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

[DelW]

Thanks, informative.
I've got used to reversing using (outside) mirrors and I wondered how difficult it would be to get used to viewing it direct. Probably quite difficult.
I remember many years ago on a children's TV programme where a bicycle was modified so that turning the handlebars to the right made the front wheel turn to the left, and no-one could ride it - unable to overcome the 'muscle memory'. Might be the same with the non-reversed image.

I doubt if you'd find it difficult actually, it feels quite natural. I was originally taught to crane my neck and look through the back window. Then I drove vans and Landrovers with small or no back windows, so I got used to reversing using wing mirrors then later door mirrors. I still often use mirrors to line myself up, just checking the camera to make sure there's nothing in a blind spot. They all show images in the same orientation, so it's easy to switch between them.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Distractingly bright white dazzling edges on snooker tables.

The stupid shot clock that is occasionally used in snooker.

The practice of replacing deciding frames with a respotted black, so we lose a whole frame worth of snooker.

( At least I can be thankful they haven't put a frame clock on as well for this tournament... )

 

[Merle Haggard]

I doubt if you'd find it difficult actually, it feels quite natural. I was originally taught to crane my neck and look through the back window. Then I drove vans and Landrovers with small or no back windows, so I got used to reversing using wing mirrors then later door mirrors. I still often use mirrors to line myself up, just checking the camera to make sure there's nothing in a blind spot. They all show images in the same orientation, so it's easy to switch between them.

Thanks for the interesting feedback. Sorry for delay, just noticed I had composed reply but hadn't pressed post reply button.

 

[Techniquest]

For me today, having the news that cheap tickets I’ve been waiting for and trying to get the family organised so we can go for an exceptionally good price. Only for them to complain they’re too tired and would rather leave it for tomorrow.

Honestly, trying to encourage non-railhead people to do anything with train travel can be so infuriating. When the price skyrockets they’ll be complaining of course!

I might just book my own tickets at a good price and let them work it out. That might be a touch too evil though!

 

[Ediswan]

Radio and TV presenters referring to a film such as Michael as a bi-opic. It is a biographical picture, so a bio-pic. Bi-opic sounds like something to do with two eyes.

 

[py_megapixel]

Would like to ban councils from using giant LED matrix signs for information about road closures etc. that could just go on a standard temporary metal sign.

They are ugly, take up large amounts of space and are surely quite expensive.

 

[SargeNpton]

Would like to ban councils from using giant LED matrix signs for information about road closures etc. that could just go on a standard temporary metal sign.

They are ugly, take up large amounts of space and are surely quite expensive.

But they can be edited to show a different message very quickly. Metal signs for temporary closures at point A may not be relevant to the next closure at point B, so you have to have a whole stack of signs in a storeroom for all possible needs.

 

[Gloster]

People who hurry to the front of the bus as it approaches its terminus because they want to catch a ferry, but then block the gangway while they have a slanging match over whose fault it is that the extendable handle of one of their suitcases had extended itself and got caught on one of the vertical grab rails. The driver had to tell them that if they didn’t hurry they would miss their ferry, but they were still arguing as they headed off.

 

[Falcon1200]

Driveways with pebbles or chippings but whose owners do not sweep up those which get onto the pavement; Very sore when one steps on them.

 

[sor]

Driveways with pebbles or chippings but whose owners do not sweep up those which get onto the pavement; Very sore when one steps on them.

Something that some councils have taken note of; when my dad wanted to turn his relatively small front garden into a parking area (thus necessitating planning permission) the council were very interested in knowing what he was going to cover it with. Partly because of drainage concerns and partly for this reason.

Doesn't stop someone ripping it up and replacing with something unsuitable later, of course

 

[Bald Rick]

People who overtake you on a single track road with passing places, when you are waiting in a passing place to prevent gridlock up ahead.

Closely followed by people on single track roads with passing places who get grumpy when you follow them at stoppign distance for 15 miles with your headlights on full beam.

 

[ABB125]

Inspired by the return journey from the Lake District to the Midlands yesterday evening (admittedly most of these will have been mentioned previously):

• Drivers who overtake you, then slow down (but not necessarily immediately - you may overtake them again in a few minutes' time)
• As above, but when the process is repeated several times.
• People driving slower than lorries on a motorway
• Anyone driving a Jaecoo*
• Drivers who are going at, ahem, 70.9mph who expect you (going at a GPS 70mph) to cut in front of the car you've just overtaken so that they can zoom past, rather than wait 5-10 seconds until there's a safe(r) gap once you move back over. I don't have any problem with people exceeding the speed limit, but if you do, you should be prepared to wait until people who are not exceeding the limit to complete whatever manoeuvres they are doing. Don't sit 5m behind me flashing your lights because that's not going to make me go any quicker (and, if anything, I might take a bit of extra time to ensure that what I'm doing is completed extra safely...). (Though only up to a point - if there's someone doing 60mph in lane 4 then they should be the one to be banned... Obviously this only applies to situations where there are no reduced speed limits etc)
• Middle lane hoggers (for probably the hundredth time in this thread!)
• Roadworks speed limits accompanied by signs saying "limit in place for your safety". No, it's in place for the safety of the workers on the site (on the seemingly rare occasions that work is actually happening), and I think signs which said that instead would be more readily accepted by the public

I should note, none of the above actually bothers me, there's just a brief moment of annoyance ("what an idiot" etc) then "oh well, we've gone past, move on".

*funny(ish) story from this journey: one of my passengers made a comment (can't remember the specifics) about "that Range Rover in front". I looked, something didn't quite seem right (time to text BTP?! ) and thought to myself "I bet that's a Jaecoo". And it was!

 

[43096]

• Roadworks speed limits accompanied by signs saying "limit in place for your safety". No, it's in place for the safety of the workers on the site (on the seemingly rare occasions that work is actually happening), and I think signs which said that instead would be more readily accepted by the public

And adding to that, the increasingly common "We're working out of sight, so may not see us". In that case a) we don't know you are working and b) the speed limit clearly isn't in place for the safety of workers, as there aren't any.

 

[styles]

Inspired by the return journey from the Lake District to the Midlands yesterday evening (admittedly most of these will have been mentioned previously):

• Drivers who overtake you, then slow down (but not necessarily immediately - you may overtake them again in a few minutes' time)
• As above, but when the process is repeated several times.
• People driving slower than lorries on a motorway
• Anyone driving a Jaecoo*
• Drivers who are going at, ahem, 70.9mph who expect you (going at a GPS 70mph) to cut in front of the car you've just overtaken so that they can zoom past, rather than wait 5-10 seconds until there's a safe(r) gap once you move back over. I don't have any problem with people exceeding the speed limit, but if you do, you should be prepared to wait until people who are not exceeding the limit to complete whatever manoeuvres they are doing. Don't sit 5m behind me flashing your lights because that's not going to make me go any quicker (and, if anything, I might take a bit of extra time to ensure that what I'm doing is completed extra safely...). (Though only up to a point - if there's someone doing 60mph in lane 4 then they should be the one to be banned... Obviously this only applies to situations where there are no reduced speed limits etc)
• Middle lane hoggers (for probably the hundredth time in this thread!)
• Roadworks speed limits accompanied by signs saying "limit in place for your safety". No, it's in place for the safety of the workers on the site (on the seemingly rare occasions that work is actually happening), and I think signs which said that instead would be more readily accepted by the public

I should note, none of the above actually bothers me, there's just a brief moment of annoyance ("what an idiot" etc) then "oh well, we've gone past, move on".

*funny(ish) story from this journey: one of my passengers made a comment (can't remember the specifics) about "that Range Rover in front". I looked, something didn't quite seem right (time to text BTP?! ) and thought to myself "I bet that's a Jaecoo". And it was!

I feel like the Jaecoo comment is the only comedic thing in this one - the rest are non-comedic things which should be banned (or in a couple of cases are literally against the law!)

 

[David M]

On the toilet front simply having cubicles and no gendered toilets seems a much better idea to me, no massive queue for the ladies yet none for the gents, plus I bet most men would prefer a cubicle over a urinal anyway. The ones in Lyme Regis work fine and are nicer than all the others.

Imagine you're a lady needing the bathroom in the train station and find it's a free for all with some very drunk men in your gender neutral bathrooms.
Men are definitely to be trusted not to be lazy b******s and simply pee all over the seat in a cubicle.
Men are definitely to be trusted not to perve in a toilet situation.
I'm always astonished at how many men seem to think this would be a good idea - ask your wives or girlfriends what they think of it.

 

[jon81uk]

Imagine you're a lady needing the bathroom in the train station and find it's a free for all with some very drunk men in your gender neutral bathrooms.
Men are definitely to be trusted not to be lazy b******s and simply pee all over the seat in a cubicle.
Men are definitely to be trusted not to perve in a toilet situation.
I'm always astonished at how many men seem to think this would be a good idea - ask your wives or girlfriends what they think of it.

Having worked in a coffee shop where we had to clean the toilets the ladies was generally dirtier.

But also most gender-neutral toilets are self-contained, you won't find "drunk men" in there unless they have left the door unlocked, think of toilets on trains and planes, these are all gender neutral and not full of people perving.

 

[David M]

So you're rebuilding all the toilets up and down the country?

 

[styles]

Imagine you're a lady needing the bathroom in the train station and find it's a free for all with some very drunk men in your gender neutral bathrooms.
Men are definitely to be trusted not to be lazy b******s and simply pee all over the seat in a cubicle.
Men are definitely to be trusted not to perve in a toilet situation.
I'm always astonished at how many men seem to think this would be a good idea - ask your wives or girlfriends what they think of it.

Female toilets are often much dirtier than males.

I worked for a [railway] company once where someone in the female toilets was smearing poo on the walls.

My partner (female) fully supports gender neutral toilets, as do I.

 

[dgl]

Anyway, houses don't generally have gendered bathrooms and they work OK.
Also the ones in Weymouth (separate cubicles that exit straight on to the esplanade with their own handwashing/drying facilities) and Lyme Regis (a room of cubicles with shared handwashing/drying facilities) work just fine and are the cleanest/nicest of all the public toilets in the area.

 

[Falcon1200]

But also most gender-neutral toilets are self-contained, you won't find "drunk men" in there unless they have left the door unlocked, think of toilets on trains and planes, these are all gender neutral and not full of people perving.

Doing away with men's urinals and installing cubicles instead would be a) extremely expensive, b) lead to fewer facilities due to the space required, and c) greatly slow the operation, for men at least!

 

[styles]

Doing away with men's urinals and installing cubicles instead would be a) extremely expensive, b) lead to fewer facilities due to the space required, and c) greatly slow the operation, for men at least!

So the bigger picture here is a bit more unusual.

For a long time, buildings were planned almost exclusively by men. Men took the (on paper, quite logical) decision to allocate half the toilet space to females and half the toilet space to males. In theory this seems sensible. But in fact:

• Women go to the toilet more frequently
• Women on average spend longer in the toilet
• Women have periods which take more time to deal with
• Women after childbirth have weaker bladders and go more often
• Women can't use urinals (well, not unless they carry Shewees!)
• Women are more likely to have children with them, who will slow them down
• Women are more likely to do baby changing

What we're dealing with is the reality of the fact that women need more bathroom space per capita than men do, but we've already built the toilets and whatever now.

This is obvious if you ever go to the theater - at the interval there will be a massive queue for the ladies and a short (if any) one for the gents.

The Barbican theatre made a hash of this by relabelling the women's as "gender-neutral toilets", and the men's as, "gender-neutral with urinals". What this meant was, the women who didn't want to go into the toilets and see penises (most women) didn't use the men's, but men were green-lighted into using the women's. It made the situation worse for women.

Without structural changes to the male/female toilet allocation, the current indirect discrimination against women won't be resolved. One solution however is to make them all gender neutral. This does still disadvantage females somewhat if there are large queues, but it is much better than the current situation.

For what it's worth, male toilets have changed significantly over the years to the point that I don't feel that urinals provide much of a space advantage. "When I were a lad", the gents toilets have a long metal trough (with those blue/yellow scent blocks you would aim for with your pee), and you could fit half a dozen men there having a slash. But these have mostly been swapped not just for urinals, but urinals with privacy dividers. At this point, you're saving very little space compared to just making a cubicle. And if everything is an individual cubicle, there's no need for them to be gender-specific. The other advantage here is that you can have CCTV covering a set of toilets if it's all individual cubicles, but you can't if you've got urinals, so the security can actually be improved by making everything cubicles.

My personal preference on a new build is for individual rooms where the toilet and sink are in the same single occupancy room, but that's not feasible to retrofit into many older buildings.

 

[SargeNpton]

For what it's worth, male toilets have changed significantly over the years to the point that I don't feel that urinals provide much of a space advantage. "When I were a lad", the gents toilets have a long metal trough (with those blue/yellow scent blocks you would aim for with your pee), and you could fit half a dozen men there having a slash. But these have mostly been swapped not just for urinals, but urinals with privacy dividers. At this point, you're saving very little space compared to just making a cubicle.

I guess you haven't been to the gents at half time in a football ground.

You will see closely spaced urinals, with a significant throughput that would take at least three times the amount of space required if they were replaced by WCs.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is obvious if you ever go to the theater - at the interval there will be a massive queue for the ladies and a short (if any) one for the gents.

Not necessarily the best example, as in my experience theatres are more likely to have a majority of women in attendance. Similarly the toilets at the O2 when the Spice Girls reunion tour was on (So ‘a friend’ told me )

Conversely, pubs are often more likely to have a majority of men in attendance. Some nearer 90/10 split. Try the queue for the toilets at The Great Western in Wolverhampton when Wolves are at home, for example.

My point is that a BPC ratio (Bog per capita) may need to be based on the gender split of the usage of any particular facility, which isn’t necessarily 50:50.

For a long time, buildings were planned almost exclusively by men. Men took the (on paper, quite logical) decision to allocate half the toilet space to females and half the toilet space to males. In theory this seems sensible. But in fact:

• Women go to the toilet more frequently
• Women on average spend longer in the toilet
• Women have periods which take more time to deal with
• Women after childbirth have weaker bladders and go more often
• Women can't use urinals (well, not unless they carry Shewees!)
• Women are more likely to have children with them, who will slow them down
• Women are more likely to do baby changing

All this is, of course, fair.

 

[35B]

Not necessarily the best example, as in my experience theatres are more likely to have a majority of women in attendance. Similarly the toilets at the O2 when the Spice Girls reunion tour was on (So ‘a friend’ told me )

Which reinforces the point made by @styles that theatres (especially older ones) under provide for women.

 

[Welly]

I guess you haven't been to the gents at half time in a football ground.

You will see closely spaced urinals, with a significant throughput that would take at least three times the amount of space required if they were replaced by WCs.

I went to a convention in a rugby stadium a few years ago, there were miles and miles of steel trough urinals but only 6 handwashing sinks and 3 hot air hand dryers in the gents!

 

[GusB]

"Onboarding"

Just gonnae no!

 

[Gloster]

The thin clear plastic film on the top of clear plastic ready to eat snack containers. If you pull the larger tab at one corner it just removes the overlap along the edge, but fails to remove the part of the film covering the food. You unsuccessfully try pressing or twisting the film until you are reduced to using a knife or, if you haven’t anything sharp, stabbing it with a key. When you do finally get the top open the film tears itself so slivers disappear into the food, only to reemerge once it is in your mouth.

 

[Jimini]

"Onboarding"

Just gonnae no!

Indeed. I work for an American firm, and some of them have to be heard to be believed. Latest one: I was in the office last week. Two hour meeting. Halfway through, we had a "bio break". True story.

 

[Gloster]

The words ‘tear(s) up‘ to mean somebody’s eyes watered due to emotion. Tear up used to be what troublemakers on bikes or in beat-up old Escorts used to do to patches of grass.

 

[Welly]

The words ‘tear(s) up‘ to mean somebody’s eyes watered due to emotion. Tear up used to be what troublemakers on bikes or in beat-up old Escorts used to do to patches of grass.

They are both said differently, "teer up" - to cry; "tair up" - to wreck.