Things that annoy you beyond reason...(Vol. 6)

[cuprabob]

Voldemort said:

I hate when that happens

[Clockwork Cupcake]

The pedestrian with dark hair, and dark clothes, on an unlit pavement after dark, walking a black dog, with dark lead, and dark harness. Not an inch of anything reflective on anything.

[andym1603]

The female (nearly always one) at the cashpoint that gets a statement,studies it, withdraws cash then gets another statement before they move off. Why do they do this?

[Clockwork Cupcake]

andym1603 said:

The female (nearly always one) at the cashpoint that gets a statement,studies it, withdraws cash then gets another statement before they move off. Why do they do this?

Maybe they've been a victim of fraud / phantom withdrawal in the past and are keeping records for a while?

Or maybe they're in an abusive relationship and have to show their abuser that they only withdrew that amount by showing before and after mini-statements?

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Tuesday 28th January 18:17

[DoubleD]

ro250 said:

Who's Nicholas Parsons?

How dare you

[droopsnoot]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

The pedestrian with dark hair, and dark clothes, on an unlit pavement after dark, walking a black dog, with dark lead, and dark harness. Not an inch of anything reflective on anything.

Are you driving on the road alongside, or also on the pavement?

[poing]

andym1603 said:

The female (nearly always one) at the cashpoint that gets a statement,studies it, withdraws cash then gets another statement before they move off. Why do they do this?

Similarly there are the people that have about eleventy hundred cards and need to check each of them in triplicate.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

droopsnoot said:

Are you driving on the road alongside, or also on the pavement?

Driving on the pavement is generally frowned upon.

Yes, for sure, on a pavement they are safe enough although they're a danger to themselves when they cross a road, or come to a part of the road that doesn't have a pavement.

I just think it's a bit stupid to not, at the bare minimum, use a reflective lead and harness on the dog.

[Halmyre]

ro250 said:

Who's Nicholas Parsons?

The latest CofE scandal.

[Triumph Trollomite]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

The pedestrian with dark hair, and dark clothes, on an unlit pavement after dark, walking a black dog, with dark lead, and dark harness. Not an inch of anything reflective on anything.

You noticed them though...

[br d]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

The pedestrian with dark hair, and dark clothes, on an unlit pavement after dark, walking a black dog, with dark lead, and dark harness. Not an inch of anything reflective on anything.

Drive anywhere around the East End on a winter morning, people dressed exactly as you say but on black push bikes with no lights weaving around potholes.

There's endless arguments to be had about cyclists and red lights but surely the police should be pulling these death-wish idiots.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Triumph Trollomite said:

You noticed them though...

Eventually. But that's hardly the point though.

It's a quantitative fact that a pedestrian is seen at a far greater distance when wearing something reflective.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

br d said:

Drive anywhere around the East End on a winter morning, people dressed exactly as you say but on black push bikes with no lights weaving around potholes.

Oh, absolutely.

I call them "Ninja Cyclists" and they are by no means confined to the East End. I remember not long after passing my test (far more years ago than I would like to admit to), back when I lived in Cheltenham, and starting to turn into a side road and a ninja cyclist riding along the pavement flashed* past inches from my front bumper. Full emergency stop on my part. Scared the st out of me and made me very circumspect ever since.

(* - in sense of 'at speed', rather than displaying any illumination whatsoever, before some smart alec comments)

[Triumph Trollomite]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Triumph Trollomite said:

You noticed them though...

Eventually. But that's hardly the point though.

It's a quantitative fact that a pedestrian is seen at a far greater distance when wearing something reflective.

I agree and round here we have them dressed the Sam's on bikes with no lights

Dashcam is necessary as one day it will prove useful if I hit one

[yellowjack]

Triumph Trollomite said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Triumph Trollomite said:

You noticed them though...

Eventually. But that's hardly the point though.

It's a quantitative fact that a pedestrian is seen at a far greater distance when wearing something reflective.

I agree and round here we have them dressed the Sam's on bikes with no lights

Dashcam is necessary as one day it will prove useful if I hit one

Meanwhile, elsewhere on PH, someone is moaning about cyclists with lights that are too bright, or which flash at such a frequency that they give the poster seizures, or some other bull. I've no sympathy with 'Ninja' cyclists, but I've also got no sympathy with drivers who get all quivery about the bottom lip over "excessive" lighting levels on bicycles either. You cannae ha' it both ways, mon...

[DoubleD]

yellowjack said:

Triumph Trollomite said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Triumph Trollomite said:

You noticed them though...

Eventually. But that's hardly the point though.

It's a quantitative fact that a pedestrian is seen at a far greater distance when wearing something reflective.

I agree and round here we have them dressed the Sam's on bikes with no lights

Dashcam is necessary as one day it will prove useful if I hit one

Meanwhile, elsewhere on PH, someone is moaning about cyclists with lights that are too bright, or which flash at such a frequency that they give the poster seizures, or some other bull. I've no sympathy with 'Ninja' cyclists, but I've also got no sympathy with drivers who get all quivery about the bottom lip over "excessive" lighting levels on bicycles either. You cannae ha' it both ways, mon...

Yep, people will moan about no lighting and they will moan about lights that distract or point straight at your eyes. The trick is to be visible, but at the same time considerate. Most seem to manage this, but you will always get a few who don't.

[Triumph Trollomite]

yellowjack said:

Triumph Trollomite said:

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Triumph Trollomite said:

You noticed them though...

Eventually. But that's hardly the point though.

It's a quantitative fact that a pedestrian is seen at a far greater distance when wearing something reflective.

I agree and round here we have them dressed the Sam's on bikes with no lights

Dashcam is necessary as one day it will prove useful if I hit one

Meanwhile, elsewhere on PH, someone is moaning about cyclists with lights that are too bright, or which flash at such a frequency that they give the poster seizures, or some other bull. I've no sympathy with 'Ninja' cyclists, but I've also got no sympathy with drivers who get all quivery about the bottom lip over "excessive" lighting levels on bicycles either. You cannae ha' it both ways, mon...

There is that, you can be seen without having to be a tt about it

[captain_cynic]

yellowjack said:

Meanwhile, elsewhere on PH, someone is moaning

I think you could have just stopped there YJ, it is guaranteed, no matter what the subject, there is someone here having a moan about it.

[The Mad Monk]

Posters who seem to feel an uncontrollable urge to put their name at the bottom of a post.

Fred

or Charlie

R

R - that annoys me! On a thread started by him about getting signatures authenticated, or something! Oh, the irony!

Don't worry, when my party get into power they will be the first up against the wall.

[DoubleD]

The Mad Monk said:

Posters who seem to feel an uncontrollable urge to put their name at the bottom of a post.

Fred

or Charlie

R

R - that annoys me! On a thread started by him about getting signatures authenticated, or something! Oh, the irony!

Don't worry, when my party get into power they will be the first up against the wall.

I agree, this for some reason drives me barmy.