Please open the link below. It's the Indiana Driver's Manual. It's what
new drivers are expected to know when taking their written test.
https://www.in.gov/bmv/licenses-permits-ids/learners-permits-and-drivers-licenses-overview/learners-permit/drivers-manual/
You have insisted that the "stay right except to pass" law is a critical
and must always be obeyed. Read the entire manual. Now please cite
mention of this specific law in the manual.
With respect to roundabouts, on page 40:
"For multi-lane roundabouts where the circular
roadway has more than one lane, drivers should
know which lane they need to be in prior to
entering the roundabout. Drivers should not
change lanes in the circulatory roadway."
"Signs, pavement markings, or both are
provided to guide drivers to the proper lane
in advance of the circulatory roadway."
Where does this or any other manual language indicate that regardless of traffic conditions the left lane of a 4-lane roundabout cannot be used
to continue straight if that lane is signposted for straight-through use?
BC has a stray right law too. Please open Google Earth and go to 49 15
14.9 N 123 14 28.3 W. This is the intersection of 16th Ave and East Mall
on the UBC campus. Explain why 16th Ave is signposted for straight
through traffic in both lanes and both directions. If you must stay in
the right lane should the 16th Ave left lane be posted for left turns
only???
I await your response.
On 6/26/2024 12:53 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-06-25 10:01, Tom Elam wrote:
Please open the link below. It's the Indiana Driver's Manual. It's
what new drivers are expected to know when taking their written test.
https://www.in.gov/bmv/licenses-permits-ids/learners-permits-and-drivers-licenses-overview/learners-permit/drivers-manual/
You have insisted that the "stay right except to pass" law is a
critical and must always be obeyed. Read the entire manual. Now
please cite mention of this specific law in the manual.
With respect to roundabouts, on page 40:
"For multi-lane roundabouts where the circular
roadway has more than one lane, drivers should
know which lane they need to be in prior to
entering the roundabout. Drivers should not
change lanes in the circulatory roadway."
"Signs, pavement markings, or both are
provided to guide drivers to the proper lane
in advance of the circulatory roadway."
Where does this or any other manual language indicate that regardless
of traffic conditions the left lane of a 4-lane roundabout cannot be
used to continue straight if that lane is signposted for
straight-through use?
BC has a stray right law too. Please open Google Earth and go to 49
15 14.9 N 123 14 28.3 W. This is the intersection of 16th Ave and
East Mall on the UBC campus. Explain why 16th Ave is signposted for
straight through traffic in both lanes and both directions. If you
must stay in the right lane should the 16th Ave left lane be posted
for left turns only???
I await your response.
I don't know whether this is your inherent dishonesty, or whether
you're just getting senile.
We discussed this previously, Liarboy.
The issue is that she was in the left lane of two before she ENTERED
the roundabout.
And Indiana law is utterly clear that she wasn't supposed to be there.
I don't know whether this is your inherent dishonesty, or whether you're
just getting senile.
We discussed this previously, Liarboy.
You have failed to cite the law correctly yet again. The law states
"Indiana Code 9-21-5-9. (a) A vehicle that travels at a speed less than
the established maximum shall travel in the right lanes to provide for
better flow of traffic on the interstate highways."
https://iga.in.gov/laws/2022/ic/titles/9#9-21-5-9
"Terms Used In Indiana Code 9-21-5-9
Highway: includes county bridges and state and county roads, unless
otherwise expressly provided. See Indiana Code 1-1-4-5"
106th Street is a city street. The law does not even apply.
So, in absence of an applicable regulation the roundabout signage
clearly indicates either lane can be used for going straight through. If
it was otherwise it would need to be posted for right lane straight or
turn right only and left lane for left turn only. You do not need to be
in the right lane if the signage indicates you have a choice and
prevailing traffic is not trying to pass you.
We were moving at the traffic's prevailing speed. This has all been
explained to you, Liarboy. The other driver was exceeding the prevailing speed, illegally trying to pass us in the right lane to make a left turn
at the next exit. For this she was cited for illegal lane use. The wife
was in the correct lane and was not cited by an investigating city
officer. Even if you apply the law intended for multi-lane interstates
and rural highways we were in the correct lane.
You continue to attempt to ex post facto impose a rule that did not
apply to the situation at the time of the accident. Of course you need
to do this. You MUST be right.
On 6/26/2024 2:34 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-06-26 11:16, Tom Elam wrote:
On 6/26/2024 12:53 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-06-25 10:01, Tom Elam wrote:
Please open the link below. It's the Indiana Driver's Manual. It's
what new drivers are expected to know when taking their written test. >>>>>
https://www.in.gov/bmv/licenses-permits-ids/learners-permits-and-drivers-licenses-overview/learners-permit/drivers-manual/
You have insisted that the "stay right except to pass" law is a
critical and must always be obeyed. Read the entire manual. Now
please cite mention of this specific law in the manual.
With respect to roundabouts, on page 40:
"For multi-lane roundabouts where the circular
roadway has more than one lane, drivers should
know which lane they need to be in prior to
entering the roundabout. Drivers should not
change lanes in the circulatory roadway."
"Signs, pavement markings, or both are
provided to guide drivers to the proper lane
in advance of the circulatory roadway."
Where does this or any other manual language indicate that
regardless of traffic conditions the left lane of a 4-lane
roundabout cannot be used to continue straight if that lane is
signposted for straight-through use?
BC has a stray right law too. Please open Google Earth and go to 49
15 14.9 N 123 14 28.3 W. This is the intersection of 16th Ave and
East Mall on the UBC campus. Explain why 16th Ave is signposted for
straight through traffic in both lanes and both directions. If you
must stay in the right lane should the 16th Ave left lane be posted
for left turns only???
I await your response.
I don't know whether this is your inherent dishonesty, or whether
you're just getting senile.
We discussed this previously, Liarboy.
The issue is that she was in the left lane of two before she ENTERED
the roundabout.
And Indiana law is utterly clear that she wasn't supposed to be there.
I don't know whether this is your inherent dishonesty, or whether you're >>> just getting senile.
We discussed this previously, Liarboy.
You have failed to cite the law correctly yet again. The law states
"Indiana Code 9-21-5-9. (a) A vehicle that travels at a speed less
than the established maximum shall travel in the right lanes to
provide for better flow of traffic on the interstate highways."
https://iga.in.gov/laws/2022/ic/titles/9#9-21-5-9
"Terms Used In Indiana Code 9-21-5-9
Highway: includes county bridges and state and county roads, unless
otherwise expressly provided. See Indiana Code 1-1-4-5"
106th Street is a city street. The law does not even apply.
So, in absence of an applicable regulation the roundabout signage
clearly indicates either lane can be used for going straight through.
If it was otherwise it would need to be posted for right lane
straight or turn right only and left lane for left turn only. You do
not need to be in the right lane if the signage indicates you have a
choice and prevailing traffic is not trying to pass you.
We were moving at the traffic's prevailing speed. This has all been
explained to you, Liarboy. The other driver was exceeding the
prevailing speed, illegally trying to pass us in the right lane to
make a left turn at the next exit. For this she was cited for illegal
lane use. The wife was in the correct lane and was not cited by an
investigating city officer. Even if you apply the law intended for
multi-lane interstates and rural highways we were in the correct lane.
You continue to attempt to ex post facto impose a rule that did not
apply to the situation at the time of the accident. Of course you
need to do this. You MUST be right.
'Except as provided in subsection (c), a person who knows, or should
reasonably know, that another vehicle is overtaking from the rear the
vehicle that the person is operating may not continue to operate the
vehicle in the left most lane.'
None of the conditions of subsection (c) applied to your wife that
day, and...
...you don't know that she wasn't travelling at less than "established
maximum" (unless you could magically have been watching both the car
behind AND have be keep an eye on the speedometer at the same time)
, and...
...I already cited an Indiana lawyer on this issue:
'In other words, drivers should stay to the right and only use the
left lane when passing. The driver who remains in the left lane and
prevents other drivers from lawfully passing them on the left is the
one who is breaking the law.'
Your wife knew or should have known that a car behind her was
travelling faster than she was and so should have moved to the right
lane.
At which point, the other car moves to the left lane and at the
roundabout there is no conflict.
Your wife's violation of Indiana Code 9-21-5-9 was a direct factor in
there being a collision at all.
And you know that there was someone behind us wanting to pass when we
entered the roundabout? How do you know that? We were in the second of 2 closely spaced roundabouts. Could the driver who hit us could have
caught up while we in the roundabout circulars? Yes, easily. The
suggested speed for this street section is 20 mph. We were probably
going faster than that. The other driver was going faster too. And,
shifting lanes in the circular is not permitted.
You continue to ignore the fact that the wife was not cited by the investigating officer for improper lane use. In the eyes of the law she
is innocent. Please explain why you are ignoring this fact in evidence.
You are guilty of assuming facts not in evidence in order to manufacture
your version of what happened. In other words, you are lying.
On 6/28/2024 6:55 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-06-28 11:34, Tom Elam wrote:
On 6/26/2024 2:34 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-06-26 11:16, Tom Elam wrote:
On 6/26/2024 12:53 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-06-25 10:01, Tom Elam wrote:
Please open the link below. It's the Indiana Driver's Manual.
It's what new drivers are expected to know when taking their
written test.
https://www.in.gov/bmv/licenses-permits-ids/learners-permits-and-drivers-licenses-overview/learners-permit/drivers-manual/
You have insisted that the "stay right except to pass" law is a
critical and must always be obeyed. Read the entire manual. Now
please cite mention of this specific law in the manual.
With respect to roundabouts, on page 40:
"For multi-lane roundabouts where the circular
roadway has more than one lane, drivers should
know which lane they need to be in prior to
entering the roundabout. Drivers should not
change lanes in the circulatory roadway."
"Signs, pavement markings, or both are
provided to guide drivers to the proper lane
in advance of the circulatory roadway."
Where does this or any other manual language indicate that
regardless of traffic conditions the left lane of a 4-lane
roundabout cannot be used to continue straight if that lane is
signposted for straight-through use?
BC has a stray right law too. Please open Google Earth and go to >>>>>>> 49 15 14.9 N 123 14 28.3 W. This is the intersection of 16th Ave >>>>>>> and East Mall on the UBC campus. Explain why 16th Ave is
signposted for straight through traffic in both lanes and both
directions. If you must stay in the right lane should the 16th
Ave left lane be posted for left turns only???
I await your response.
I don't know whether this is your inherent dishonesty, or whether
you're just getting senile.
We discussed this previously, Liarboy.
The issue is that she was in the left lane of two before she
ENTERED the roundabout.
And Indiana law is utterly clear that she wasn't supposed to be
there.
I don't know whether this is your inherent dishonesty, or whether
you're
just getting senile.
We discussed this previously, Liarboy.
You have failed to cite the law correctly yet again. The law states
"Indiana Code 9-21-5-9. (a) A vehicle that travels at a speed less
than the established maximum shall travel in the right lanes to
provide for better flow of traffic on the interstate highways."
https://iga.in.gov/laws/2022/ic/titles/9#9-21-5-9
"Terms Used In Indiana Code 9-21-5-9
Highway: includes county bridges and state and county roads, unless
otherwise expressly provided. See Indiana Code 1-1-4-5"
106th Street is a city street. The law does not even apply.
So, in absence of an applicable regulation the roundabout signage
clearly indicates either lane can be used for going straight
through. If it was otherwise it would need to be posted for right
lane straight or turn right only and left lane for left turn only.
You do not need to be in the right lane if the signage indicates
you have a choice and prevailing traffic is not trying to pass you.
We were moving at the traffic's prevailing speed. This has all been
explained to you, Liarboy. The other driver was exceeding the
prevailing speed, illegally trying to pass us in the right lane to
make a left turn at the next exit. For this she was cited for
illegal lane use. The wife was in the correct lane and was not
cited by an investigating city officer. Even if you apply the law
intended for multi-lane interstates and rural highways we were in
the correct lane.
You continue to attempt to ex post facto impose a rule that did not
apply to the situation at the time of the accident. Of course you
need to do this. You MUST be right.
'Except as provided in subsection (c), a person who knows, or should
reasonably know, that another vehicle is overtaking from the rear
the vehicle that the person is operating may not continue to operate
the vehicle in the left most lane.'
None of the conditions of subsection (c) applied to your wife that
day, and...
...you don't know that she wasn't travelling at less than
"established maximum" (unless you could magically have been watching
both the car behind AND have be keep an eye on the speedometer at
the same time) , and...
...I already cited an Indiana lawyer on this issue:
'In other words, drivers should stay to the right and only use the
left lane when passing. The driver who remains in the left lane and
prevents other drivers from lawfully passing them on the left is the
one who is breaking the law.'
Your wife knew or should have known that a car behind her was
travelling faster than she was and so should have moved to the right
lane.
At which point, the other car moves to the left lane and at the
roundabout there is no conflict.
Your wife's violation of Indiana Code 9-21-5-9 was a direct factor
in there being a collision at all.
And you know that there was someone behind us wanting to pass when we
entered the roundabout? How do you know that? We were in the second
of 2 closely spaced roundabouts. Could the driver who hit us could
have caught up while we in the roundabout circulars? Yes, easily. The
suggested speed for this street section is 20 mph. We were probably
going faster than that. The other driver was going faster too. And,
shifting lanes in the circular is not permitted.
You told us there was someone behind you, Liarboy.
You continue to ignore the fact that the wife was not cited by the
investigating officer for improper lane use. In the eyes of the law
she is innocent. Please explain why you are ignoring this fact in
evidence.
And the other driver wasn't cited for speeding.
So in the eyes of the law, the other driver is innocent of speeding
despite your claims.
You are guilty of assuming facts not in evidence in order to
manufacture your version of what happened. In other words, you are
lying.
Your wife was driving in the left lane. This has been established.
You TOLD us that someone over took you as you entered the roundabout.
Ergo, that person was travelling FASTER than you were BEFORE the
roundabout.
Ergo, your wife should have been in the RIGHT lane.
You blamed the accident on the other driver's greater speed, and it's
true that her speed brought you into proximity, but it could have
easily been your wife driving a few mph slower than the speed limit
that did it.
What is undeniable is that had your wife been in the correct lane
before entering the roundabout--
...the right lane of two...
--then no difference in speed would have mattered.
Alan, the correct lane was taken according to the police and the other driver's insurance. Your insistence that she had to take the right lane
is a false narrative. The law says keep right except to pass. If there
were cars in the right lane and we were overtaking she was correct to
take the left lane. To prove otherwise you need proof that this was not
the case. If there was another driver behind us presence of slower
right-lane traffic is not material.
What is undeniable is that the other driver was in the wrong lane. That
is in the accident report and supported by the driver's insurance company.
Your continued insistence that she broke the law is similar to the 2020 election denial efforts by Trump and his supporters. With no evidence
they tried to overturn the election. Mike Pence did the right thing in certifying the results. He had no evidence of voter fraud.
Show the evidence that there was no traffic in the right lane we were or could have been overtaking. I need a photo, witness statement, something
in the accident report or something from the other driver's insurance.
Think of this as a court case with the wife suing you for libel. Where
is the proof that she broke the law? We have the accident report and can obtain the insurance paperwork, including the bill for our repair costs
and rental car showing who paid. What do you have?
On 7/1/2024 2:18 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-07-01 09:40, Tom Elam wrote:
On 6/28/2024 6:55 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-06-28 11:34, Tom Elam wrote:
On 6/26/2024 2:34 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-06-26 11:16, Tom Elam wrote:
On 6/26/2024 12:53 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-06-25 10:01, Tom Elam wrote:
Please open the link below. It's the Indiana Driver's Manual. >>>>>>>>> It's what new drivers are expected to know when taking their >>>>>>>>> written test.
https://www.in.gov/bmv/licenses-permits-ids/learners-permits-and-drivers-licenses-overview/learners-permit/drivers-manual/
You have insisted that the "stay right except to pass" law is a >>>>>>>>> critical and must always be obeyed. Read the entire manual. Now >>>>>>>>> please cite mention of this specific law in the manual.
With respect to roundabouts, on page 40:
"For multi-lane roundabouts where the circular
roadway has more than one lane, drivers should
know which lane they need to be in prior to
entering the roundabout. Drivers should not
change lanes in the circulatory roadway."
"Signs, pavement markings, or both are
provided to guide drivers to the proper lane
in advance of the circulatory roadway."
Where does this or any other manual language indicate that
regardless of traffic conditions the left lane of a 4-lane
roundabout cannot be used to continue straight if that lane is >>>>>>>>> signposted for straight-through use?
BC has a stray right law too. Please open Google Earth and go >>>>>>>>> to 49 15 14.9 N 123 14 28.3 W. This is the intersection of 16th >>>>>>>>> Ave and East Mall on the UBC campus. Explain why 16th Ave is >>>>>>>>> signposted for straight through traffic in both lanes and both >>>>>>>>> directions. If you must stay in the right lane should the 16th >>>>>>>>> Ave left lane be posted for left turns only???
I await your response.
I don't know whether this is your inherent dishonesty, or
whether you're just getting senile.
We discussed this previously, Liarboy.
The issue is that she was in the left lane of two before she
ENTERED the roundabout.
And Indiana law is utterly clear that she wasn't supposed to be >>>>>>>> there.
I don't know whether this is your inherent dishonesty, or whether >>>>>>> you're
just getting senile.
We discussed this previously, Liarboy.
You have failed to cite the law correctly yet again. The law
states "Indiana Code 9-21-5-9. (a) A vehicle that travels at a
speed less than the established maximum shall travel in the right >>>>>>> lanes to provide for better flow of traffic on the interstate
highways."
https://iga.in.gov/laws/2022/ic/titles/9#9-21-5-9
"Terms Used In Indiana Code 9-21-5-9
Highway: includes county bridges and state and county roads,
unless otherwise expressly provided. See Indiana Code 1-1-4-5"
106th Street is a city street. The law does not even apply.
So, in absence of an applicable regulation the roundabout signage >>>>>>> clearly indicates either lane can be used for going straight
through. If it was otherwise it would need to be posted for right >>>>>>> lane straight or turn right only and left lane for left turn
only. You do not need to be in the right lane if the signage
indicates you have a choice and prevailing traffic is not trying >>>>>>> to pass you.
We were moving at the traffic's prevailing speed. This has all
been explained to you, Liarboy. The other driver was exceeding
the prevailing speed, illegally trying to pass us in the right
lane to make a left turn at the next exit. For this she was cited >>>>>>> for illegal lane use. The wife was in the correct lane and was
not cited by an investigating city officer. Even if you apply the >>>>>>> law intended for multi-lane interstates and rural highways we
were in the correct lane.
You continue to attempt to ex post facto impose a rule that did
not apply to the situation at the time of the accident. Of course >>>>>>> you need to do this. You MUST be right.
'Except as provided in subsection (c), a person who knows, or
should reasonably know, that another vehicle is overtaking from
the rear the vehicle that the person is operating may not continue >>>>>> to operate the vehicle in the left most lane.'
None of the conditions of subsection (c) applied to your wife that >>>>>> day, and...
...you don't know that she wasn't travelling at less than
"established maximum" (unless you could magically have been
watching both the car behind AND have be keep an eye on the
speedometer at the same time) , and...
...I already cited an Indiana lawyer on this issue:
'In other words, drivers should stay to the right and only use the >>>>>> left lane when passing. The driver who remains in the left lane
and prevents other drivers from lawfully passing them on the left
is the one who is breaking the law.'
Your wife knew or should have known that a car behind her was
travelling faster than she was and so should have moved to the
right lane.
At which point, the other car moves to the left lane and at the
roundabout there is no conflict.
Your wife's violation of Indiana Code 9-21-5-9 was a direct factor >>>>>> in there being a collision at all.
And you know that there was someone behind us wanting to pass when
we entered the roundabout? How do you know that? We were in the
second of 2 closely spaced roundabouts. Could the driver who hit us
could have caught up while we in the roundabout circulars? Yes,
easily. The suggested speed for this street section is 20 mph. We
were probably going faster than that. The other driver was going
faster too. And, shifting lanes in the circular is not permitted.
You told us there was someone behind you, Liarboy.
You continue to ignore the fact that the wife was not cited by the
investigating officer for improper lane use. In the eyes of the law
she is innocent. Please explain why you are ignoring this fact in
evidence.
And the other driver wasn't cited for speeding.
So in the eyes of the law, the other driver is innocent of speeding
despite your claims.
You are guilty of assuming facts not in evidence in order to
manufacture your version of what happened. In other words, you
are lying.
Your wife was driving in the left lane. This has been established.
You TOLD us that someone over took you as you entered the roundabout.
Ergo, that person was travelling FASTER than you were BEFORE the
roundabout.
Ergo, your wife should have been in the RIGHT lane.
You blamed the accident on the other driver's greater speed, and
it's true that her speed brought you into proximity, but it could
have easily been your wife driving a few mph slower than the speed
limit that did it.
What is undeniable is that had your wife been in the correct lane
before entering the roundabout--
...the right lane of two...
--then no difference in speed would have mattered.
Let's break this down.
And try to remember that I'm not saying your wife was to blame for the
accident. I'm saying that the accident wasn't the result of the other
driver speeding.
Alan, the correct lane was taken according to the police and the
other driver's insurance. Your insistence that she had to take the
right lane is a false narrative. The law says keep right except to
pass. If there were cars in the right lane and we were overtaking she
was correct to take the left lane. To prove otherwise you need proof
that this was not the case. If there was another driver behind us
presence of slower right-lane traffic is not material.
1. The police didn't comment on whether or not the lane your wife was
using prior to entering the roundabout was correct. Just as they
didn't comment about the other driver speeding. Either you accept that
saying nothing means any particular thing wasn't wrong, or you don't,
but you don't get to have it both ways.
2. "The law says keep right except to pass" That is literally the
first time you've accepted that that IS the law.
3. And now you bring up a false narrative about how you were
overtaking other cars. But if that was the case, how did this other
driver get beside you? You were either faster than cars in the right
lane, going the same speed, or slower. Your whole argument is
predicated on your claim the other driver was overtaking YOUR car.
What is undeniable is that the other driver was in the wrong lane.
That is in the accident report and supported by the driver's
insurance company.
And I have literally never said otherwise.
Your continued insistence that she broke the law is similar to the
2020 election denial efforts by Trump and his supporters. With no
evidence they tried to overturn the election. Mike Pence did the
right thing in certifying the results. He had no evidence of voter
fraud.
Your wife DID break the law. And that contributed to the accident
happening.
Show the evidence that there was no traffic in the right lane we were
or could have been overtaking. I need a photo, witness statement,
something in the accident report or something from the other driver's
insurance.
Sorry, but your own statements that the other driver came up from
behind you proves there can't have been a car you were overtaking.
Think of this as a court case with the wife suing you for libel.
Where is the proof that she broke the law? We have the accident
report and can obtain the insurance paperwork, including the bill for
our repair costs and rental car showing who paid. What do you have?
Where is your proof that the other driver was speeding?
I said "If there were cars in the right lane and we were overtaking she
was correct to take the left lane. To prove otherwise you need proof
that this was not the case. If there was another driver behind us
presence of slower right-lane traffic is not material." Not that there
were other such cars.
It's very clear. The police and insurance company put the entire blame
on the other driver. You are insisting that none of the qualifying "stay right" conditions existed. Not true unless there is proof.
Even if we had been in the right lane the other driver in that lane, intending to turn left, was in the wrong. She could have easily hit
someone else in that heavy 8 am traffic.
The only way an accident could have been prevented was if the other
driver had been in the left lane with us.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:11:42 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,629 |