Road issues that irritate me.......

RainyDay

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

The train barriers that go down 5 minutes before the train is even due. Coolmine station is a nightmare for this as the carpark is the opposite side for me, meaning that in the mornings, there are about 3 trains in 15 minutes so if the barrier goes down, it won't go back up until all trains are gone.

I miss my train and there is a massive tailback. Either shorten the barrier time or build a bridge.

Or maybe you need to get there 5 minutes earlier?

Jawgap wrote: »

As I said, lots of supermarkets are open long hours so there are very few people who can't arrange their lives so they can go shopping without the sprogs.

Except maybe single parents. Or families where 1 or both parents is working shifts. Or stay-at-home parents who want to get the shopping done during the day so that both parents can have family time at home at night.

nikkibikki wrote: »

Some cyclists, especially the one yesterday who was stopped talking to his other cyclist friend on side of the road and just as we were level with him he decides, without signalling, looking behind him or any kind of warning, decides to start cycling making his way to the middle of the road. Both my husband driving and the car behind us had to swerve to avoid colliding with him. He must have a death wish.

It's amazing how often we hear of these near-death experiences by/for cyclists, and how rarely we actually hear of death experiences for cyclists. Could there be a little bit of exaggerating going on?

andala wrote: »

So, you're basically saying that it's ok for some road users to slow down everyone else? Imagine if a car was doing 10mph in a 60mph zone and it would be impossible to overtake it? How happy would everyone be about it?

I just love it how entitled everyone is on the roads in Ireland.
If I managed to attach a photo correctly, you can see how inconsiderate some cyclists are. I took that photo in Navan a while ago. It took me forever to get through the town because these idiots ignored a perfectly ok cycling lane

It's slightly ironic how you bookmark your question about entitlement with dramatic despair about being 'held up' by other road users for a few seconds. Really?
Just for your information, cyclists are held up by slow moving cars in heavy traffic all the time - every hour of every day. But generally we don't take pictures or post messages of despair - we either filter past if possible, or wait a few seconds until the conditions improve. You might try it sometime.

andala wrote: »

kbannon I do realise they're legally allowed to use the road. The thread title is "road issues that irritate me" and it so happens that cyclist do that Of course tractors, drivers with hats on and Micras slow everyone down too. However, they have no other choice than to use the road. Cyclist often do and yet still they insist on choosing not to. And that is plain rude. Legal? Sure. But it doesn't make it any less annoying.

Yes, plain rude - that's the only possible explanation. Cyclists as a group are just rude - they get together and plan their rudeness events. It couldn't possibly be anything to do with poor engineering design, or layers of mushy leaves, or broken glass, or pedestrians with extendible dog leads stretched across the lane like the old Nazi piano wire trick or any other good reason. It's just rudeness.

Your Face wrote: »

I don't like when people have their bare feet up on the dashboard.

The Backwards Man wrote: »

They'd be eating their own feet if the airbag went off!

Actually, their kneecaps will be fired back into their skill about 100kmph if the airbag goes off, so they won't have time to smell the smelly feet.

WestWicklow1 wrote: »

Single file. Simple.

Don't make me post the Anne Doyle video again.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You're wrong in that last point, anybody walking at night should have a high viz and a flashlight, maybe it's easy to see them walking in a well lit Dublin street where I take it you live but a dark country road is a different matter.

Yes, I'm a Dub, and I recognise that conditions are different in rural areas. But the law is the same either way. There is no special clothing required to walk on the road. If you're unable to drive without killing people in those circumstances, you should consider stepping away from the car.

railer201 wrote: »

I'm stating what's advised by the Road Safety Authority. Claiming hi-viz to be a designed distraction is just conspiracy theory style nonsense and a step too far for most rational people to swallow - best wishes with that one.

Yes, it is a hard sell all right. Which is why I suggested focusing on the facts and evidence, rather than the anecdotal approach favoured by the RSA.

HellSquirrel wrote: »

I dunno, I'd still feel a darn sight safer in a hi-vis, and from the driving perspective (albeit as a passenger), I know I see them from further away. Hi-vis won't protect you from either an idiot or ..well, a couple tonnes of metal hitting you, but for most normal drivers, it might be the couple of seconds that allows them to adjust.

When you're a vulnerable sack of meat and bones sharing a dark country road with speeding cars (or just fast cars, but speeding does seem to be an issue in the country), anything is better than nothing.

It's a personal choice of course. If you prefer to wear hi-vis, knock yourself out. However, it is not legally required, and it is hard to take demands for hi-vis seriously from people who have black or grey or green cars.

sesswhat wrote: »

Unlike mere mortals, Superrunner has no use for footpaths, for Superrunner carves his own path.

Is he the guy I see running in the cycle lane, to avoid those pesky pedestrians?

Jawgap

andala wrote: »

kbannon I do realise they're legally allowed to use the road. The thread title is "road issues that irritate me" and it so happens that cyclist do that Of course tractors, drivers with hats on and Micras slow everyone down too. However, they have no other choice than to use the road. Cyclist often do and yet still they insist on choosing not to. And that is plain rude. Legal? Sure. But it doesn't make it any less annoying.

It's not rudeness, it's safety and to a lesser degree convenience that dirves (pun intended) cyclists off cycle paths and on to roads.

Take the path that runs down the old N1 past the airport.......
....for a start it's a shared path with pedestrians
....then you have to wander in around the junctions and slalom through the barriers to cross at pedestrian crossings at the junctions
....then there's the numerous openings from property on to it, at each of which you are expected to yield....

......far better to stay on the road, where you don't have to cede the right of way, where you can spin straight in and where you, generally, don't have t mix it with pedestrians.

My own guess is that most cycle paths are designed by people who don't cycle and by organisations who either don't cycle and/or are just interested in generating 'quantities' of cycle track not quality.

biko

Did someone say cyclists?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzQRexswK4w

Jawgap

RainyDay wrote: »

.....


Except maybe single parents. Or families where 1 or both parents is working shifts. Or stay-at-home parents who want to get the shopping done during the day so that both parents can have family time at home at night.


.....

Shop away to their hearts content, I'm only suggesting that they're not deserving of special treatment just because they've a kid or two in tow. Maybe both parents could do the shopping with the kids then they can have 'family time' together and get the shopping done :rolleyes:

It seems parents of pre-adolescent snowflakes want special treatment everywhere they go now - if it's not special parking arrangements it's complaining about restaurants that won't allow push chairs or complaining about shops that - not unreasonably - don't want their ill behaved seed spoiling everyone else's experience.

lawred2

Jawgap wrote: »

I quite agree, so maybe parents can work a bit harder to control their kids - supermarkets, restaurants etc are not playgrounds, and kids running around screaming are not being 'adorable.'

......and to wander back towards the topic......driving your kids 500m to school, then blocking the road with your inconsiderate parking so the little snowflakes have 10m less to walk to the school gate is not being courteous to other road users, and even other parents.

I'm sure there's a thread where you can voice your general dissatisfaction with parents and their children... Not sure this is it though.

lawred2

Jawgap wrote: »

Shop away to their hearts content, I'm only suggesting that they're not deserving of special treatment just because they've a kid or two in tow. Maybe both parents could do the shopping with the kids then they can have 'family time' together and get the shopping done :rolleyes:

It seems parents of pre-adolescent snowflakes want special treatment everywhere they go now - if it's not special parking arrangements it's complaining about restaurants that won't allow push chairs or complaining about shops that - not unreasonably - don't want their ill behaved seed spoiling everyone else's experience.

You must be the first person who goes to a supermarket for a shopping experience.

You need to lighten up.

_Jamie_

Jawgap wrote: »

Shop away to their hearts content, I'm only suggesting that they're not deserving of special treatment just because they've a kid or two in tow. Maybe both parents could do the shopping with the kids then they can have 'family time' together and get the shopping done :rolleyes:

It seems parents of pre-adolescent snowflakes want special treatment everywhere they go now - if it's not special parking arrangements it's complaining about restaurants that won't allow push chairs or complaining about shops that - not unreasonably - don't want their ill behaved seed spoiling everyone else's experience.

Ranty McGoo here. :rolleyes:

The parent and child parking spaces are wider. Not everyone can leave the young kids at home while they do the grocery shop. The end.

Galwayguy35

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, I'm a Dub, and I recognise that conditions are different in rural areas. But the law is the same either way. There is no special clothing required to walk on the road. If you're unable to drive without killing people in those circumstances, you should consider stepping away from the car.

Actually it looks like you don't have a clue about the dangers of driving on country roads.

So maybe both of us should step away from the car.

LCD

When I am walking, all cyclists & drivers

When I am cycling all walkers & drivers

When I am driving all walkers & cyclists

Basically whoever is above or below me in the road food chain

Jawgap

lawred2 wrote: »

You must be the first person who goes to a supermarket for a shopping experience.

You need to lighten up.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm quite chilled.....I just wonder why parents allow their kids to be so feral.

Henry Ford III

Cars displaying L and N plates at the same time. I've seen a few, even on a motorway!

jimmurt

RayM wrote: »

Impatient people who flash their lights at me when I'm doing 100 km/h (which, quite frankly, is fast enough for anyone) in the fast lane on the M50.

Are you overtaking cars doing the 100km /hr?

Truckermal

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Cars displaying L and N plates at the same time. I've seen a few, even on a motorway!

The lunatics and nutters in the one car...:D

My peev is other truck drivers who think it's acceptable to overtake another truck on a motorway at .5km an hour holding up cars in the overtaking lane! The biggest w@nker of course is the driver in lane 1 who maintains his speed leaving the other truck outside for ages.....

lawred2

Jawgap wrote: »

Thanks for the advice, but I'm quite chilled.....I just wonder why parents allow their kids to be so feral.

Yeah sure, you're 'chilled'

Is ranting about parking spaces, the plight of feral children and disturbed shopping experiences what passes for chilled now?

RayM

jimmurt wrote: »

Are you overtaking cars doing the 100km /hr?

No, never.

Jawgap

lawred2 wrote: »

Yeah sure, you're 'chilled'

Is ranting about parking spaces, the plight of feral children and disturbed shopping experiences what passes for chilled now?

What? It's a thread about irritation.....that wandered into other territory.....

......plus it's only a bit of craic......it's the internet!!

John_Rambo

Jawgap wrote: »

What? It's a thread about irritation.....that wandered into other territory.....

......plus it's only a bit of craic......it's the internet!!

But you keep talking about children. On the internet, what's the obsession? This is about road issues, take your children thing to another thread!

Your Face

RainyDay wrote: »

Or maybe you need to get there 5 minutes earlier?


Except maybe single parents. Or families where 1 or both parents is working shifts. Or stay-at-home parents who want to get the shopping done during the day so that both parents can have family time at home at night.


It's amazing how often we hear of these near-death experiences by/for cyclists, and how rarely we actually hear of death experiences for cyclists. Could there be a little bit of exaggerating going on?


It's slightly ironic how you bookmark your question about entitlement with dramatic despair about being 'held up' by other road users for a few seconds. Really?
Just for your information, cyclists are held up by slow moving cars in heavy traffic all the time - every hour of every day. But generally we don't take pictures or post messages of despair - we either filter past if possible, or wait a few seconds until the conditions improve. You might try it sometime.

Yes, plain rude - that's the only possible explanation. Cyclists as a group are just rude - they get together and plan their rudeness events. It couldn't possibly be anything to do with poor engineering design, or layers of mushy leaves, or broken glass, or pedestrians with extendible dog leads stretched across the lane like the old Nazi piano wire trick or any other good reason. It's just rudeness.


Actually, their kneecaps will be fired back into their skill about 100kmph if the airbag goes off, so they won't have time to smell the smelly feet.

Don't make me post the Anne Doyle video again.

Yes, I'm a Dub, and I recognise that conditions are different in rural areas. But the law is the same either way. There is no special clothing required to walk on the road. If you're unable to drive without killing people in those circumstances, you should consider stepping away from the car.

Yes, it is a hard sell all right. Which is why I suggested focusing on the facts and evidence, rather than the anecdotal approach favoured by the RSA.

It's a personal choice of course. If you prefer to wear hi-vis, knock yourself out. However, it is not legally required, and it is hard to take demands for hi-vis seriously from people who have black or grey or green cars.

Is he the guy I see running in the cycle lane, to avoid those pesky pedestrians?

That everyone? :pac:

TheRiverman

People who constantly refer to the overtaking lane on Motorways and Dual Carriageways as the "fast" lane.

Jawgap

John_Rambo wrote: »

But you keep talking about children. On the internet, what's the obsession? This is about road issues, take your children thing to another thread!

Well it started with the status of child and parent spaces.....and especially the way some folks think they are of a similar status to disabled spaces, which they're not......

.....after that a procession of posters seemed to want to take issue with anyone dating to suggest that parents were anything other than deserving of preferential treatment when it comes to parking. I was simply making the point they're not, and child and parent spots are really just extra paint.

HellSquirrel

Jawgap wrote: »

Well it started with the status of child and parent spaces.....and especially the way some folks think they are of a similar status to disabled spaces, which they're not......

.....after that a procession of posters seemed to want to take issue with anyone dating to suggest that parents were anything other than deserving of preferential treatment when it comes to parking. I was simply making the point they're not, and child and parent spots are really just extra paint.

I actually backed out of that conversation around the point of the rant about feral children. It came across by the end of it that you feel that parents who dare have their children in a supermarket should be punished by having the parking spaces laid out by the store taken by drivers who want a bigger spot.

I mean..isn't that what it comes down to? It's a bigger, more convenient spot so you should have it? It's not a legal requirement, it's true, but I wonder how you'd feel about the whole situation if disabled spaces were more just guidelines relying on the goodwill of society to maintain too? Would courtesy trump convenience?

Still though, you're correct. It's nothing that is enforced, it is down to goodwill, and if you don't have that goodwill towards a parent that might be struggling, then the space is yours. I won't take one anyway. Hopefully it is a parent with a small child (or an elderly passenger, or someone else that needs it) that takes it rather than someone who feels it insulting that concessions should be made to certain demographics and not others.

I probably wouldn't take a trolley with a babyseat in it either! :P

Jawgap

HellSquirrel wrote: »

I actually backed out of that conversation around the point of the rant about feral children. It came across by the end of it that you feel that parents who dare have their children out in places where people might meet them should be punished by having the parking spaces laid out by the store taken by drivers who want a bigger spot.

I mean..isn't that what it comes down to? It's a bigger, more convenient spot so you should have it? It's not a legal requirement, it's true, but I wonder how you'd feel about the whole situation if disabled spaces were more just guidelines relying on the goodwill of society to maintain too? Would courtesy trump convenience?

Still though, you're correct. It's nothing that is enforced, it is down to goodwill, and if you don't have that goodwill towards a parent that might be struggling, then the space is yours. I won't take one anyway. Hopefully it is a parent with a small child (or an elderly passenger, or someone else that needs it) that takes it rather than someone who feels it insulting that concessions should be made to certain demographics and not others.

I probably wouldn't take a trolley with a babyseat in it either! :P

Yes, but disabled spots are legal. And if they weren't there's a lot more to be said for meeting a genuine need than a convenience. Should we also make concessions to allow some of the parking that goes on around schools? Such as double parking, parking on double yellows, parking close to pedestrian crossings, and junctions?

I wouldn't take a trolley with a baby seat either - far too big.

Armchair Andy

Drivers who take all day to overtake another car. Speed kills sure, but I've seen instances where lack of speed has seriously endangered more than the culprit himself.

Worse again, the white line hogger welded to the back of a slower moving car threatening to overtake but actually never does. Back up and leave a few car lengths if you've no intention of overtaking anything.

maudgonner

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes, but disabled spots are legal. And if they weren't there's a lot more to be said for meeting a genuine need than a convenience. Should we also make concessions to allow some of the parking that goes on around schools? Such as double parking, parking on double yellows, parking close to pedestrian crossings, and junctions?

I wouldn't take a trolley with a baby seat either - far too big.

Actually in a private carpark the disabled spots aren't enforced by the Gardaí/Parking Warden. It's up to the carpark operator to police them as they see fit, under the rules they lay down for the carpark. Just as they're allowed to enforce other rules, like Parent & Child spaces.

CalamariFritti

Clowns who overtake you on the motorway then slow down to less what you were doing before. Eventually you overtake them back cos you just wanna do your steady speed. Then the whole thing starts all over again. Wtf?

On a related subject. Yes, up the hill you have to press that pedal down a little harder or you will slow down.

Not indicating or wrongly indicating or my favourite just flicking it on while they're turning. Nothing says clearer to everyone else here is someone who hasn't a clue. Indicating in general. Majority just not bothered I guess. Yet everyone seems to find the indicator when they expect to be let in.

Going half blind due to blown bulbs. For weeks. What are you going to do when that other bulb goes btw? In a long bend on a dark night at speed...

John_Rambo

Jawgap wrote: »

Well it started with the status of child and parent spaces.....and especially the way some folks think they are of a similar status to disabled spaces, which they're not......

.....after that a procession of posters seemed to want to take issue with anyone dating to suggest that parents were anything other than deserving of preferential treatment when it comes to parking. I was simply making the point they're not, and child and parent spots are really just extra paint.

Their house, their rules.

Trebor176

- Queue jumpers
- Drivers leaving the exit of a motorway until the last second (that includes those that go from the outside all the way to the inside in one go)
- Slow drivers
- Lane hoggers
- Tailgaters

groucho marx

People using high beams on the motorway, not sure how high they think the barrier is.

railer201

Cyclists who run red through pedestrian crossings when pedestrians are crossing on the green man.

Cyclists who cycle at speed on footpaths and expect pedestrians to give way.

Cyclists who may make excuses for the above behaviour.

Mister Vain

When you carefully overtake a cyclist only for them to skip to the front of the line at a traffic light a few minutes later. Then you have to overtake them again.

RainyDay

Mister Vain wrote: »

When you carefully overtake a cyclist only for them to skip to the front of the line at a traffic light a few minutes later. Then you have to overtake them again.

Why bother overtaking then? Just relax and wait behind the faster traffic.

The King of Moo

Mister Vain wrote: »

When you carefully overtake a cyclist only for them to skip to the front of the line at a traffic light a few minutes later. Then you have to overtake them again.

That's what they're supposed to do, to make sure they get away safely.

Commotion Ocean

People using sidelights at twilight

People indicating AFTER they've begun steering

People who take the first exit off a round about without indicating which causes me to stop unnecessarliy in anticipation of them crossing my path

People who hog the middle of overtaking lane

People who drive below the speed limit when conditions don't call for it

People who use bus lanes to skip traffic

Cyclists who skip red lights

People who don't let you out from an adjacent road (or let out too many people)

People who don't acknowledge you when you let them out

People who compensate a busted headlight with full heads on their one-eyed bandit

When I leave sufficient gap on front of me on motorway, people who fill this gap

People who drive down the overtaking lane then swerve like a bat out of hell to their exit and the last minute, sometimes without indicating or checking mirrors

People who don't merge properly onto motorways

Pac1Man

Whenever I am on a bike or driving a car, anytime I point my gun at the back of someone's head in a neighbouring car, they immediately speed away. How did they know what I was doing?


This is in GTA V by the way.

the14thwarrior

people that have stupid signs in the back of their cars.
the rain - after i've washed my car

the birds - doing their thing ON car and after i've washed it

people who won't let you reverse into a car spot, they get up your arse and think you can turn your car sideways on two wheels and reverse into a spot

people who think they can park and try to DRIVE into a car spot and spend the next ten minutes going back and forth in one position while you decide whether it's safe to go by them. and then they park, sticking out on the road and you have to turn your car sideways to avoid smashing into them

and cyclists. especially those who refuse to use the cycle lanes in the phoenix park, on one of the most dangerous roads and expect everyone to give them a wide berth

Pinch Flat

Mister Vain wrote: »

When you carefully overtake a cyclist only for them to skip to the front of the line at a traffic light a few minutes later. Then you have to overtake them again.

I had someone overtake me in a car earlier (I was cycling), then turned suddenly left into a turn across me. Except it was the wrong left, so they swerved out right again, just as I was passing them. Hi vis and extremely bright strobes, obviously not enough for the clowns that frequent our roads. I can never understand why cars overtake a cyclist at a junction, then turn suddenly left.

On the point of traffic lights, what do you expect a cyclist to do? If I was to wait behind every car stuck in a traffic jam it would take me hours to get to work. Cyclists can legally pass slow moving or stationary traffic on the left.

StinkyMunkey

Total lack of manners and ignoring the rules of the road. Some notable mentions:

Muppets driving with fog lights on

Cyclists with a death wish

Sunday drivers

Jembo in his 15yr old piece of **** thinking he is F1 driver

Gob****es texting or chatting on phone while driving

Inner city scum crossing the road playing chicken with you

Complete retards treating a housing estate like a race track

Militant cyclists, other people have the right to use the road

Idiots undertaking on motorway just to tailgate the guy in front of you

Morons who nearly cause pile up cause the miss exit on motorway and perform a totally retarded manoeuvre.

Bad lane discipline.

Ginger83

Drivers that think every speed limit is a target.

Drivers who overtake forcing oncoming vehicles off the road onto the hard shoulder (someday 1 of those cars wont move over!)

learn_more

I think the main reason drivers complain about cyclists is not really because of all the rules they break but because there are just there in the first place, even if all of them stuck to the rules 100%. There are times when a driver cannot overtake simply because a cyclist is there, like when a bend is coming up. Cyclists just slow drivers down , even if they do nothing wrong. Noting worse than being slowed down, when your a motorist.

StinkyMunkey

learn_more wrote: »

I think the main reason drivers complain about cyclists is not really because of all the rules they break but because there are just there in the first place, even if all of them stuck to the rules 100%. There are times when a driver cannot overtake simply because a cyclist is there, like when a bend is coming up. Cyclists just slow drivers down , even if they do nothing wrong. Noting worse than being slowed down, when your a motorist.

I've seen a lot of very competent cyclists, I believe in good manners while using the road whether you be cyclist, car driver, pedestrians or any other road user. You mode of transport is unimportant, how you treat and interact with other road users is.

gammygils

People who drive behind me at night with full lights. WTF?
I drive a lot at night. And this is becoming more and more common. Even in the distance you just don't do it!!!!!

GrumpyMe

Mister Vain wrote: »

Then you have to overtake them again.

There's the "issue"- you don't HAVE TO overtake them!

Overtake if you wish but understand, and take comfort from the fact that, they "suffer" the same frustration - every time they pass you - you go on to pass them again.
That's life - sometimes the pigeon, sometimes the statue.

whoopsadoodles

On the parent and child space thing.

Not that some arseholes will give a fcuk, but I'll give my anecdote anyway.

I once parked my nissan micra in a supermarket carpark. There were no parent and child spots available which was fine.

Having done my shopping and arrived back to the car with my brand new baby in her rock a tot carry car seat, the man beside me had parked so close to my passenger door that I couldn't open it and definitely couldn't put my baby into the car.

He arrived back eventually and I pointed out how close he'd parked and he told me that life was hard sometimes and to get over it. I hadn't been rude to him at all, I was in fact a nervous wreck. He was just a prick.

My shiny new baby had been born just a week before and within days of the first anniversary of my other two children who had been killed in a car accident. I knew all too well how hard life could be.

I sat in my car and sobbed.

You can choose to be a cnut, or you can choose to actually think about whose life you might be making just that little bit more difficult.

Moral of the story; don't be a cnut.

For what it's worth, I think that once a child is able to hop in and out of the car themselves then you should be parking elsewhere.

mfceiling

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

On the parent and child space thing.

Not that some arseholes will give a fcuk, but I'll give my anecdote anyway.

I once parked my nissan micra in a supermarket carpark. There were no parent and child spots available which was fine.

Having done my shopping and arrived back to the car with my brand new baby in her rock a tot carry car seat, the man beside me had parked so close to my passenger door that I couldn't open it and definitely couldn't put my baby into the car.

He arrived back eventually and I pointed out how close he'd parked and he told me that life was hard sometimes and to get over it. I hadn't been rude to him at all, I was in fact a nervous wreck. He was just a prick.

My shiny new baby had been born just a week before and within days of the first anniversary of my other two children who had been killed in a car accident. I knew all too well how hard life could be.

I sat in my car and sobbed.

You can choose to be a cnut, or you can choose to actually think about whose life you might be making just that little bit more difficult.

Moral of the story; don't be a cnut.

For what it's worth, I think that once a child is able to hop in and out of the car themselves then you should be parking elsewhere.

Sorry to hear about your loss.

_Jamie_

learn_more wrote: »

I think the main reason drivers complain about cyclists is not really because of all the rules they break but because there are just there in the first place, even if all of them stuck to the rules 100%.

Yep, there will always be motorists who complain about cyclists. Even if cyclists paid road tax. Even if cyclists required a licence. Even if every single cyclist followed every single rule of the road. If all these things happened, there would still be motorists moaning about them.

Because ultimately, there is a sizeable portion of motorists who believe cyclists should not be on the road. They are wrong on that, but they will never waver from that viewpoint. So they hide behind complaining about the mistakes some cyclists make. They need to build a bridge.

_Jamie_

Jawgap wrote: »

Well it started with the status of child and parent spaces.....and especially the way some folks think they are of a similar status to disabled spaces, which they're not......

.....after that a procession of posters seemed to want to take issue with anyone dating to suggest that parents were anything other than deserving of preferential treatment when it comes to parking. I was simply making the point they're not, and child and parent spots are really just extra paint.

I think maybe you were hoping for and expecting more agreement with you here, that you'd tap into a stream of people with a similar simmering resentment towards parents and their kids but in reality you are just coming across petty and sanctimonious. And I say this as a childless person. All I can I say is that you have little to be bothering you!

pajero12

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

On the parent and child space thing.

Not that some arseholes will give a fcuk, but I'll give my anecdote anyway.

I once parked my nissan micra in a supermarket carpark. There were no parent and child spots available which was fine.

Having done my shopping and arrived back to the car with my brand new baby in her rock a tot carry car seat, the man beside me had parked so close to my passenger door that I couldn't open it and definitely couldn't put my baby into the car.

He arrived back eventually and I pointed out how close he'd parked and he told me that life was hard sometimes and to get over it. I hadn't been rude to him at all, I was in fact a nervous wreck. He was just a prick.

My shiny new baby had been born just a week before and within days of the first anniversary of my other two children who had been killed in a car accident. I knew all too well how hard life could be.

I sat in my car and sobbed.

You can choose to be a cnut, or you can choose to actually think about whose life you might be making just that little bit more difficult.

Moral of the story; don't be a cnut.

For what it's worth, I think that once a child is able to hop in and out of the car themselves then you should be parking elsewhere.

So Sorry to hear about your loss!

whisky_galore

Inability to use indicators.

Baby of Board signs (and their unfunny derivatives, Little Princess of Board, Mini Man U Fan on Board etc.)
Yes, you can reproduce, would you like a medal?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Using the brake instead of just decelerating in time

The brake is for emergencies or bringing a car to a stop

Not when you drive an auto.