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"?