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?