What gets your goat(down)?

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:37 pm

Sue Sanders wrote:
As a fairly frequent cyclist myself, I'm really irritated by cyclists who think that the pavement is their cycle track. I run the gauntlet of the traffic on my bike, so why shouldn't they? It's normally teenage lads -if it's night they've got no lights - bombing along without a thought for anything else. They need to be forced back onto the road where they belong however much it annoys Squash Robinson

And similarly when I'm waiting patiently on my bike at a red light and some guy (usually a teenager) speeds straight through it or, if at a T-junction with lights, speeds past the red light and onto the path.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:49 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
James Robinson wrote:it's mainly because I think a road should be used for vehicles that are meant for it, not bicycles.
Where do you think bicycles are "meant" to go?

As far away from the road as possible, in my view, although that will clearly never happen.

I'm just using optimistic realism there. Something that is nice, but has no chance of fruition.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:50 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:... "There's about 20 people waiting outside" ...

I was working simply on the basis that "there's" is a contraction of "there is".

Phil Reynolds wrote:... that word "about" muddies the waters even further ...

Well, I don't agree the waters are muddied yet, and I also don't think 'about' makes much difference, either. Unlike 'group', it's not a collective noun. Although, funnily enough, 'number' doesn't follow the same rule. "There is a group of ...", but "there are a number of ...". I read why this is but I can't remember exactly.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:54 pm

Sue Sanders wrote:
James Robinson wrote:
By the way, motorcyclists are also included as well, even though they're slightly easier to see, but it's mainly because I think a road should be used for vehicles that are meant for it, not bicycles.

As a fairly frequent cyclist myself, I'm really irritated by cyclists who think that the pavement is their cycle track. I run the gauntlet of the traffic on my bike, so why shouldn't they? It's normally teenage lads -if it's night they've got no lights - bombing along without a thought for anything else. They need to be forced back onto the road where they belong however much it annoys Squash Robinson

In Cambridge you fairly regularly see people a) cycling on the pavement when the road has a cycle lane b) cycling on the road when the pavement has a cycle path. In fairness the cycle lane system is pretty baroque here thanks to the narrow streets, so there are routes where the cycle path shifts back and forth, or disappears entirely, and it's quite hard to figure out where you're supposed to be.

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:58 pm

Reaches for a large and overused soap box:
Agree on the pavement hogging arseholes. We have also perfected the manoeuvre of moving across to the inside to make them go round us rather than through us. We always laugh when the happy-twatty couple, oblivious to anyone else on the planet, have to stop holding hand for all of two seconds to let us past
I also hate the twats who insist on playing the 'I'm going to pull out in front of you from a side junction, irrespective of how far I am away from you' game.
This is closely linked to the 'I'm going to overtake this parked car whilst you're approaching with right of way' game, whereby you also have to keep going to avoid braking and having to lose face as they just pull in past the overtaken car.
isn't it a joy watching all the cars on the roundabout turn left without signalling their intent to do so. Gosh! how I laugh and give them a cheery wave as they go past!

Supermarkets are also a happy hunting ground for grumpy old men like me too and the pillocks that insist of running everywhere really make me smile, along with the old friends that decide to have a 30 minute chat at the top of a busy aisle with their trolleys blocking everybody from getting past.

That's better! - Nice to get that off my chest

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:59 pm

On the subject of grammar, I don't get why saying "0.2 mile" or "0.9 metre" is considered correct. It seems obvious to me that in English people naturally pluralise quantities that are =/= 1, not just > 1, but it seems the rest of the world disagrees with me.

On the subject of notes and coins, I like having notes on the bottom, since they won't fly out of your hand like they might if they were on top.

I can't think of any things that really get my goat, I tend to annoy myself more than other things annoy me.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:02 pm

James Robinson wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
James Robinson wrote:it's mainly because I think a road should be used for vehicles that are meant for it, not bicycles.
Where do you think bicycles are "meant" to go?
As far away from the road as possible, in my view

I didn't ask you for a "view". You indicated that bicycles are not "meant" to go on the road, which is an objective statement. Leaving aside the question of where you would like them to go, where are they meant to go?

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:03 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:
As a fairly frequent cyclist myself, I'm really irritated by cyclists who think that the pavement is their cycle track. I run the gauntlet of the traffic on my bike, so why shouldn't they? It's normally teenage lads -if it's night they've got no lights - bombing along without a thought for anything else. They need to be forced back onto the road where they belong however much it annoys Squash Robinson
And similarly when I'm waiting patiently on my bike at a red light and some guy (usually a teenager) speeds straight through it or, if at a T-junction with lights, speeds past the red light and onto the path.

Yeah, though there is a strong arguement for letting cyclists who are turning left, be allowed to 'jump' the lights and feed in along side the stream of moving traffic because of the number of cyclists being taken out by lorries turning left and simply not realising they've got a cyclist on the nearside.

I find a main problem (I don't cycle in heavily traffic areas) is trying to pull out to pass parked cars, and once, on my side of a road reduced to one lane by a whole run of parked cars, a white van nearly took me out by just not leaving enough room for me even though he'd pulled into my right of way (forcing me into the verge). And then he had the audacity to do the slow head shake and tut tut look that suggested I was at fault. To this day I still regret not turning round, cycling furiously after him and ....well, I don't know what then. I'll have to start carrying a brick round with me. I think a fat 40 something, puffing up behind him, seething, and stoving in his windscreen might have taken him by surprise!

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:07 pm

James Robinson wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
James Robinson wrote:it's mainly because I think a road should be used for vehicles that are meant for it, not bicycles.
Where do you think bicycles are "meant" to go?
As far away from the road as possible, in my view, although that will clearly never happen.

I'm just using optimistic realism there. Something that is nice, but has no chance of fruition.

Twat

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:13 pm

Sue Sanders wrote:... I don't cycle in heavily traffic [sic] areas...

There isn't any in Whitstabubble, is there? (Until you get to the top of the hill, at least.)

Sue Sanders wrote:I think a fat 40 something, puffing up behind him, seething, and stoving in his windscreen might have taken him by surprise!

lol. What a great image!

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:16 pm

I've had cars overtake me then, when they see a queue in front, they pull as far left as they can go before stopping, restricting me from continuing to cycle on the left hand side of the road. This either a) makes cyclists weave in and out of the traffic to Robinson's delight or b) continue past (possibly go onto the pavement) and - as I did to one car when I was suitably pissed off - smack their bonnet with my hand and glare at the driver for being a dick.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:41 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:I've had cars overtake me then, when they see a queue in front, they pull as far left as they can go before stopping, restricting me from continuing to cycle on the left hand side of the road. This either a) makes cyclists weave in and out of the traffic to Robinson's delight or b) continue past (possibly go onto the pavement) and - as I did to one car when I was suitably pissed off - smack their bonnet with my hand and glare at the driver for being a dick.

My boss did something similar to a white van that cut him up (banged on the side when he went past them in a filter lane later). The driver switched lanes, followed him, and then knocked him off his bike. Actually, this was ages ago, and when he reported it to the police, another couple in a car had witnessed it and already done the same. I must ask what the latest is.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:58 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:areas...
There isn't any in Whitstabubble, is there?

Is this irony?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:00 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:On the subject of notes and coins, I like having notes on the bottom, since they won't fly out of your hand like they might if they were on top.

They don't fly out of your hand if you hold them in the manner I described either.

Richard Adams · Post by **Richard Adams** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:02 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:I've had cars overtake me then, when they see a queue in front, they pull as far left as they can go before stopping, restricting me from continuing to cycle on the left hand side of the road. This either a) makes cyclists weave in and out of the traffic to Robinson's delight or b) continue past (possibly go onto the pavement) and - as I did to one car when I was suitably pissed off - smack their bonnet with my hand and glare at the driver for being a dick.
My boss did something similar to a white van that cut him up (banged on the side when he went past them in a filter lane later). The driver switched lanes, followed him, and then knocked him off his bike. Actually, this was ages ago, and when he reported it to the police, another couple in a car had witnessed it and already done the same. I must ask what the latest is.

The white van driver shouldn't have done this, of course, and should be punished soundly for it, but that fact that it happens (and one often hears similar stories) is probably justification enough for suggesting that it's a bit rash for cyclists to 'take on' vehicle drivers and bang them as they pass.

We cyclists are too fragile to survive the subsequent unequal battle, which can end in serious damage, rarely to the vehicle driver.

My family went out on bikes a little while ago, all in a line like a family of deer, Mummy in front, Dad with his large antlers at the back, children in the middle. Some poor drivers had to wait behind us, couldn't overtake as the road wasn't wide enough. Old ladies in their cars were particularly cross with us, indicating that our proper place was on the pavement. Shouldn't cycle with children on the road, obviously.

I think cycling will always be a bit hazardous in this country. Unlike the Dutch we don't have highways wide enough for truly separate and safe cycle paths. I find many cycle paths dangerous, either to me or to people walking on them, and so on the whole I prefer not to use them, particularly the ones where car-parking is permitted on the nearside - which of course will wind up many car drivers.

Sorry, James

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:13 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:... I don't cycle in heavily traffic [sic] areas...
There isn't any in Whitstabubble, is there? (Until you get to the top of the hill, at least.)

Sue Sanders wrote:I think a fat 40 something, puffing up behind him, seething, and stoving in his windscreen might have taken him by surprise!
lol. What a great image!

Ha. It was hell in the High Street today when the bus met the lorry! We have our moments. And I had to drive around the block three times to get a parking space in Tankerton yesterday - it was pension day. Oh the joys of living in Wankerton and Titstabubble

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:18 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote: We can all play the reductio ad absurdum game.

It used to be classed as an assault you know.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:25 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Ben Hunter wrote:On the subject of notes and coins, I like having notes on the bottom, since they won't fly out of your hand like they might if they were on top.
They don't fly out of your hand if you hold them in the manner I described either.

I pay by debit card, saves all that fannying about.

One other gripe, which i am sure most people can associate with, is whenever you walk into a shop and the assistant zooms straight into you and gives you the old 'can i help' routine.

"No thanks, i'm just looking".

Pause to linger for approximately 6 seconds then...

"Were you looking for anything in particular?"

"Yes, cheap flights to San Francisco", followed up with a death stare.

It always get rids of them, especially in Currys.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:47 pm

D Eadie wrote:One other gripe, which i am sure most people can associate with, is whenever you walk into a shop and the assistant zooms straight into you and gives you the old 'can i help' routine.

I used to agree strongly, but I've recently come across a tactic that works really well. Be totally honest with them. If you really are not on the point of buying something, they'll quickly leave you alone, and you may have got some useful information. I've also replied (truthfully) "I've just come in to kill fifteen minutes while my wife's in the shop over the road." That's quite effective.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:07 pm

Derek Hazell wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote:
Sue Sanders wrote:areas...
There isn't any in Whitstabubble, is there?
Is this irony?

I'm sorry. In my mind the unabridged, unadulterated sentence was: "There isn't any heavy traffic in Whitstable, is there?", which I think is a reasonable question despite the mention of 'areas' in the plural, because Whitstable can be said to have many areas as easily as being regarded as one area in its entirety. Also, Sue may well ride in places other than Whitstable.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:36 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Ben Wilson wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:Wow, this is weird. It seems completely sane to me that if you're being given a collection of paper items and a collection of metal discs, the paper goes on the bottom of the pile.
The key thing is the order in which you put said items away. Wallet in one hand, coins in the other with slips of paper underneath. Try putting the coins into your wallet without crumpling the paper, whilst also walking away from the counter AND carrying the shopping you just bought.
Sure, but unless they wait for you to put each different item away (which as I've said is undesirable from the shop's POV) you're still left with them all in your hand. Except you'd have the paper on top, which will fall off as soon as you move. I'm really confused

I'm confused too. Like Jon, I couldn't give a fuck in what configuration the change comes, it all just gets stuffed in my pocket and sorted out later anyway. Are people really irritated by trivia like this?

I'm barely irritated by anything these days, not even other drivers (who used to incense me on a daily basis). Now, I'm totally serene behind the wheel even when confronted with the sort of routine cuntery seen on our roads every day. Other drivers amuse me as they swerve between lanes trying to get wherever they're going a few seconds before they would by driving sensibly. I might think they're fucking idiots, but they no longer annoy me.

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:19 pm

I had a surreal experience in Paris last year.

My boss (who is a Parisian) was just coming up to light controlled pedestrian crossing and a pedestrian ,using his mobile phone, stepped out in front of him against the lights.
To shake the pedestrian up a bit, he waited to jam on his brakes just before he got to the guy, instead of braking steadily, as he had plenty of time to do this.
The guy was very pissed off and proceeded to kick the shit out of the wing of his car, which had to be replaced at a cost of about 500 euros.
We sat watching this in the car and were quite bemused by it all.

The guy just carried on walking, as if nothing had happened.
I was rather hoping my boss would get out and kick the shit out of him but he passed on this particular opportunity.

Having just got back in from a few holes of golf, I have just been reminded of the arseholes that drive up behind you and when they can't overtake, they speed up and sit right on your tail, trying to make you speed up.
Unfortunately, it has the opposite effect on me and I slow down even more. This can be quite disconcerting if it is a large van or lorry which it very often is. But I won't give in to their twattish bullying.

Rosemary Roberts · Post by **Rosemary Roberts** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:34 pm

Sue Sanders wrote: I had to drive around the block three times to get a parking space in Tankerton yesterday

On a bike ?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:35 pm

Allan Harmer wrote:I have just been reminded of the arseholes that drive up behind you and when they can't overtake, they speed up and sit right on your tail, trying to make you speed up.
Unfortunately, it has the opposite effect on me and I slow down even more.

My usual technique in that situation is to whip my foot off the accelerator so the car slows down but without the brake lights giving the berk behind a clue, so that he suddenly finds himself closer than even he is comfortable with. Give them a short sharp shock like that and they almost invariably drop back to a safer distance.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:07 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:they almost invariably drop back to a safer distance.

Obviously there are occasions on which they write off your car, but at least you've made your point.

Brian Moore · Post by **Brian Moore** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:21 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Ulysses Eadie wrote:People who ring me, on my mobile, then demand that 'just for security', i tell them half my life-story.
Last time this happened to me, I asked the guy to give me proof of his identity for the same reason. He was completely baffled by this and clearly couldn't imagine how this was in any way reasonable, so we argued for about a minute and then he hung up. That's customer service!

I was baffled by this the first time it happened to me - a chap 'calling from my credit card company' saying some unusual spending had been noticed on my account - could I give them the answer to a security question. Yeah, right. There followed quite an interesting game of levels of divulgement of information from both parties until I was convinced he was who he was. In the end, I was quite impressed that they'd picked up the spending (which was mine, but from Germany on an internet purchase, and France from a short break) and bothered to make the effort to check. And the chap on the other end of the phone could see why I was cautious, and was very patient and courteous, and played the game well.

Re the cycling thing, I'm back on the main part of the road. Nearly all the cycle tracks round here are populated by people with dogs on wander-leads, pedestrians, and children on scooters who turn sharply into your path just as you approach. The side-of-the-road painted tracks are worse than useless (they start and stop at random, and contain all the old sunken drains). Most of the cycle schemes seem to assume that you neither want to go to anywhere in particular, and that you don't mind going 50% further than car drivers.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:18 pm

RIDICULOUSLY LONG AND ACTIVE THREADS GET MY GOAT

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:21 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:My usual technique in that situation is to whip my foot off the accelerator so the car slows down but without the brake lights giving the berk behind a clue, so that he suddenly finds himself closer than even he is comfortable with. Give them a short sharp shock like that and they almost invariably drop back to a safer distance.

This works sometimes: Switch on your rear fog lights then accelerate a little. They shit themselves cos they think you're braking and your acceleration makes the sudden gap between you even bigger. And the bigger the gap, the bigger a tosser they'll feel.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:43 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:I used to get mildly irritated by people who pronounce "mischievous" as if it were spelt "mis-cheev-us" or - even worse - "mis-cheevy-us". However, I was living in a fool's paradise and didn't know what irritated was until I started hearing that song by Noisettes on the radio 20 times a day. You know, the one where she actually sings it that way, ffs.

I agree with the "mis-cheevy-us", but how the blimmin' 'eck do you say it then if not saying "mis-cheev-us"?

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:53 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
James Robinson wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:Where do you think bicycles are "meant" to go?
As far away from the road as possible, in my view
I didn't ask you for a "view". You indicated that bicycles are not "meant" to go on the road, which is an objective statement. Leaving aside the question of where you would like them to go, where are they meant to go?

OK, Phil, I think bikes are meant to be on the pavement, because they are clearly not road designated vehicles, yet having said that, while I was walking by dog earlier, I was millimetres away from being run over by a cyclist.

So, I'm really in a no win situation at the moment.

A bit of revenge for you cyclists out there.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:07 pm

Ian Volante wrote:I agree with the "mis-cheevy-us", but how the blimmin' 'eck do you say it then if not saying "mis-cheev-us"?

Mis-cheev-us.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:17 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:I agree with the "mis-cheevy-us", but how the blimmin' 'eck do you say it then if not saying "mis-cheev-us"?
Mis-cheev-us.

Ah, it's the emphasis, now I see.

Oh, and you're utterly wrong of course.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:44 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:I agree with the "mis-cheevy-us", but how the blimmin' 'eck do you say it then if not saying "mis-cheev-us"?
Mis-cheev-us.
Ah, it's the emphasis, now I see.

Oh, and you're utterly wrong of course.

If it's anything other than the fact that it ought to have been phonetically spelled "miss-chiv-әss", would you care to elucidate?

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:54 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Alec Rivers wrote: Mis-cheev-us.
Ah, it's the emphasis, now I see.

Oh, and you're utterly wrong of course.
If it's anything other than the fact that it ought to have been phonetically spelled "miss-chiv-әss", would you care to elucidate?

Well saying it that way reeks of southern poovery in my book.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:11 pm

Ian Volante wrote:Well saying it that way reeks of southern poovery in my book.

lol. I'm not the one wearing pink antlers.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:14 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:Well saying it that way reeks of southern poovery in my book.
lol. I'm not the one wearing pink antlers.

Now you're sounding jealous...

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:38 pm

In response to all the stuff about receiving change, I am a coins then note man, so it annoys me when most of the time I get coins on top of note

I have this thing that really irritates me, but doesn't seem to bother anyone else, so I thought i'd bring it up here to see if anyone else shares my feelings. When Im going up/down an escalator, I like to walk along them to speed up the process of getting to the top/bottom. So when there is somebody standing in front of me who stands still and I can't get past, I get really annoyed. All my friends say they don't care, and that you are meant to stand still on escalators, so I accept that im probably in the wrong, but I just wondered if this also pisses anyone else off?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:47 pm

James Robinson wrote:I think bikes are meant to be on the pavement

Really? Meant by whom? Certainly not the law, which expressly forbids cycling on the pavement.

they are clearly [sic] not road designated vehicles

Would you care to explain in what way this is "clear"?

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:49 pm

JackHurst wrote:All my friends say they don't care, and that you are meant to stand still on escalators

So why do escalators in busy places (like London Underground stations) have signs saying "Please stand on the right"? Your friends are wrong; you are right. Ignore them.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:52 pm

Ian Volante wrote:how the blimmin' 'eck do you say it then if not saying "mis-cheev-us"?

Mis-chiv-us. If you disagree, consult any dictionary.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:05 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:how the blimmin' 'eck do you say it then if not saying "mis-cheev-us"?
Mis-chiv-us. If you disagree, consult any dictionary.

They're all obsolete.

George Jenkins · Post by **George Jenkins** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:23 am

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:how the blimmin' 'eck do you say it then if not saying "is-chew-us"?
Miss-chiv-us. If you disagree, consult any dictionary.

I don't like it when people say yeah instead yes. This happens quite often during interviews on television. Then I realised that sometimes I am just as guilty. I suppose that alterations to a language are subconsciously taken in and become normal speech. Perhaps the word yeah came from the German word-Ja, considering the number of Germans settled in America.

Clive Brooker · Post by **Clive Brooker** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:59 am

Trick or treat night.

A couple of days ago the weather forecast promised heavy rain - perfect. Now the forecast has been adjusted and the rain is not expected until after midnight, so I'm not happy.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:42 am

Clive Brooker wrote:Trick or treat night.

A couple of days ago the weather forecast promised heavy rain - perfect. Now the forecast has been adjusted and the rain is not expected until after midnight, so I'm not happy.

The assistant in my local supermarket had quite a sizeable queue at the check-out, slowed down by the need for her to make a couple of trips across to the cigarette check-out, for change and to get fags for a customer without the sense to use the check-out that is AT the cigarette counter. Slow moving check-out assistance annoy me at the best of times (I have worked in various places where queues form and I used to SPEED UP!) But this was yesterday, Hallowe'en (I don't acknowledge 'trick or treat night'), so the daft bint was wearing a long black cape and seemed to find fiddling with it round her neck, tripping over it and constantly unhooking it from her chair back to be a more pressing situation than serving her frigging customers.

The saving grace is that I now have a fairly chilled approach to time management. When I used to work full-time, having that happen during my precious lunchbreak would have given me apoplexy.....so don't even get me started onto the subject of pensioners who go shopping on a Saturday!

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:12 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
James Robinson wrote:I think bikes are meant to be on the pavement
Really? Meant by whom? Certainly not the law, which expressly forbids cycling on the pavement.

Tell that to the guy who nearly ran me over last night.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:24 pm

James Robinson wrote: Tell that to the guy who nearly ran me over last night.

You should have. When I'm cycling home alongside the river in the cycle lane, if there is anybody in there I make a point of speeding right up and ringing my bell continuously like a mad man for them to get out of the way. If they don't, I slam on my brakes just as I'm about to hit them then stare at them and shake my head - sometimes accompanied by a shout of "this is the cycle lane". Pedestrians get my goat

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:54 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:
James Robinson wrote: Tell that to the guy who nearly ran me over last night.
You should have. When I'm cycling home alongside the river in the cycle lane, if there is anybody in there I make a point of speeding right up and ringing my bell continuously like a mad man for them to get out of the way. If they don't, I slam on my brakes just as I'm about to hit them then stare at them and shake my head - sometimes accompanied by a shout of "this is the cycle lane". Pedestrians get my goat

Aye that's good fun, especially on the dedicated cycle path in Holyrood Park which is steep downhill and is clearly not a footpath, which means lots of idiots to scare!

All road users get my goat, especially given that I do all three types at various times. Pedestrians are generally deaf, stupid and ignorant, many cyclists are just stupid, deaf (due to earphones) and ignorant, and give us decent cyclists (who obey traffic signals, don't go on pavements, don't weave, use hand signals etc) a bad name. Finally, car drivers are stupid, ignorant and deaf, and don't feel the need to signal or get in the correct lane a large portion of the time, and their bad attitude increases in proportion to the amount of time spent on the road. The taxi driver who pulled out from a side road without even looking at me cycling towards him at 20mph (with light on flashing quickly) and got scared to death when he finally looked to the right and saw me approaching is a fine example.

As for Hallowe'en/Sammhuin tonight, I'm really glad we have a communal stair, so we're safe from kids doing idiot imported mischief unless someone's stupid enough to let them in.

I seem to remember there being a separate Mischievous Night about a week before Hallowe'en back in Yorkshire. I'm not making this up am I?

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:56 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:It can do, but your own original example wasn't "There is..."; it was "There's about 20 people waiting outside", and the contraction "there's" sounds a lot more natural than "there is" in this context in informal speech. Otherwise, to use a contraction but remain grammatically strict, you'd have to say "There're about 20 people", which sounds even more ugly and inelegant.

This. People say "there's" where they wouldn't say "there is". Alec made the mistake of assuming equivalence between the two.

Charlie Reams wrote:Pseudoscience, hypercorrection (especially phony pluralae), linguistic snobbery, impunctuality, superstition, ticking clocks, fuzzy thinking, misuse of the word "genius", toenails, intellectual dishonesty, nationalism, cake, amateur psychology (ie all psychology), musical snobbery, preoccupation with alcohol (positively or negatively), culinary snobbery, the concept of "networking", birdsong, my own cooking, Java's image caching subsystem...

But none of them trouble me half as much as the things I like please me.

You missed Jason Larson starting new threads.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Separate hot and cold taps.

Hot taps in publics toilets where there is no plug to mix it with the cold or no cold tap at all. These are a completely pointless invention.

Kirk Bevins wrote:When I'm cycling home alongside the river in the cycle lane, if there is anybody in there I make a point of speeding right up and ringing my bell continuously like a mad man for them to get out of the way. If they don't, I slam on my brakes just as I'm about to hit them then stare at them and shake my head - sometimes accompanied by a shout of "this is the cycle lane". Pedestrians get my goat

Sometimes there are inadequate markings. It will have a picture of a person on one side and a bike on the other but in pointless places. They need to be where where another path joins, or the people joining don't know.

Generally speaking, cyclists and pedestrians aren't very well catered for at all. So many roads don't even have pavements, and cyclists have to ride on shitty roads that aren't designed with them in mind. Big wide paths for pedestrains and cyclists work better than lumping cyclists in with cars I think.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:58 pm

People saying "Bless you" when you sneeze, and the expectation that you will say it when someone else sneezes, and the expectation that you will thank someone for saying this ridiculous phrase. I will never say "Bless you" and I will never thank anyone for saying it to me.

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:02 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
JackHurst wrote:All my friends say they don't care, and that you are meant to stand still on escalators
So why do escalators in busy places (like London Underground stations) have signs saying "Please stand on the right"? Your friends are wrong; you are right. Ignore them.

Can I please take this as official permission to kick people down on escalators?

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:02 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:It can do, but your own original example wasn't "There is..."; it was "There's about 20 people waiting outside", and the contraction "there's" sounds a lot more natural than "there is" in this context in informal speech. Otherwise, to use a contraction but remain grammatically strict, you'd have to say "There're about 20 people", which sounds even more ugly and inelegant.
This. People say "there's" where they wouldn't say "there is". Alec made the mistake of assuming equivalence between the two.

He's = He is
She's = She is
It's = It is
Here's = Here is
There's = There is

I don't understand where I've gone wrong.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:11 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:People saying "Bless you" when you sneeze, and the expectation that you will say it when someone else sneezes, and the expectation that you will thank someone for saying this ridiculous phrase. I will never say "Bless you" and I will never thank anyone for saying it to me.

Awww bless you.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:11 pm

Alec Rivers wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:It can do, but your own original example wasn't "There is..."; it was "There's about 20 people waiting outside", and the contraction "there's" sounds a lot more natural than "there is" in this context in informal speech. Otherwise, to use a contraction but remain grammatically strict, you'd have to say "There're about 20 people", which sounds even more ugly and inelegant.
This. People say "there's" where they wouldn't say "there is". Alec made the mistake of assuming equivalence between the two.
He's = He is
She's = She is
It's = It is
Here's = Here is
There's = There is

I don't understand where I've gone wrong.

It's just the way the language is used. It's not logical.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:19 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:People saying "Bless you" when you sneeze, and the expectation that you will say it when someone else sneezes, and the expectation that you will thank someone for saying this ridiculous phrase. I will never say "Bless you" and I will never thank anyone for saying it to me.

You're right. Although I like to think I am generally fairly polite, this doesn't really fall into the category of fair politeness. It gets especially silly when they say "excuse me", you say "bless you", they say "thank you", then you say "you're welcome" - so you have a whole elongated chat which is way longer than the original otherwise forgotten sneeze was!
Because of this ridiculosity, a few years ago whenever my sister sneezes and says "excuse me", I took to replying in a superior voice "we always do, Rebecca". This has now become custom, and my accepted family get out clause.

Clive Brooker · Post by **Clive Brooker** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:24 pm

JackHurst wrote:I have this thing that really irritates me, but doesn't seem to bother anyone else, so I thought i'd bring it up here to see if anyone else shares my feelings. When Im going up/down an escalator, I like to walk along them to speed up the process of getting to the top/bottom. So when there is somebody standing in front of me who stands still and I can't get past, I get really annoyed. All my friends say they don't care, and that you are meant to stand still on escalators, so I accept that im probably in the wrong, but I just wondered if this also pisses anyone else off?

I agree 100%. Especially when 2 people think it's a good time to have a meeting.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:26 pm

James Robinson wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
James Robinson wrote:I think bikes are meant to be on the pavement
Really? Meant by whom? Certainly not the law, which expressly forbids cycling on the pavement.
Tell that to the guy who nearly ran me over last night.

Ah. So you think bikes are meant to be on the pavement, but you don't like them using it when you are. You really are very odd.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:51 pm

JackHurst wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:
JackHurst wrote:All my friends say they don't care, and that you are meant to stand still on escalators
So why do escalators in busy places (like London Underground stations) have signs saying "Please stand on the right"? Your friends are wrong; you are right. Ignore them.
Can I please take this as official permission to kick people down on escalators?

I can't see why we can't also get it together on stairs. At school we had 'stay on the right' drummed into us on the staircases and it would seem logical to carry that through to everyday life. The entrances/exits to the London Underground often have wide staircases divided in two with people swarming up and down like ants, trying to avoid bumping into each other (though I think ants just walk over one another) and it ought to be instinctive to use the right hand one (I know it's opposite to driving but it's because most people will want to hold a handrail with their right hand)

Bloody hell. That sounded boring.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:55 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
James Robinson wrote:Tell that to the guy who nearly ran me over last night.
Ah. So you think bikes are meant to be on the pavement, but you don't like them using it when you are. You really are very odd.

As long as they use all correct provisions (helmet, hi-vis jacket, bell, etc.) then I don't mind. If they're thuggish people who don't give a toss to their surroundings, then they get my goat.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:58 pm

James Robinson wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:So you think bikes are meant to be on the pavement, but you don't like them using it when you are.
As long as they use all correct provisions (helmet, hi-vis jacket, bell, etc.) then I don't mind.

You don't mind people breaking the law as long as you can see them doing it? Well, that makes a sort of sense I suppose.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:03 pm

Allan Harmer wrote:I had a surreal experience in Paris last year.

My boss (who is a Parisian) was just coming up to light controlled pedestrian crossing and a pedestrian ,using his mobile phone, stepped out in front of him against the lights.
To shake the pedestrian up a bit, he waited to jam on his brakes just before he got to the guy, instead of braking steadily, as he had plenty of time to do this.
The guy was very pissed off and proceeded to kick the shit out of the wing of his car, which had to be replaced at a cost of about 500 euros.
We sat watching this in the car and were quite bemused by it all. The guy just carried on walking, as if nothing had happened.

Parisians do seem to be a law unto themselves. I've just come back from a weekend in Paris with a group of blind people and it seems Parisians think nothing of jumping the pedestrian lights regardless of there being people already on that crossing and regardless of them clearly wielding white canes.