Things that annoy you beyond reason...(Vol 4)
Discussion
Shakermaker said:
nonsequitur said:
Good idea. Then you can't see the traffic lights. So a lose lose situation, not even a single whammy. Let's hear it for handbrake/ neutral.
If you are folding it down to avoid the glare from the car in front, you don't need to see the traffic lights. You just need to see when the car in front has gone, which will be when the bright red glare has stopped 
(missed the green light.)Edited by nonsequitur on Thursday 23 November 12:07
nonsequitur said:
Shakermaker said:
nonsequitur said:
Good idea. Then you can't see the traffic lights. So a lose lose situation, not even a single whammy. Let's hear it for handbrake/ neutral.
If you are folding it down to avoid the glare from the car in front, you don't need to see the traffic lights. You just need to see when the car in front has gone, which will be when the bright red glare has stopped glenrobbo said:
Not a threepenny bit, that's one of those new duodecadenum-sided New Pound thingies that have been around for a while now. Apparently, if you get one that has had the centre punched out and reversed or turned a bit, you can advertise it on fleabay for £25,000:
Tight as a ducks butt.
nonsequitur said:
Lazy driving I would suggest.
I also drive my daughter's automatic. At the lights or other delays it's always 'N '. Simple.
Unless you are on any kind of incline, in which case its handbrake on as well, by which time, you have to go back on the brake again to get into D, etc etcI also drive my daughter's automatic. At the lights or other delays it's always 'N '. Simple.
its a bad habit I am trying to get myself out of for sure. But I don't consider the brake lights to be "retina burning" on other cars, and I just look elsewhere
DJFish said:
glenrobbo said:
Shakermaker said:
glenrobbo said:
Now that the dark evenings are back with us, I get REALLY annoyed at drivers who sit at junctions/ traffic lights/ in queues with their foot firmly planted on the brake pedal causing their bloody high intensity high level led brake lights to burn out your retinas when you are behind them. When the line starts to move off, your night vision is ruined and you can't see a bloody thing!
a
holes!
Talk about seeing red, I truly feel like going and punching them in the face.
We've been waiting for this post since the clocks went back. I think you win this year! a
holes! Talk about seeing red, I truly feel like going and punching them in the face.
captain_cynic said:
£12,000... and then £7 for shipping?
Tight as a ducks butt.
You get free postage with the £15,000 one.Tight as a ducks butt.
And the postage on the £25,000 one is only a tenner.
....you pays yer money....
I wonder if the postage charges include insurance against loss or non-delivery?At the time these were advertised, I messaged the vendor of the £75 one to generously offer him the seven identical 2016 new £1 coins that I had in my possession for £50 each, but he didn't reply.
Edited by glenrobbo on Thursday 23 November 12:15
Clockwork Cupcake said:
shakotan said:
Not always, I see plenty of people who drive manuals who sit in queues on the footbrake.
Having an automatic isn't an excuse anyway, that's what the hand/e-brake and/or Park is for.
Even worse is when you know that the car has an e-brake with auto-hold and the driver is literally too lazy / inconsiderate to take their foot off the brake pedal. Having an automatic isn't an excuse anyway, that's what the hand/e-brake and/or Park is for.
jonvw84 said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
shakotan said:
Not always, I see plenty of people who drive manuals who sit in queues on the footbrake.
Having an automatic isn't an excuse anyway, that's what the hand/e-brake and/or Park is for.
Even worse is when you know that the car has an e-brake with auto-hold and the driver is literally too lazy / inconsiderate to take their foot off the brake pedal. Having an automatic isn't an excuse anyway, that's what the hand/e-brake and/or Park is for.
nonsequitur said:
Your wife has it in one. Never use your handbrake? Frank, you have a lot of catching up to do. ( I've never been called a cognoscenti before, is it rude?)
Don’t encourage her, she has this mantra, “Frank, no one can deny that you’re intelligent, but you have absolutely zero common sense.”I’m taking my time doing the catching up, I passed my driving test in 1957, on a 3 ton truck.
COGNOSCENTI; People who are especially well informed about a particular subject.
Overly objectionable NIMBYs
It's one thing to not want a fracking rig drilling next to your back garden - but a property down the road recently applied for planning permission to sell off part of their garden (about 0.15 acres) and build a single detached house on it. The outline plans look reasonable and in keeping.
The part of the garden being sold fronts the road and has properties on either side of it - a detached house on one side and a small estate of 4 or 5 new build detached houses (probably 2 years old) on the other. There is also a relatively new house right opposite that was built when the owner bought a derelict bungalow/village shop and demolished it - replacing it with a huge (and fking ugly) detached house.
Now - of course people were going to object to the planning application (they always do). But what surprised me is who objected. Every owner on the new build estate objected, as did the guy opposite. This new house wont overlook any of them and in fact it'll barely be visible. It's not like it's going to spoil anyone's view or privacy.
Just seems rather hypocritical that they are living where they are due to planning permission being granted on a new build property - yet they object (quite vociferously in some cases) to somebody trying to do the same?
The original application was rejected - but the rejection was over turned on appeal. I'd love to have seen their faces.
It's one thing to not want a fracking rig drilling next to your back garden - but a property down the road recently applied for planning permission to sell off part of their garden (about 0.15 acres) and build a single detached house on it. The outline plans look reasonable and in keeping.
The part of the garden being sold fronts the road and has properties on either side of it - a detached house on one side and a small estate of 4 or 5 new build detached houses (probably 2 years old) on the other. There is also a relatively new house right opposite that was built when the owner bought a derelict bungalow/village shop and demolished it - replacing it with a huge (and f
king ugly) detached house.Now - of course people were going to object to the planning application (they always do). But what surprised me is who objected. Every owner on the new build estate objected, as did the guy opposite. This new house wont overlook any of them and in fact it'll barely be visible. It's not like it's going to spoil anyone's view or privacy.
Just seems rather hypocritical that they are living where they are due to planning permission being granted on a new build property - yet they object (quite vociferously in some cases) to somebody trying to do the same?
The original application was rejected - but the rejection was over turned on appeal. I'd love to have seen their faces.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 23 November 15:56
Moonhawk said:
Overly objectionable NIMBYs
That's not a NIMBY, that's a BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). I agree with your post mind you, whilst you shouldn't be given carte blache to do whatever you want with your land and it is common courtesy to let your neighbours know about constructions (like my a
hole next door neighbours DIDN'T when they tarmac'd their drive covering my car in building site detritus) some people just need to butt the hell out.Moonhawk said:
Overly objectionable NIMBYs
It's one thing to not want a fracking rig drilling next to your back garden - but a property down the road recently applied for planning permission to sell off part of their garden (about 0.15 acres) and build a single detached house on it. The outline plans look reasonable and in keeping.
The part of the garden being sold fronts the road and has properties on either side of it - a detached house on one side and a small estate of 4 or 5 new build detached houses (probably 2 years old) on the other. There is also a relatively new house right opposite that was built when the owner bought a derelict bungalow/village shop and demolished it - replacing it with a huge (and fking ugly) detached house.
Now - of course people were going to object to the planning application (they always do). But what surprised me is who objected. Every owner on the new build estate objected, as did the guy opposite. This new house wont overlook any of them and in fact it'll barely be visible. It's not like it's going to spoil anyone's view or privacy.
Just seems rather hypocritical that they are living where they are due to planning permission being granted on a new build property - yet they object (quite vociferously in some cases) to somebody trying to do the same?
The original application was rejected - but the rejection was over turned on appeal. I'd love to have seen their faces.
Yes!It's one thing to not want a fracking rig drilling next to your back garden - but a property down the road recently applied for planning permission to sell off part of their garden (about 0.15 acres) and build a single detached house on it. The outline plans look reasonable and in keeping.
The part of the garden being sold fronts the road and has properties on either side of it - a detached house on one side and a small estate of 4 or 5 new build detached houses (probably 2 years old) on the other. There is also a relatively new house right opposite that was built when the owner bought a derelict bungalow/village shop and demolished it - replacing it with a huge (and f
king ugly) detached house.Now - of course people were going to object to the planning application (they always do). But what surprised me is who objected. Every owner on the new build estate objected, as did the guy opposite. This new house wont overlook any of them and in fact it'll barely be visible. It's not like it's going to spoil anyone's view or privacy.
Just seems rather hypocritical that they are living where they are due to planning permission being granted on a new build property - yet they object (quite vociferously in some cases) to somebody trying to do the same?
The original application was rejected - but the rejection was over turned on appeal. I'd love to have seen their faces.
Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 23 November 15:56
The automatic default approach of "how can we stop this?"
instead of "is there any real reason to want to stop this?"
Yet nobody ever has any issue with their own house, even if it's the same sort of house in the same place. Off with their heads.
civiclegend said:
The fact that 'Reader's Cars' section isn't called 'Reader's Drives'.
Was it 'Club', or 'Fiesta' which had this wonderful feature?
I would say it should be "Member's Cars" or similar, since I don't really consider us to be "readers" of a forum, we are members of the forumWas it 'Club', or 'Fiesta' which had this wonderful feature?
- Wistful thoughts
Frank7 said:
nonsequitur said:
Your wife has it in one. Never use your handbrake? Frank, you have a lot of catching up to do. ( I've never been called a cognoscenti before, is it rude?)
Don’t encourage her, she has this mantra, “Frank, no one can deny that you’re intelligent, but you have absolutely zero common sense.”I’m taking my time doing the catching up, I passed my driving test in 1957, on a 3 ton truck.
COGNOSCENTI; People who are especially well informed about a particular subject.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff