Things that annoy you beyond reason...(Vol 4)

[mickk]

mko9 said:

That annoys me beyond reason. There is basically nothing ironic highlighted in that entire song.

Which is a bit ironic...

[silverthorn2151]

the HGV drivers on the A1 today. Whilst they were not breaking any rules the fking s were elephant racing like it was the fking elephant racing olympics.

any truck in the right hand lane of a dual carriageway should be destroyed by a ray gun from orbit.

s

[Bobberoo99]

AstonZagato said:

Bobberoo99 said:

Antony Moxey said:

Bobberoo99 said:

Ted2 said:

yellowjack said:

With the motorists versus cyclists debate still raging, and showing no signs of either "side" mellowing their position, why not utilise ALL former rail beds, and land adjacent to existing railway lines as traffic-free cycling infrastructure? Make it wide enough to accommodate a truck and you've got network-wide access for Network Rail's maintenance and engineering fleet too. It's a winner all round. Better access for repairs and maintenance, and a massive traffic-free cycleway system keeping parents happy and their kids away from busy roads, commuters able to switch to bikes and take advantage of the flattest, fastest route between towns, and drivers would be cock-a-hoop at the prospect of fewer cyclists "holding them up" on their busy commute. And then, when their journey time failed to miraculously halve, we could finally put to bed this ridiculous fiction that asserts that it is cyclists holding up motor traffic.

Not sure if serious..

Cyclists don't use any the thousands of miles of cycle paths that have already been specifically provided for them because pebble in sponge, so what makes you think they would use old railway paths? The answer of course is that they wouldn't and instead would continue to clog up the roads.

Been my argument all along, virtually every cycle path I see is unused while they continue to clog the roads, I sincerely believe they should be fined for not using them, just as they should be fined for jumping red lights!!!!!!!!

The terminally dimwitted being allowed unsupervised access to the internet. Although I'm not sure if it annoys me beyond reason or makes me laugh beyond reason. Hmm...

Ok then, would you care to elaborate, or are you one of those pedantic, self absorbed, dimwits who insist on clogging up the road in a selfish ignorant way despite the fact that people lobbied for and got you a nice shiny cycle path for your own safety???

They are currently causing chaos on the A10 to build a cycle path from the outlying villages into Cambridge. It's costing millions. They will narrow the road significantly through Harston. Chances of it being used? Not high. Chances that the cyclists will remain on the narrower road and be more difficult to pass safely? High.

I was in Oxford at the weekend. There is a road with a cycle path separated from the road by a bank and a grass verge. Ther is also a cycle path separated by a broken painted line. Which one do the cyclists overwhelmingly chose? The one that exposes them to more danger.

I understand their arguments but I'd much prefer to be safe than righteous.

Whoa!!! Careful there you'll be told you're "Terminally dimwitted with unsupervised access to the internet" if you express anything other than agreement with the cyclists!!! As both I and many many others, yourself included, have pointed out, there are cycle lanes provided for they're protection, SO USE THE FKING THINGS!!!

[ClockworkCupcake]

mko9 said:

That annoys me beyond reason. There is basically nothing ironic highlighted in that entire song.

You might like a very young Ed Byrne elaborating on this fact. Unless that's what you're alluding to, of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg

[droopsnoot]

MartG said:

SlimJim16v said:

OpulentBob said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/41731576/gem...

This useless fat orange-faced slack-ttted burger-nippled compo-chasing of all s.

Don't hire a fat fking talentless in the first place.

If she does sue it'll be the last time anyone will hire her - so there's a positive aspect

Listening to the brief mention of this on the radio 1 news this afternoon, apparently "the company that organised the event say that they gave a suitable safety briefing beforehand". Presumably that was "look where you're going", for all the good it did.

[droopsnoot]

Whatever it is that the PH forum coders are experimenting with that is causing the entire forum list page to move upwards just after I've decided I've waited long enough and it mustn't be going to move this time.

[Antony Moxey]

Bobberoo99 said:

AstonZagato said:

Bobberoo99 said:

Antony Moxey said:

Bobberoo99 said:

Ted2 said:

yellowjack said:

With the motorists versus cyclists debate still raging, and showing no signs of either "side" mellowing their position, why not utilise ALL former rail beds, and land adjacent to existing railway lines as traffic-free cycling infrastructure? Make it wide enough to accommodate a truck and you've got network-wide access for Network Rail's maintenance and engineering fleet too. It's a winner all round. Better access for repairs and maintenance, and a massive traffic-free cycleway system keeping parents happy and their kids away from busy roads, commuters able to switch to bikes and take advantage of the flattest, fastest route between towns, and drivers would be cock-a-hoop at the prospect of fewer cyclists "holding them up" on their busy commute. And then, when their journey time failed to miraculously halve, we could finally put to bed this ridiculous fiction that asserts that it is cyclists holding up motor traffic.

Not sure if serious..

Cyclists don't use any the thousands of miles of cycle paths that have already been specifically provided for them because pebble in sponge, so what makes you think they would use old railway paths? The answer of course is that they wouldn't and instead would continue to clog up the roads.

Been my argument all along, virtually every cycle path I see is unused while they continue to clog the roads, I sincerely believe they should be fined for not using them, just as they should be fined for jumping red lights!!!!!!!!

The terminally dimwitted being allowed unsupervised access to the internet. Although I'm not sure if it annoys me beyond reason or makes me laugh beyond reason. Hmm...

Ok then, would you care to elaborate, or are you one of those pedantic, self absorbed, dimwits who insist on clogging up the road in a selfish ignorant way despite the fact that people lobbied for and got you a nice shiny cycle path for your own safety???

They are currently causing chaos on the A10 to build a cycle path from the outlying villages into Cambridge. It's costing millions. They will narrow the road significantly through Harston. Chances of it being used? Not high. Chances that the cyclists will remain on the narrower road and be more difficult to pass safely? High.

I was in Oxford at the weekend. There is a road with a cycle path separated from the road by a bank and a grass verge. Ther is also a cycle path separated by a broken painted line. Which one do the cyclists overwhelmingly chose? The one that exposes them to more danger.

I understand their arguments but I'd much prefer to be safe than righteous.

Whoa!!! Careful there you'll be told you're "Terminally dimwitted with unsupervised access to the internet" if you express anything other than agreement with the cyclists!!! As both I and many many others, yourself included, have pointed out, there are cycle lanes provided for they're protection, SO USE THE FKING THINGS!!!

Only the terminally dimwitted think it’s simply about agreeing/disagreeing with cyclists. Which I’m not incidentally. I’m just a bloke who drives, rides a bike a bit and enjoys the odd walk. Some people though really do need their internet activity monitored though.

[Vocal Minority]

mko9 said:

glenrobbo said:

ClockworkCupcake said:

alorotom said:

ClockworkCupcake said:

Isn't it ironic.

Don’t ya think ...

10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife?

That annoys me beyond reason. There is basically nothing ironic highlighted in that entire song.

The bit where the man is scared of flying, gets on a plane and it crashes...that is.

That is the only thing mind, - but 'isn't it a pain in the arse' didn't scan.

[SlimJim16v]

People who find choosing a coat so difficult they need to ask for help.

[Halmyre]

droopsnoot said:

Whatever it is that the PH forum coders are experimenting with that is causing the entire forum list page to move upwards just after I've decided I've waited long enough and it mustn't be going to move this time.

Ding! I loathe webpages that jump about while I'm trying to click on a link.

[Rich_W]

Bobberoo99 said:

Been my argument all along, virtually every cycle path I see is unused while they continue to clog the roads, I sincerely believe they should be fined for not using them, just as they should be fined for jumping red lights!!!!!!!!

Bobberoo99 said:

Ok then, would you care to elaborate, or are you one of those pedantic, self absorbed, dimwits who insist on clogging up the road in a selfish ignorant way despite the fact that people lobbied for and got you a nice shiny cycle path for your own safety???

With you on the red light jumping. For all!

Cars, bikes and even pedestrians who cross when the red man is showing! When I ride I don't red light jump. If anything is those idiots with no lights and wearing trainers as a rule, but just because they have a bike doesn't make them a cyclist. Much like chavs in McDonalds car park with trays under the rear wheels don't represent McLaren P1 owners

But lets not mess about. When I drive home and get stuck in traffic jams. I'm not stuck in queues of bikes. Especially on the major roads since I don't see cyclists on triple lane dual carriageways or motorways, yet that's where the majority of the gridlock seems to be at rush hour. It isn't bikes that are the problem. It's mainly thousands and thousands of cars. mostly with 1 occupant (yep I'm guilty too) Who are clogging up the roads. Cyclists tend to not be the massive problem here. Even if I get "stuck" behind a slower one (and many are not slow) I'm still moving at 15mph or whatever so it's no where near as frustrating as sitting stationary in a idling car for 5 mins. And like most here I hope, manoeuvring round a slower moving road user safely and considerately isn't THAT hard. Though some do seem to make a st job of it then moan that they are crap at driving and its not fair


As for cycle lanes being empty. It's a visual thing. Since the bikes aren't queuing, you don't see them all in 1 lump. But they are there and they are being used (assuming they are sensible and relevant. A lot seem to be box ticking exercises for incompetent councils who can then crow about how they are cyclist friendly, despite being pointless!) Take 20000 cars and chuck them on a completely closed M1. Motorway would be empty visually despite there being loads of people on it. Make sense?

SpeckledJim said:

We've just moved house. A project 6 months in the making.

Having moved EVERYTHING from the old house to the new, she starts having a clear out, and deciding to throw lots of things away.

So just to plot out the sequence of events:

• She spends six months sitting on her arse while I renovate the new place

• She watches me lump everything we own across town over 4 awful, awful days

• Literally one day later she puts 20% of it in a pile and asks me to take it to the tip

Chuffed to bits. Like being run over by a steam train.

There are such things as Divorce lawyers you know.

Or failing that, Hitmen

[cuprabob]

SlimJim16v said:

People who find choosing a coat so difficult they need to ask for help.

You have to wonder how people managed to make decisions prior to the advent of the internet.

[SCEtoAUX]

When my wife puts teaspoons in the dishwasher basket at an angle, so they stick out through the sides of the thing rather than hanging vertically like they would do if put in properly.

[ClockworkCupcake]

Two people doing a "quote all" each time they reply to each other, causing a reply to take up an entire page. That annoys me beyond reason.

[Frank7]

silverthorn2151 said:

the HGV drivers on the A1 today. Whilst they were not breaking any rules the fking s were elephant racing like it was the fking elephant racing olympics.

any truck in the right hand lane of a dual carriageway should be destroyed by a ray gun from orbit.

s

As an ex trucker who occasionally found myself in the offside lane of a carriageway, when there was absolutely no alternative, I think that any car driver who wished for what you said, should have a chunk of ice drop from a passing plane on to and through his sun roof, narrowly missing him, but f**king his car up completely.
I only clicked on this thread to say that seeing the phrase ‘per se’ written as per say, boils my piss.

[ClockworkCupcake]

Frank7 said:

when there was absolutely no alternative

Absolutely no alternative other than to match speeds with the lorry in front, rather than trying to overtake him with a 1mph speed difference, you mean?

[phazed]

silverthorn2151 said:

the HGV drivers on the A1 today. Whilst they were not breaking any rules the fking s were elephant racing like it was the fking elephant racing olympics.

any truck in the right hand lane of a dual carriageway should be destroyed by a ray gun from orbit.

s

I think this annoys the pants off just about everyone.

Why not just make it a rule that trucks can’t overtake on dual carriageways?

[Halmyre]

phazed said:

silverthorn2151 said:

the HGV drivers on the A1 today. Whilst they were not breaking any rules the fking s were elephant racing like it was the fking elephant racing olympics.

any truck in the right hand lane of a dual carriageway should be destroyed by a ray gun from orbit.

s

I think this annoys the pants off just about everyone.

Why not just make it a rule that trucks can’t overtake on dual carriageways?

Then you'd have convoys of lorries (wish people would stop calling them trucks FFS) stretching for miles in one lane at a speed of X mph and a convoy of cars in the other doing X+1 mph.

[yellowjack]

phazed said:

I think this annoys the pants off just about everyone.

Why not just make it a rule that trucks can’t overtake on dual carriageways?

They have on some dual carriageways. Or at least they have done in the past. A14 Cambridgeshire was one place I seem to recall.

It didn't really work because the truckers soon learned that it wasn't well enforced so they just ignored it because "drivers hours", because "schedule to keep", because "limiter, innit" and because these oafs think that simply because they drive for a living it means they know better than the rest of us.

Or perhaps they were too busy frapping themselves into a lather watching internet porn, or buttering toast with both hands (yes, I've actually seen this happen on a continental motorway!) to notice the signs forbidding them from overtaking on sections of the DC.

Truckers? Worse than bloody cyclists! Not quite as bad as BMW/Audi drivers though...

[phazed]

Halmyre said:

Then you'd have convoys of lorries (wish people would stop calling them trucks FFS) stretching for miles in one lane at a speed of X mph and a convoy of cars in the other doing X+1 mph.

I can be excused as I lived in Canada for a while and modulate in between trucks and lorries depending on my speed of thought!

How can queues of lorries on the inner lane be worse then two lorries blocking a jewel carriageway for miles?

Let's be reasonable, there won't be miles of lorries in one continuous line. They are all more than powerful enough to keep to a constant 56 miles an hour with only a few that drop below this on the steepest of hills.
Being a regular of towing my car on a trailer on the back of my old Transit motorhome, I am used to travelling at 56 miles an hour behind these lorries and I am happy to do so.

(See, I am using the word lorry now!)