> Remember? No?
>>>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
>>>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
>>>>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
>>>>> left from the right lane.
>>>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
>>>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
>>>>> other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
>>>>> our lane to go straight.
>>>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
>>>> she ever got to the roundabout.
>>>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
>>>>> right front fender.
>>>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
>>> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
>> Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where on at least a
>> couple of tellings.
>
> By the way, I notice that you have not replied to my latest email. LOL

Good of you to call out your stalking, you lying Little Shit.

Come to Vancouver...

....and we'll discuss it.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 2:46:49 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-03-29 11:38, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-03-14 09:25, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop lying about
> >>>>>>>>> what you cannot even know.
> >>>>>>>> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How many lies have you told about me by making assumptions
> >>>>>>>> about things "you cannot even know"?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What proof do
> >>>>>>> you have that we were slower than prevailing traffic?
> >>>>>> The fact that in your initial post you described a car coming up
> >>>>>> from behind you and getting to slightly ahead of you at the time of
> >>>>>> the accident.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing traffic", Little
> >>>>>> Shit.
> >>>> Nothing to say, Little Shit?
> >>>>
> >>>> Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster than you,
> >>>> then you are slower.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
> >>>>>>> What proof do you have that we were holding up traffic behind
> >>>>>>> us.
> >>>>>> You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation of the law.
> >>>>>>> Therefore what proof do you have that we were obligated to move
> >>>>>>> to the right lane you lying little shit?
> >>>>>> The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana lawyer's
> >>>>>> interpretation of it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The officer did not state that the other driver was not driving
> >>>>>>> aggressively.
> >>>>>> Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident report, you
> >>>>>> Lying Little Shit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> '2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash a result of
> >>>>>> aggressive driving", and the officer answered a flat "NO".'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
> >>>> What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
> >>>>>>> He did not state that she was either. There was no "requirement".
> >>>>>>> He did not see the behavior, he could not say either way, you
> >>>>>>> lying little shit.
> >>>>>> He also didn't say she was speeding...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...but you used that accident as an example of speeding AND
> >>>>>> aggressive driving, you Lying Little Shit:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers like you can
> >>>>>> do'
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Remember? No?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
> >>>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
> >>>>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
> >>>>> left from the right lane.
> >>>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
> >>>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
> >>>>> other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
> >>>>> our lane to go straight.
> >>>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
> >>>> she ever got to the roundabout.
> >>>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
> >>>>> right front fender.
> >>>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
> >>>
> >>> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
> >> I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving was not
> >> a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim was an example
> >> of what aggressive driving does, you Lying Little Shit.
> >>
> >> The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
> >>
> >> Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you. Definitely.
> >>
> >> But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened if your
> >> wife had been in the right lane.
> >>
> >> I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still move to the
> >> right-hand lane whenever I can.
> >
> > Reply # 2 - The officer did not say anything about the other driver's aggressive driving or lack thereof.
> You are lying.
>
> The form required him to answer and he answered "No".
>
> But a liar is who you are.

He did not check any box for aggressive driving. As I have stated many times, he did not see the accident. The only box he checked for the other driver was improper lane use. That was information obtained from the other driver.

Anyway, you were not there. You did not see the traffic. You have never seen the actual street. You have no idea as to whether or not we were even the slowest moving vehicle in that stream. Therefore, you cannot say whether or not "move to the right" was required.

Keep insisting it was, but you are wrong. End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.