Are drivers getting more aggressive last 10 years, or coked up?

fryup

i think Asshole'ism is on the increase not just on the roads but in society as well

AndrewJRenko

A little summary of today's cycle commute to work:

1) Young lady pulls out in front of me on roundabout, so that she can further block an already blocked yellow box. A bunch of cars have already blocked the roundabout, and a couple are in the wrong lane, trying to skip the queue. https://streamable.com/cso9x

2) Truck on double-yellows with hazards on, bloke in middle of road talking up to truck driver.

3) Guy pulls out of slip road in front of 3 or 4 cyclists, and stops in position that blocks cycle lane.

4) I filter past a driver with phone playing video on the dash, video has man speaking to camera

5) I'm stopped filtering past a line of stopped traffic on the inside by one guy who didn't leave any room. He's playing with his phone when I ask him to move out.

6) Bike lane is blocked by two vans - one unloading and one outside a coffee shop.

7) Bike lane across canal bridge is blocked by mini-bus driver when lights change. He throws his hands up and blames the driver in front, as if he could never have expected busy traffic on a canal bridge in rush hour.

8) A young guy drives his Golf through a red light on the next canal bridge, with a large number of pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross.

9) Three drivers stop in the middle of a junction at the next canal bridge, blocking the crossing for pedestrians. Presumably they too could never have expected busy traffic on a canal bridge at rush hour.

10) I pass a coach parked in a disabled parking bay outside a hotel.

11) Car drives through a red light at a busy pedestrian crossing, and immediately cuts into bus lane to skip queue.

So a classy combination of illegal actions and just selfish, entitled actions - drivers who don't give a toss about their impact on anyone else, once they get to push on through.

We need a lot more enforcement, and we need some kind of retesting. A once-in-a-lifetime test is ridiculous.

I actually had a good driving day today, I didn't almost get hit at any point.

Just minor annoyance when I was in overtaking lane and someone pulled out in front of me and decided to just sit there at 90 (100 zone).

It's sad that a successful day on the road is one where you weren't nearly killed.

Plumbthedepths

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A little summary of today's cycle commute to work:

1) Young lady pulls out in front of me on roundabout, so that she can further block an already blocked yellow box. A bunch of cars have already blocked the roundabout, and a couple are in the wrong lane, trying to skip the queue. https://streamable.com/cso9x

2) Truck on double-yellows with hazards on, bloke in middle of road talking up to truck driver.

3) Guy pulls out of slip road in front of 3 or 4 cyclists, and stops in position that blocks cycle lane.

4) I filter past a driver with phone playing video on the dash, video has man speaking to camera

5) I'm stopped filtering past a line of stopped traffic on the inside by one guy who didn't leave any room. He's playing with his phone when I ask him to move out.

6) Bike lane is blocked by two vans - one unloading and one outside a coffee shop.

7) Bike lane across canal bridge is blocked by mini-bus driver when lights change. He throws his hands up and blames the driver in front, as if he could never have expected busy traffic on a canal bridge in rush hour.

8) A young guy drives his Golf through a red light on the next canal bridge, with a large number of pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross.

9) Three drivers stop in the middle of a junction at the next canal bridge, blocking the crossing for pedestrians. Presumably they too could never have expected busy traffic on a canal bridge at rush hour.

10) I pass a coach parked in a disabled parking bay outside a hotel.

So a classy combination of illegal actions and just selfish, entitled actions - drivers who don't give a toss about their impact on anyone else, once they get to push on through.

We need a lot more enforcement, and we need some kind of retesting. A once-in-a-lifetime test is ridiculous.

Of course all cyclists you saw behaved legally and obeyed the rules of the road.

AndrewJRenko

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Of course all cyclists you saw behaved legally and obeyed the rules of the road.

Certainly, some cyclists broke red lights. But if you need the difference between the law breaking cyclists and law breaking motorists to be spelt out for you, the law breaking cyclists aren't the ones killing 2 or 3 people each week on the roads and maiming many more.

Plumbthedepths

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Certainly, some cyclists broke red lights. But if you need the difference between the law breaking cyclists and law breaking motorists to be spelt out for you, the law breaking cyclists aren't the ones killing 2 or 3 people each week on the roads and maiming many more.

So there are plenty of a**holes on bikes as there is behind the wheel of cars/ vans etc good to know.

Mal-Adjusted

I had my own experience with an aggressive driver on Monday afternoon. I was driving to work on a regional road and while on a 350m straight with a blind bend at the end, i saw a cyclist in front of me. i judged that i couldn't overtake the cyclist before the bend so i checked the rear-view mirror (another car about 130-150 meters behind me, and gradually slowed to match the cyclists speed going round the bend. Suddenly, the car behind is glued to my arse, excitedly flashing lights at me. I overtook the cyclist when safe and the car behind overtakes, horn screaming at me as he disappears down the road.

I don't get it? Did he expect me to overtake on the bend? (as it happens, there was an oncoming car), flatten the cyclist? or just for having the temerity for being on his road? What's wrong with these people?

Mal-Adjusted

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

I had my own experience with an aggressive driver on Monday afternoon. I was driving to work on a regional road and while on a 350m straight with a blind bend at the end, i saw a cyclist in front of me. i judged that i couldn't overtake the cyclist before the bend so i checked the rear-view mirror (another car about 130-150 meters behind me, and gradually slowed to match the cyclists speed going round the bend. Suddenly, the car behind is glued to my arse, excitedly flashing lights at me. I overtook the cyclist when safe and the car behind overtakes, horn screaming at me as he disappears down the road.

I don't get it? Did he expect me to overtake on the bend? (as it happens, there was an oncoming car), flatten the cyclist? or just for having the temerity for being on his road? What's wrong with these people?

This is what I don't get indeed, these people obviously have no risk assessment of their own. I also have experienced bully drivers who appear to think you can just drive up and over a car rather than let it pass. I am absolutely so annoyed by people using the horn to express their anger or frustration. The horn is for warning! If I am driving and hear someone sit on the horn I will slow down and check for danger. These drivers are only making traffic worse by using their horn as expression.

Pinch Flat

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So there are plenty of a**holes on bikes as there is behind the wheel of cars/ vans etc good to know.

You're saying this like it's something new.

Plumbthedepths

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You're saying this like it's something new.

Oh it's not new, it's just some seem to forget it. Good to remind them on occasion.

old_aussie

The real question is ……… How many of these aggressive drivers are "coked up" ?

Ash.J.Williams

MrCostington wrote: »

I think this is better here than in motors as more general.

So, on my way home 30 min ago, Dublin, I was taking the right turn off a main road into my estate. The crossroad turn is controlled by lights and has a filter lane to turn right. Green for me (but not a filter light). But the lights have an island in the middle for pedestrians with high railings so it's hard to see if it's clear to turn.

As a moved into the filter lane I noticed this *** in a Corsa right up my ass. no headlights on just the side lights (a 07 so no DLR) and he did not indicate either. So I slow as I approach the junction to ensure path is clear BEEP BEEP I hear.

Into my narrow estate and he is inches from my ass,

WTF???

Another trend I noticed in the last 10 years, if you are first at the lights and don't move off within 0.5 seconds, BEEP! I'm talking a delay literally less than 2s.

Have we all become total c**nts in our cars, or all on coke etc?

/RANT

In fairness if you’re not on your toes when the light goes green you should be executed

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

In fairness if you’re not on your toes when the light goes green you should be executed

If you're not running reds then you don't care about your family.

Potential-Monke

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

In fairness if you’re not on your toes when the light goes green you should be executed

I don't agree. Traffic lights are not the start line of an F1 race. As previously mentioned, when I'm stopped in traffic I put on the handbrake and into neutral. My auto does have a hold function, but from experience I hate being behind a car with rear LED's that's stopped at lights and the brake lights being held on, they're blinding at night.

Anyway, red light, stopped, in neutral. I do keep an eye on the lights, but I won't go into D until the light goes green, it takes about a second for the car to engage and i'm off. If that second is not short enough, tough. Learn to live with it.

I'm not saying to sit behind someone for 4+ seconds, they deserve a beep unless they're an L/N driver. But expecting someone to go at the same time as the light turning green is wrong. There should be a delay, especially to allow the bastards breaking red lights to get clear, because there's always 1.

Vic_08

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I don't agree. Traffic lights are not the start line of an F1 race. As previously mentioned, when I'm stopped in traffic I put on the handbrake and into neutral. My auto does have a hold function, but from experience I hate being behind a car with rear LED's that's stopped at lights and the brake lights being held on, they're blinding at night.

Anyway, red light, stopped, in neutral. I do keep an eye on the lights, but I won't go into D until the light goes green, it takes about a second for the car to engage and i'm off. If that second is not short enough, tough. Learn to live with it.

The solution to that is for you to learn to drive your vehicle properly, there is no reason to take it out of drive while stopped at traffic lights.

Potential-Monke

Vic_08 wrote: »

The solution to that is for you to learn to drive your vehicle properly, there is no reason to take it out of drive while stopped at traffic lights.

Just because you wouldn't do it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. What if they're those lights mentioned earlier, where you're waiting for 5 minutes for them to change back? Stand on the brake for 5 minutes and blind the person behind me? Bet that's what you do.

Or even better, please show me the legislation that states I shouldn't go into N and apply the handbrake when stopped at traffic lights. I'll give you a hint, there is none. There's every reason to take it out of drive while stopped for a while. What if someone rear ends you and you're still in D? Car takes off. In N it wouldn't. What do you do in manual cars? Leave it in gear with the clutch depressed for a few minutes? Or in neutral with the brake engaged?

Actually, tell me the purpose of N so? Because if I'm parked and stopped, it's in P. When driving it's in D, reverse is R, when do I use N if not stopped in traffic?

Vic_08

Stop with foot brake, put handbrake on, release foot brake, leave in drive.
In most instances there is no need to touch the gear lever from the moment you set off on a journey until you are about to turn the engine off.

Potential-Monke

So, leave it in D with the handbrake applied... So now the car is fighting against moving with the handbrake applied, and that's apparently the best way?

Blazer

Potential-Monke wrote: »

So, leave it in D with the handbrake applied... So now the car is fighting against moving with the handbrake applied, and that's apparently the best way?

Automatics don’t fight against moving when the handbrake is engaged. They’re called automatics for a reason.
It’s why most cars have an automatic handbrake now.
Once my car is in D I never have to change it going anyway until I’m finished my journey and I can put it in park.

I save all my hatred for 80kph assholes as I call them. These are the ones who probably claim the speed limit isn’t a target but the real reason is because they’re complete oblivious to other road users and are a real danger. Every one of those assholes always blast through 30/50kph zones still going at 80kph again complete oblivious to the road.
Next up are old people who have no idea where they are going and dodder about wondering what they are supposed to be doing. Casually doing u-turns or illegal turns because they don’t see the signs etc and again a key reason why old people along with idiots from 18-24 have the highest death rates on the road.
And last but not least are women who christ above can barely push a shopping trolley without hitting something and are then given a death machine to drive around the place. Who have all the awareness of an old 80kph driver and have zero road perception whatsoever.
Don’t get me started on old female drivers. Those assholes can all rot in hell.
There should be mandatory retesting every 5-10 years depending on age.
Quite simply if you can’t drive at the speed limit- fail.
Zero awareness of other road uses - fail.
Being an asshole on the road- fail (justified for the above though)
Parking your car in a non parking spot- crushed car.

Potential-Monke

Blazer wrote: »

Automatics don’t fight against moving when the handbrake is engaged. They’re called automatics for a reason.
It’s why most cars have an automatic handbrake now.
Once my car is in D I never have to change it going anyway until I’m finished my journey and I can put it in park.

Not mine. I get into my car, start it, move it from P to D and release the handbrake (which is engaged with my foot and released with a lever on the right). If I don't release the handbrake, the car will try to move and the dash will light up red telling me I've left the parking brake on.

I also feel the need to clarify that I don't put it into N all the time, just if I'm going to be stopped for a while in traffic. The alternative is to use the hold feature, but I kinda care about the people behind me and don't want to blind them, as I get blinded when other people do this. At night anyway, I'll use hold during the daytime.

Blazer

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Not mine. I get into my car, start it, move it from P to D and release the handbrake (which is engaged with my foot and released with a lever on the right). If I don't release the handbrake, the car will try to move and the dash will light up red telling me I've left the parking brake on.

I also feel the need to clarify that I don't put it into N all the time, just if I'm going to be stopped for a while in traffic. The alternative is to use the hold feature, but I kinda care about the people behind me and don't want to blind them, as I get blinded when other people do this. At night anyway, I'll use hold during the daytime.

That handbrake sounds awkward as hell.
What car is it if you don’t mind me asking?
Definitely want to avoid getting anything like that for the missus, God help us all.

Vic_08

Potential-Monke wrote: »

So, leave it in D with the handbrake applied... So now the car is fighting against moving with the handbrake applied, and that's apparently the best way?

Nothing is fighting with anything, they are designed to be left in D.

Traditional torque converter and planetary gearset boxes will creep forward at idle but the force generated in the TC of holding it against that is tiny compared the force it handles when moving, it is just a liquid being pushed between two sets of blades. You will cause more wear to the gearbox from shifting it to/from neutral constantly than from leaving it in drive for days.

The more recent types of auto box are also designed to remain stationary for extended periods in drive as people in countries where auto boxes have been the standard are used to driving them like that. The single clutch automated manual types keep the drive disengaged when the handbrake is on and only begin to partially engage when the accelerator is pressed, otherwise the clutch would burn out in no time at all. The various twin clutch systems are more complex but they will also sit with the selector in D with no harm to the mechanism.

Potential-Monke

Maybe I've a fault in mine so, but D and the handbrake don't play well together. It's a 2010 E220 Coupe (C207). Again, I'm not at it constantly, only if it's night, stuck at lights for over 10 seconds and there's a car behind me.

Question then, if I use the Hold feature and someone hits me from behind, what happens? Google is not answering that for me...

AndrewJRenko

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Oh it's not new, it's just some seem to forget it. Good to remind them on occasion.

If that's directed at me, you're way off the mark.

There's assholes on bikes, on scooters, on foot and behind steering wheels.

But what some seem to forget is that there's only one group of assholes that kills two or three people each week on the road and maims many more.

See if you can work out which group of assholes that I'm referring to.

AndrewJRenko

Potential-Monke wrote: »

But expecting someone to go at the same time as the light turning green is wrong. There should be a delay, especially to allow the bastards breaking red lights to get clear, because there's always 1.

Or 2. Or sometimes 3. Or on a bad day, 4 or 5.

tuxy

Has this perceived increase in aggression increased road fatalities?

Potential-Monke

tuxy wrote: »

Has this perceived increase in aggression increased road fatalities?

It dropped in 2018, and according to the RSA it's 148 in 2019, so another drop (by 1):

Year - Fatalities - Number of crashes in general
2010 - 212 - 8270
2011 - 186 - 7235
2012 - 161 - 7942
2013 - 190 - 6880
2014 - 193 - 8079
2015 - 165 - ?
2016 - 187 - ?
2017 - 158 - ?
2018 - 149 - ?

MrCostington

OP here, been keeping an eye here but not really much to add (and did not expect it to reach 22 pages!).

If I could just clarify two points in my OP made in a rush to the specific incident.

Firstly about the coke comment, that was just in response to the extremely aggressive driver that was beeping at me and up my ass while turning right at a junction with very limited visibility due to the large pedestrian island blocking the view of oncoming traffic on a busy road. And he had no lights on. I'd say he was on something or had serious anger issues.

Re the beeping at lights, I'm not for a second suggesting this is drug related. And, personally, I do apply the handbrake for the reasons of not having my brake lights on. I don't be on my phone etc and am gone usually in about 1 second. Time to say one thousand and one. I really don't think that is unreasonable?

FixdePitchmark

what is this thing about not shining a light at car behind , bizarre ?

most people go around with a very powerful light 8 inches from their face all day. A break light isn't exactly powerful and blinding .

A break light comes on to let everyone know your break is on. What is the big deal.

2lazytogetup

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A little summary of today's cycle commute to work:

1) Young lady pulls out in front of me on roundabout, so that she can further block an already blocked yellow box. A bunch of cars have already blocked the roundabout, and a couple are in the wrong lane, trying to skip the queue. https://streamable.com/cso9x

2) Truck on double-yellows with hazards on, bloke in middle of road talking up to truck driver.

3) Guy pulls out of slip road in front of 3 or 4 cyclists, and stops in position that blocks cycle lane.

4) I filter past a driver with phone playing video on the dash, video has man speaking to camera

5) I'm stopped filtering past a line of stopped traffic on the inside by one guy who didn't leave any room. He's playing with his phone when I ask him to move out.

6) Bike lane is blocked by two vans - one unloading and one outside a coffee shop.

7) Bike lane across canal bridge is blocked by mini-bus driver when lights change. He throws his hands up and blames the driver in front, as if he could never have expected busy traffic on a canal bridge in rush hour.

8) A young guy drives his Golf through a red light on the next canal bridge, with a large number of pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross.

9) Three drivers stop in the middle of a junction at the next canal bridge, blocking the crossing for pedestrians. Presumably they too could never have expected busy traffic on a canal bridge at rush hour.

10) I pass a coach parked in a disabled parking bay outside a hotel.

11) Car drives through a red light at a busy pedestrian crossing, and immediately cuts into bus lane to skip queue.

So a classy combination of illegal actions and just selfish, entitled actions - drivers who don't give a toss about their impact on anyone else, once they get to push on through.

We need a lot more enforcement, and we need some kind of retesting. A once-in-a-lifetime test is ridiculous.

There is no political will to make the roads safer for cyclists. people that vote for FF/FG are old and drive cars, and dont like hippies. tehy have the mentality that they have paid for their car (incl VRT) and road tax.

You my friend will have the last laugh, while they sit in eating their junk at the wheel, you are cycling, having a healthier life, feeling better and since you are fit probably have a more attractive partner than anyone in the cars getting a beer belly.

2lazytogetup

this thread is too long to see the answer.

my opinion is that the reason for the agression is that there are far more cars on the roads now than there were 10 years ago. So you cant give an inch. At junctions, you need to pull out whenever you see a small gap or you will never get out. And thus you infuriate oncoming traffic which makes things worse.

and i note its the morning and evening commuter traffic that is more aggressive. Get on the road at 11am, and everyone (apart from van drivers who are on a mission) are far more relaxed,

people rushing, albeit driving agressively in their cars is better for the economy. they are rushing to buy something or get to work or whatever. people going slow, go to Cuba and you can see the relaxed pace of life. their economy stinks though.

Pinch Flat

2lazytogetup wrote: »

people rushing, albeit driving agressively in their cars is better for the economy. they are rushing to buy something or get to work or whatever.

Car congestion though impacts negatively on the economy, to the tune of about €350m per annum. This is set to rise in the coming decade or so to an estimated €2bn. annually

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/time-lost-in-dublin-traffic-costs-economy-350m-per-year-1.3066581

We also have to consider the negative effects that car commuting brings - hours stuck in traffic, the mental health & physical impacts - encouraging a sedentary life style, causing and exposure to pollution.

xckjoo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Car congestion though impacts negatively on the economy, to the tune of about €350m per annum. This is set to rise in the coming decade or so to an estimated €2bn. annually

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/time-lost-in-dublin-traffic-costs-economy-350m-per-year-1.3066581

We also have to consider the negative effects that car commuting brings - hours stuck in traffic, the mental health & physical impacts - encouraging a sedentary life style, causing and exposure to pollution.

And selfish driving adds to car congestion. All those people nipping through on red and blocking junctions, flying up the road to sit at the next set of traffic lights and rapid speeding up and slowing down all increase congestion levels. Most people just see it as more speed is more better though

Tchaikovsky

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

1) Young lady pulls out in front of me on roundabout, so that she can further block an already blocked yellow box. A bunch of cars have already blocked the roundabout, and a couple are in the wrong lane, trying to skip the queue. https://streamable.com/cso9x

That roundabout at Dundrum is a nightmare; it's a wonder there aren't more crashes at it.

2lazytogetup

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Car congestion though impacts negatively on the economy, to the tune of about €350m per annum. This is set to rise in the coming decade or so to an estimated €2bn. annually

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/time-lost-in-dublin-traffic-costs-economy-350m-per-year-1.3066581

We also have to consider the negative effects that car commuting brings - hours stuck in traffic, the mental health & physical impacts - encouraging a sedentary life style, causing and exposure to pollution.

Congestion might negatively impact the economy. But if i drive faster and more aggressively to work, i can start work earlier and contribute more. if i can drive to the cinema in 20 minutes fast instead of 40 min slow, im more likely to go and contribute to economy.

An economy grows when it learns to do things more efficiently and quicker. This includes getting from one place to another quicker by driving faster and more agressively. If you look at HS2 in the UK, they are spending billions on it as they know that the quicker people move, there are benefits to the economy

Salary Negotiator

2lazytogetup wrote: »

Congestion might negatively impact the economy. But if i drive faster and more aggressively to work, i can start work earlier and contribute more. if i can drive to the cinema in 20 minutes fast instead of 40 min slow, im more likely to go and contribute to economy.

An economy grows when it learns to do things more efficiently and quicker. This includes getting from one place to another quicker by driving faster and more agressively. If you look at HS2 in the UK, they are spending billions on it as they know that the quicker people move, there are benefits to the economy

Driving faster and more aggressively doesn't necessarily get you there any quicker.

It also probably delays everyone behind you as you needlessly brake when aggressively switching lanes or tailgating the car in front.

xckjoo

2lazytogetup wrote: »

Congestion might negatively impact the economy. But if i drive faster and more aggressively to work, i can start work earlier and contribute more. if i can drive to the cinema in 20 minutes fast instead of 40 min slow, im more likely to go and contribute to economy.

An economy grows when it learns to do things more efficiently and quicker. This includes getting from one place to another quicker by driving faster and more agressively. If you look at HS2 in the UK, they are spending billions on it as they know that the quicker people move, there are benefits to the economy

That's very one dimensional thinking because you're slowing everyone down (including yourself) by driving like that, so you're actually negatively impacting the economy. Efficient and quicker doesn't equate to fast and aggressive. It's a slow down to go faster kinda thing. Like you're taught how to leave the building in the event of a fire. There's a reason they don't tell everyone to run like a lunatic.

AndrewJRenko

2lazytogetup wrote: »

Congestion might negatively impact the economy. But if i drive faster and more aggressively to work, i can start work earlier and contribute more. if i can drive to the cinema in 20 minutes fast instead of 40 min slow, im more likely to go and contribute to economy.

The only thing that driving faster gets you, is to the back of the next queue of cars a few seconds earlier. Driving speed has minimal impact on journeys in the city. It's the traffic that is the limiting factor, not your speed.

The only thing that driving aggressively gets you is more crashes and collisions.

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

That roundabout at Dundrum is a nightmare; it's a wonder there aren't more crashes at it.

They had a Garda stationed on each side of it for the mornings of the week before Christmas keeping it clear and it flowed like a mountain stream. It's a great example of how 'aggressive' driving actually slows you down.

Tchaikovsky

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They had a Garda stationed on each side of it for the mornings of the week before Christmas keeping it clear and it flowed like a mountain stream. It's a great example of how 'aggressive' driving actually slows you down.

True yeah, everyone was in the correct lane for where they wanted to go

Antares35

I dont know what the basis is for this it's just a sense I have, but I think the increase in driver aggression and road rage ( and probably just rage more generally) is caused by people simply being unhappy in their lives. Living to work, commuting, sitting in traffic day in day out. Paying huge rent or mortgages. Few kids hanging out of them. Feeling like the government is raping their monthly salary for f@ck all in return. And then humanity just becomes a thin veneer and it only takes the perception of being slighted or wronged to get people into a rage. Just a hunch though!

punisher5112

Gas, honk, punch..... Seems the norm ...

Emme

Antares35 wrote: »

I dont know what the basis is for this it's just a sense I have, but I think the increase in driver aggression and road rage ( and probably just rage more generally) is caused by people simply being unhappy in their lives. Living to work, commuting, sitting in traffic day in day out. Paying huge rent or mortgages. Few kids hanging out of them. Feeling like the government is raping their monthly salary for f@ck all in return. And then humanity just becomes a thin veneer and it only takes the perception of being slighted or wronged to get people into a rage. Just a hunch though!

So true. The same applies to rail commuters. Irish Rail inevitably forget to put names above seats before people board trains and only switch them on when people are cramming themselves into the aisles between seats after the spaces between carriages are packed. Then someone who has booked a seat squeezes down and sees someone sitting there. There is often a full on shouting match between the person sitting in the seat (it's mine, there was no name above it when I sat there!) and the person who booked it (get out, I paid for that seat or I'll pull you out of it by your hair!).

Most Irish people are very tolerant considering what we have to put up with but slowly we are getting more angry, perhaps foreigners are alerting us to how we are being screwed over and that we are putting up with worse now than some of them had to put up with pre 1989.

Many people have to drive to their train station before they start their rail commute. Parking is not free so that's another way working commuters are being screwed. Then there is the idiot who takes ages to reverse their large saloon car into a parking space while a line of cars is waiting to park and the train is departing in less than 5 minutes. Rail commuters in Ireland are a special sort of angry.

AndrewJRenko

Emme wrote: »

Many people have to drive to their train station before they start their rail commute. Parking is not free so that's another way working commuters are being screwed.

Why should the State be providing free storage space for your private property? Do you expect the State to subsidise your car ownership - so that people who walk, or cycle, or get the bus to the train station are covering a share of the costs of storing your private property?

Emme

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why should the State be providing free storage space for your private property? Do you expect the State to subsidise your car ownership - so that people who walk, or cycle, or get the bus to the train station are covering a share of the costs of storing your private property?

I expect Irish Rail to provide free parking for those who buy annual tickets. The taxsaver makes very little difference if you are on the lower rate of tax. It is now trendy to attack people who drive but some of us have no choice because what we can afford to buy may be in an area without buses and too far to walk cycle to the nearest train station.

I used to rent in the city and cycle everywhere but life is very different now I have bought in an affordable area. Sanctimoniousness is only for those who can afford it. Sanctimonious and blinkered people should be forced to live in a rural area for a month in the winter and commute to work whatever way they can. It would be a wake up call for them - if they managed to stick it out for the whole month!

No wonder so many people feel that working is not worthwhile, the cost of working and the hassle of getting there often outweighs whatever financial benefits there are.

AndrewJRenko

Emme wrote: »

I expect Irish Rail to provide free parking for those who buy annual tickets.

So those who buy annual tickets and don't park at the station should pay a share of the cost of providing storage for your private property?

'Free' parking isn't free. It just means that everyone shares the cost of parking, instead of drivers paying the cost of parking.

pablo128

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So those who buy annual tickets and don't park at the station should pay a share of the cost of providing storage for your private property?

'Free' parking isn't free. It just means that everyone shares the cost of parking, instead of drivers paying the cost of parking.

Do you pay to park your bicycle outside a train station?

Antares35

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why should the State be providing free storage space for your private property? Do you expect the State to subsidise your car ownership - so that people who walk, or cycle, or get the bus to the train station are covering a share of the costs of storing your private property?

Because it's in their interest to have a large working population paying tax, USC etc.? And because other service and retail providers generally dont screw their paying customers with parking fees.

Antares35

Emme wrote: »

I expect Irish Rail to provide free parking for those who buy annual tickets. The taxsaver makes very little difference if you are on the lower rate of tax. It is now trendy to attack people who drive but some of us have no choice because what we can afford to buy may be in an area without buses and too far to walk cycle to the nearest train station.

I used to rent in the city and cycle everywhere but life is very different now I have bought in an affordable area. Sanctimoniousness is only for those who can afford it. Sanctimonious and blinkered people should be forced to live in a rural area for a month in the winter and commute to work whatever way they can. It would be a wake up call for them - if they managed to stick it out for the whole month!

No wonder so many people feel that working is not worthwhile, the cost of working and the hassle of getting there often outweighs whatever financial benefits there are.

Indeed. Not to mention if you have small people to drop at school or creche. Maybe we should do like in India and pack entire families goats and all onto a bike I wouldnt be without my car and I make zero apologies for that. Theres always someone waiting to jump on the cyclist versus motorist bandwagon. Yawn...

AndrewJRenko

pablo128 wrote: »

Do you pay to park your bicycle outside a train station?

I don't think I've ever parked my bike at a train station, due to the significant risk of it not being there when I got back. Those who use secure lockers at train stations for their bikes certainly do pay, and rightly so.

I'd have no difficulty paying a proportional fee for safe and secure bike parking.

pawdee

When aggressive drivers beep at me at traffic lights I often get nervous and stall. This seems to happen more often on lights with a very short sequence.