Comedic "things you would ban": minor things that irritate you

[daveo]

..... As for things I would ban,:

Lancashire, Manchester City...

People who fail to realise that Lancashire & (Greater) Manchester are the centre of the civilised universe. Things deteriorate rapidly as you pass over the big hills

 

[D6130]

People who fail to realise that Lancashire & (Greater) Manchester are the centre of the civilised universe. Things deteriorate rapidly as you pass over the big hills

Oh I don't know. The areas of Yorkshire which border Lancashire/Greater Manchester are not too bad....and have a lot of immigrants from both those areas living in them. Having lived in both Skipton and Hebden Bridge over the past thirty five years, I find there to be a very pleasant and tolerant atmosphere in both towns.

What I do find sad is the attitudes of some of the 'immigrants' from London and the South East who have moved into North & West Yorkshire, increased the house prices and brought with them a superior 'better than you' attitude. (I emphasise only some of them! )

 

[nilvaj395]

What I do find sad is the attitudes of some of the 'immigrants' from London and the South East who have moved into North & West Yorkshire, increased the house prices and brought with them a superior 'better than you' attitude. (I emphasise only some of them! )

I've always noticed this as well, it's prevalent in uni with the amount of people that move up north for uni for 'cheap'(er) accommodation and cheaper living, but then they have definitely been pushing up prices significantly to take advantage of this and pushing out others in the process. And I have been treated with the same attitude as you describe by people from London and the South East, it's obviously not everyone but it is an urk to say the least.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Not a ban but a swap.
The people who make envelopes and the manufacturers of food products where I need to peel off some plastic film to get at the food should be swapping glue manufacturers.
Envelopes rarely stick down and film on food packaging is held so securely that removing it should be a round on strongman competitions.

 

[aftv]

People who give me money ten minutes before the bank closes on Christmas Eve

 

[Thirteen]

It think it is more don't care than lack of intelligence, they will know to put them in the freezer when they get home, but they don't care about wasting someone else's property.

My bugbear is overfilled bins, you'd think someone would have the intelligence to find another bin and not do bin Jenga.

 

[jbqfc]

verification Email-texts that take longer than they are valid for to arrive

 

[gg1]

Facebook groups which are semi-public (ie anyone can see them but you have to join to post/comment), but which don't actually tell you that when they pop up in your feed.

Annoying when I've typed a comment only to find I have to join the group in order to submit it.

 

[davart]

People wearing hoodies with the hood up in fine weather. I always assume they're up to no good.

I'd suggest making it legal to thwack them upside the head with a cricket bat when encountering such behaviour. Would soon correct the issue...

 

[Merle Haggard]

There are many U.S. American expressions that irritate me, but the one that surpasses all others i.m.o is 'Bathroom' to mean a room with a w.c. and handbasin and, it is very likely, no bath!. Bathroom is very specific; it's a room with a bath in, a very straightforward concept. It's even used on this Forum; apparently someone thought that 810s had rooms with baths in, bet the floor would soon get soaked...

I have never understood the underlying logic of U.S. speech; reference to urination, defecation or, worst of all, death (sorry, 'un-alived') is absolutely prohibited in the land when you can be 'unalived' for the smallest transgression by a freely available gun.

 

[ls2270]

There are many U.S. American expressions that irritate me, but the one that surpasses all others i.m.o is 'Bathroom' to mean a room with a w.c. and handbasin and, it is very likely, no bath!. Bathroom is very specific; it's a room with a bath in, a very straightforward concept. It's even used on this Forum; apparently someone thought that 810s had rooms with baths in, bet the floor would soon get soaked...

I have never understood the underlying logic of U.S. speech; reference to urination, defecation or, worst of all, death (sorry, 'un-alived') is absolutely prohibited in the land when you can be 'unalived' for the smallest transgression by a freely available gun.

I get your logic, but just out of curiosity what would you call a room where you had a toilet, hand basin and a shower (but no bath) in a house or hotel room?

 

[jfollows]

I get your logic, but just out of curiosity what would you call a room where you had a toilet, hand basin and a shower (but no bath) in a house or hotel room?

I have one of those and I call it the “downstairs toilet”, definitely not “bathroom”, which is the upstairs room containing a bath.

The US term just seems to me to be pretentious or silly or overly polite. But I’m used to it.

 

[Jimini]

I get your logic, but just out of curiosity what would you call a room where you had a toilet, hand basin and a shower (but no bath) in a house or hotel room?

A restroom?

 

[Gloster]

I wouldn’t worry about calling a room with a shower a bathroom as it fulfills the same purpose: washing the whole body, albeit in a vertical, rather than horizontal position, and you can’t play with your toy boats. If there was also a room with a bath in it I might use shower to make it clear. Anything without either a bath or shower but a toilet is a khazi.

 

[D6130]

There are many U.S. American expressions that irritate me, but the one that surpasses all others i.m.o is 'Bathroom' to mean a room with a w.c. and handbasin and, it is very likely, no bath!. Bathroom is very specific; it's a room with a bath in, a very straightforward concept. It's even used on this Forum; apparently someone thought that 810s had rooms with baths in, bet the floor would soon get soaked...

I have never understood the underlying logic of U.S. speech; reference to urination, defecation or, worst of all, death (sorry, 'un-alived') is absolutely prohibited in the land when you can be 'unalived' for the smallest transgression by a freely available gun.

Even worse is calling a toilet a 'rest room'....as if people would go there to rest!

 

[styles]

verification Email-texts that take longer than they are valid for to arrive

Services which only allow MFA by SMS or email, both of which usually cost money, but not authenticator apps.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Even worse is calling a toilet a 'rest room'....as if people would go there to rest!

My wife moans that I take so long in our two, that I must be having a rest...

Brings to mind the phrase Retiring Room, as used on Nigel Gresley's 1928 Toilet Third dia 23A duo.
The word Toilet, derived from the French word toilette - of washing, dressing, and preparing one's appearance.

 

[gg1]

Even worse is calling a toilet a 'rest room'....as if people would go there to rest!

Worse still is 'cloak room'.

Although it sounds ridiculous, at least 'rest room' doesn't have a common alternate usage and bathrooms do generally include toilets.

 

[Lewisham2221]

People who make a visit to the tip seem more complex than performing brain surgery. Huge great signs at the front of each skip proclaiming Wood, Metal, Cardboard, Garden Waste, General Waste etc etc yet still people just wander about like a lost child. Worse still are the ones who only remove one small item at a time from their car. Just get on with it for goodness sake.

 

[martin butler]

I would ban cyclists from using main A roads and for not riding in single file I have been away and my route back today took me along the A25, it's at best a windy, hilly road, with very few safe passing places, and its busy, but this does not seem to deter cyclists from riding two abreast, especially on the uphill stretches and causing traffic to bunch up behind them, crawling along at 15 mph, weaving across the lane, so drivers have no option but to sometimes overtake when it's not safe to do so, then frustration piles up, and the drivers behind the cyclists, will overtake them on solid white lines, even on a bit, where there was a cycle line, a couple stuck on the main road, slowing down traffic from 40 mph to about 10, , it's not if, but when someone is going to lose their life.

 

[jon81uk]

I would ban cyclists from using main A roads and for not riding in single file I have been away and my route back today took me along the A25, it's at best a windy, hilly road, with very few safe passing places, and its busy, but this does not seem to deter cyclists from riding two abreast, especially on the uphill stretches and causing traffic to bunch up behind them, crawling along at 15 mph, weaving across the lane, so drivers have no option but to sometimes overtake when it's not safe to do so, then frustration piles up, and the drivers behind the cyclists, will overtake them on solid white lines, even on a bit, where there was a cycle line, a couple stuck on the main road, slowing down traffic from 40 mph to about 10, , it's not if, but when someone is going to lose their life.

if it’s not safe to overtake two abreast cycles it likely isn’t safe to overtake a single cycle and leave the correct distance of 1.5m from the cycle anyway.

 

[Gloster]

I saw a youtube video a while ago that explained that it was more convenient for drivers if cyclists ride two abreast as that means the length of the line that the car has to pass is less. Anyway, why shouldn’t cyclists be allowed to use an A-road: it is a public road?

 

[Topological]

I saw a youtube video a while ago that explained that it was more convenient for drivers if cyclists ride two abreast as that means the length of the line that the car has to pass is less. Anyway, why shouldn’t cyclists be allowed to use an A-road: it is a public road?

Makes sense, also means that drivers are less likely to try to squeeze an overtake within one lane.

Whilst cyclists are very annoying on A roads through the countryside, they have the absolute right to go there. We get a lot in South Wales, but if you want to drive fast we have the M4 (well the parts that they haven't slapped 50s on)

 

[py_megapixel]

I would ban cyclists from using main A roads and for not riding in single file I have been away and my route back today took me along the A25, it's at best a windy, hilly road, with very few safe passing places, and its busy, but this does not seem to deter cyclists from riding two abreast, especially on the uphill stretches and causing traffic to bunch up behind them, crawling along at 15 mph, weaving across the lane, so drivers have no option but to sometimes overtake when it's not safe to do so, then frustration piles up, and the drivers behind the cyclists, will overtake them on solid white lines, even on a bit, where there was a cycle line, a couple stuck on the main road, slowing down traffic from 40 mph to about 10, , it's not if, but when someone is going to lose their life.

There is never "no option but to overtake when it's not safe to do so". There is always the option to wait behind until a safe gap appears. On most roads there are also frequent opportunities to park at the side of the road and proceed after a short break, after which the traffic is likely to have cleared.

It might be frustrating and inconvenient, but you are in charge of a highly dangerous piece of motorised machinery in a public place, which comes with a large amount of responsibility - in this case, to set aside that frustration and inconvenience and focus on driving safely. In stressful situations you might find, as I have already mentioned, that you need to park and take a break from time to time. In that case it is your responsibility to do so, as a normal part of driving.

If you are unable or unwilling to take the full responsibility required to drive safely, you need to find a different mode of transport. (I might suggest trying a bicycle - if you did, you would probably quickly understand why the cyclists you see are riding as they are).

 

[Richard Scott]

There is never "no option but to overtake when it's not safe to do so". There is always the option to wait behind until a safe gap appears. On most roads there are also frequent opportunities to park at the side of the road and proceed after a short break, after which the traffic is likely to have cleared.

It might be frustrating and inconvenient, but you are in charge of a highly dangerous piece of motorised machinery in a public place, which comes with a large amount of responsibility - in this case, to set aside that frustration and inconvenience and focus on driving safely. In stressful situations you might find, as I have already mentioned, that you need to park and take a break from time to time. In that case it is your responsibility to do so, as a normal part of driving.

If you are unable or unwilling to take the full responsibility required to drive safely, you need to find a different mode of transport. (I might suggest trying a bicycle - if you did, you would probably quickly understand why the cyclists you see are riding as they are).

That's very easy to say but isn't what happens in reality irrespective of the fact it should, it doesn't.

 

[MrToad]

Saxophones. Many a decent tune ruined by this horrible raspy sound.

Pandas. They don't want to breed. Just let them die out - the disproportionate amount of conservation money they get could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[styles]

I saw a youtube video a while ago that explained that it was more convenient for drivers if cyclists ride two abreast as that means the length of the line that the car has to pass is less.

Indeed. The Highway Code was updated a couple of years ago to make clear that cycling two abreast is fine, for this very reason. Though it was also updated to say cyclists should move to single file or stop to let drivers past when safe to do so, and I seldom see this on the windy single carriageway national speed limit country lanes near me. I do it occasionally because in all honesty it's not much fun having queues of traffic follow you for potentially miles for lack of safe overtaking spots.

Anyway, why shouldn’t cyclists be allowed to use an A-road: it is a public road?

If a road is deemed unsafe for cycling, the relevant highways authority can always make it a 'special road', e.g. like much of the Edinburgh Bypass or stretches of the A55 in north Wales. The classes of vehicles can be restricted, and in practice normally all non-motor vehicles are prohibited. It gets a bit fiddly because you can't use national speed limit signs, the limits and vehicle classes have to be defined in statute, etc; but it's all doable.

 

[martin butler]

That's very easy to say but isn't what happens in reality irrespective of the fact it should, it doesn't.

Thats my point, see this section of road had sections of cycle lane, but it wasn't being used, put there because there is an issue with the number of cyclists who like to ride this road, and given the nature of the road, when two abreast you have to use the full road to pass safely anyway, and its very busy anyway, so passing chances are few anyway, and it's just this section, between Guildford and Dorking, it really needs its own cycleway, to separate cyclists from other road users, for their own safety its a well known problem, just ask the local people and they will say it's a major problem.

 

[styles]

then frustration piles up, and the drivers behind the cyclists, will overtake them on solid white lines, even on a bit, where there was a cycle line, a couple stuck on the main road, slowing down traffic from 40 mph to about 10, , it's not if, but when someone is going to lose their life.

Just a minor point on this but overtaking cyclists doing 10mph, by crossing a solid white line, is allowed.

Though clearly there will be a reason there are solid white lines there so needs to be carefully judged.

 

[DelW]

Thats my point, see this section of road had sections of cycle lane, but it wasn't being used, put there because there is an issue with the number of cyclists who like to ride this road, and given the nature of the road, when two abreast you have to use the full road to pass safely anyway, and its very busy anyway, so passing chances are few anyway, and it's just this section, between Guildford and Dorking, it really needs its own cycleway, to separate cyclists from other road users, for their own safety its a well known problem, just ask the local people and they will say it's a major problem.

The section between Gomshall and Dorking is particularly popular with sport cycling groups, because it was used for the road racing in the 2012 Olympics, and for similar events in subsequent years.

I used to commute eastbound along it quite early in the morning (around 7am) and sometimes found myself behind a group of cyclists which was being followed by the early bus on route 32. There's nowhere at all along that section where a bus can pass a bunch of cyclists!