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?