On 6/18/24 8:05 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-06-18 15:23, Tom Elam wrote:
On 6/18/2024 2:41 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-06-18 07:51, Tom Elam wrote:
On 2/21/2024 4:01 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-02-21 11:46, Thomas E. wrote:
Do not respond to this troll if he responds to you! Regardless of
lack of personal first-hand experience he will claim to be an
expert in any area he chooses to criticize.
That includes, among others:
Driving in Carmel IN - he has never been here
I don't have to have driven IN Carmel to know the rules of the road... >>>>>
...dick
Entering flights in pilot logbooks - never done that himself, not
a pilot
But I can analyze "data" that looks too perfect...
...dick
How CarPlay/Siri interact - his car does not have CarPlay, never has >>>>>
Yet I know that an Apple Maps database problem isn't a Siri problem... >>>>>
...dick
Siri versus Google voice heuristics - apparently has little Google >>>>>> experience
Example... ...dick?
Honda car B pilar tensile strength - he is not a metallurgist
Interpreting a police auto accident report - can't see that an
innocent driver had no fault shown, did not witness the accident,
still insists the driver was at fault.
Liar, dick. I never insisted your wife was at fault. In insisted
that if she had been in the right hand lane (as Indiana law
required), then the other driver wouldn't have tried to pass on the
left...
...dick.
And the police report which you cite as an authority on what
happened doesn't cite speeding as a cause...
...dick.
Insists that Siri results on his iPhone is the same as you get on
CarPlay - his car does not have CarPlay, never has
And others too numerous to mention.
Because CarPlay is just an alternate UI, dick.
But he does not always lie. On Facebook he claims:
"Deep down... ...I'm nothing but trouble." This not a lie. He
loves to cause trouble in peoples' lives.
"I'd love you more for your mind if it bounced gently when you
walked" Not a lie either. Alan is myogenous.
I'll not be replying any time soon, Alan
Good news, dick.
Does that mean you'll stop your stalking as well?
Alan, the rules of the road are well known. If roundabout signage
indicates you can use a lane to go straight you can use that lane to
go straight.
And I never said different.
You know what else the report doesn't say?
That the other driver was speeding or that speeding was a factor in
the accident.
That police report does not indicate my wife was guilty of improper
lane use, but the other driver was.
And I never said the report said that...
...but she was in the left lane when she ENTERED the roundabout, and
if she'd been in the correct lane (always travel in the right lane
except when passing is an Indiana law; I cited it, you argued it and
lost) the accident wouldn't happened.
And the left lane is CLEARLY permitted by signage painted on the
roadway AND posted on a sign. AGAIN, the police were informed of our
intentions to go straight through in the left lane and did not cite us
for improper lane use. If we were supposed to be in the right lane the
signs should indicate the left lane is for left turns only and the
right lane for right turn for and straight through. Please explain why
the signs don't agree with your interpretation.
The left lane is signed IN THE ROUNDABOUT, Liarboy.
BEFORE the roundabout, the law in Indiana is clear:
Keep right except to pass.
If you want I'll show you a local roundabout where the left lane entry
is for left turns only. But it's a very different road pattern. You
have something similar over UBC.
We've been over all of this and you're doing what you have always done
in our discussions:
Take things that I've told you and turn around and behave as if I'm the
one who needs to have it explained.
Your wife should have been in the right hand lane BEFORE she got to the roundabout.
If she had been...
...as Indiana law requires...
...the other car would have been passing her on the left, and there
would have been no conflict.
This is the real irony of this long saga: inasmuch as Tom wants to
deflect having any responsibility for their fender-bender, the fact
remains that there was another car to their right, whose position
indicates overtaking traffic.
The inevitability of interactions is why one practices defensive driving
and anticipates other drivers making mistakes: a good driver is thus
not only aware of other vehicles (& the potential that they overlooked
one), but also seeks to afford other vehicles viable "escape paths", for
not only seen but also for potential unseen vehicles.
FWIW, I can't recall where I got the citation from, but statistically,
ones risks of a collision increase by roughly 5% if one is driving
slower than traffic and is being overtaken. Makes sense when you see collisions like this one.
CarPlay is way more than an alternate GUI. CarPlay is WAY more
restrictive than the iPhone. Example. On the iPhone Hey Siri/Hey
Google brings up Google Assistant. On CarPlay the same command
returns something like "I can't do that while you are driving." Of
course you would not know. You don't use CarPlay.
That is exactly what "alternate" means with regard to interfaces,
Liarboy.
What you don't seem to get is that CarPlay just does not work exactly
like the iPhone UI. Thus you whine when I show CarPlay results that
you can't duplicate on your phone.
I never said it did work "exactly like the iPhone UI", you miserable,
lying piece of shit.
And what you showed was a problem was only a problem because Apple MAPS lacked data that Google MAPS had.
It literally had NOTHING to do with which UI was used.
Ran into something similar this earlier this month with a rental that
had CarPlay: TL;DR is that the UI got wonky when one's smartphone was
pushing Google Maps over CarPlay while the vehicle's system was running
Apple Maps. Not sure how much of it was lack of familiarity, though.
BTW, Avis at Asheville NC airport is to be avoided: nearly 2 hour delay
to pick up a reserved vehicle (w/"Wizard" status making no difference).
-hh
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)