Road issues that irritate me.......

maudgonner

The Specialist wrote: »

Considering the width of parent child spaces, if you can't fit a car seat or child in to a car without damaging those parked beside you, you should probably get a smaller car. Totally agree with that poster, parent child spaces are fair game.

The point is that if non-parents use up the Parent & Child spaces, then parents will be forced to park in standard width spaces and possibly damage cars parked beside them.

I'm not a parent, but I wouldn't park in a Parent & Child space. I normally park at the back of the carpark anyway, every little bit of exercise helps.

The Specialist

maudgonner wrote: »

The point is that if non-parents use up the Parent & Child spaces, then parents will be forced to park in standard width spaces and possibly damage cars parked beside them.

I'm not a parent, but I wouldn't park in a Parent & Child space. I normally park at the back of the carpark anyway, every little bit of exercise helps.

That's no excuse, I've got a car seat and child in to the car in standard spaces without causing damage to anything beside me. Does the sense of entitlement that comes with parent child spaces also give them carte blanche to be completely ****ing careless if they are forced to park in a normal space?

RainyDay

railer201 wrote: »

And the person needs to be visible - how is a motorist supposed to deal with an invisible person ??? Remember black clothing against a black background cannot be seen even with full headlights !

Are all cars meant to park up overnight to prevent any accidents with pedestrians who fail to follow basic advice of how to be 'safe and seen' ?

Legality won't physically protect you as a pedestrian - reflective clothing and a good flashlight will.

If only these houses were all wrapped with hi-vis then, I guess everything would have been OK.

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/audis-in-houses/

The whole hi-vis issue is a red herring, designed to (as you are using it) distract attention from dangerous driving. Dangerous drivers crash into all kinds of things in all kinds of lighting conditions. There is no evidence that hi-vis actually protects.

Samsgirl

The Specialist wrote: »

That's no excuse, I've got a car seat and child in to the car in standard spaces without causing damage to anything beside me. Does the sense of entitlement that comes with parent child spaces also give them carte blanche to be completely ****ing careless if they are forced to park in a normal space?

Yep, totally. You collect the certificate of carelessness once you register the birth of your child.

HellSquirrel

RainyDay wrote: »

If only these houses were all wrapped with hi-vis then, I guess everything would have been OK.

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/audis-in-houses/

The whole hi-vis issue is a red herring, designed to (as you are using it) distract attention from dangerous driving. Dangerous drivers crash into all kinds of things in all kinds of lighting conditions. There is no evidence that hi-vis actually protects.

I dunno, I'd still feel a darn sight safer in a hi-vis, and from the driving perspective (albeit as a passenger), I know I see them from further away. Hi-vis won't protect you from either an idiot or ..well, a couple tonnes of metal hitting you, but for most normal drivers, it might be the couple of seconds that allows them to adjust.

When you're a vulnerable sack of meat and bones sharing a dark country road with speeding cars (or just fast cars, but speeding does seem to be an issue in the country), anything is better than nothing.

railer201

RainyDay wrote: »

If only these houses were all wrapped with hi-vis then, I guess everything would have been OK.

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/audis-in-houses/

The whole hi-vis issue is a red herring, designed to (as you are using it) distract attention from dangerous driving. Dangerous drivers crash into all kinds of things in all kinds of lighting conditions. There is no evidence that hi-vis actually protects.

I'm stating what's advised by the Road Safety Authority. Claiming hi-viz to be a designed distraction is just conspiracy theory style nonsense and a step too far for most rational people to swallow - best wishes with that one.

There are dangerous drivers of all vehicles including bicycles and dangerous pedestrians, though mostly to themselves.

bodhrandude

Motorists not indicating when you are crossing a road near a roundabout.

Pataman

demanufactured wrote: »

It's doesn't.

It never existed, there a 2 types of lane on a motorway: Driving lane and overtaking lane(s).

Simples

BunkMoreland

3 lane carriageways make no sense in the real world. The left hand lane is full of slower cars merging or exiting. If you were to do it by the book you would be constantly weaving in and out of lane 1 and 2.

You are generally in a constant motion of overtaking by driving the speed limit in lane 2 so I don't know why people constantly bitch about middle lane drivers. What else are they supposed to do? Go as slow as fook in lane 1 or swerve in and out of it like lunatics?

Pataman

Bull! Most middle lane drivers are just too lazy to drive properly. This is evidenced by looking at the motorway late at night, when the only lane with cars is lane 2.
Go slow in lane 1?? Its the fastest lane because all the cars are in lane 2!
Just lazy, drive properly according to the rules or dont use the motorway.

John_Rambo

The Specialist wrote: »

That's no excuse, I've got a car seat and child in to the car in standard spaces without causing damage to anything beside me. Does the sense of entitlement that comes with parent child spaces also give them carte blanche to be completely ****ing careless if they are forced to park in a normal space?

You're confused and you're not looking at the bigger picture.

It's not a sense of entitlement. It's a well thought out safety procedure and it's a private car park, not a public road and the owners of the car park have decided to reserve spaces for people with kids, and they have every right to do so, it's their property, not yours

The parents spaces are often closer to the entrance, and that has good safety aspects when it comes to small kids, the (parents and kids) don't need to cross a busy car park with lots of moving cars with limited visibility to get to the shop, some of the parking spaces have cover from rain which, as you know would be handy for newborns.

So, with our litigious society, along with our dreadful driving skills do you blame businesses for limiting the amount of traffic kids have to come across before hit the shop?

It's their property, their carpark, their propertly, not a public road. The least you can do is respect their wishes.

CaptainInsano

Two lane traffic where the left lane is obstructed by a parked van or bus so cars or cyclists swerve into your lane without looking because heaven forbid they have to stop for a second.

_Jamie_

The Specialist wrote: »

2) Female drivers on phones (and I single females out because I've seen 8 of them in the past week including one dopey **** who nearly caused a 3 car accident).

Why would seeing more women using phones while driving in a small time period mean you'd single out one gender? Even if women make up, like, 70% of drivers using phones (and I'd doubt that, I'd say it's 50/50), that still means a good chunk of men do it too. The problem is anyone using a phone whilst driving; gender is irrelevant.

_Jamie_

railer201 wrote: »

And the person needs to be visible - how is a motorist supposed to deal with an invisible person ??? Remember black clothing against a black background cannot be seen even with full headlights !

Are all cars meant to park up overnight to prevent any accidents with pedestrians who fail to follow basic advice of how to be 'safe and seen' ?

Legality won't physically protect you as a pedestrian - reflective clothing and a good flashlight will.

Yeah, I'd have to agree. There's no point being right if you're dead. I'm originally from a rural area and a good flashlight and reflective strips were practically welded to us when we'd walk to our granny's house a mile away in the winter. We were not allowed out of the house without them. And, in the interest of road safety, we were told by my dad not to shine the flashlight directly at the passing motorist's face, to angle it so that they can see it but are not dazzled by it.

Galwayguy35

RainyDay wrote: »

Honestly, and genuinely no offence intended, but I don't believe you. I don't believe that you haven't broken the 30kmph limit in central Dublin or the 50kmph limit in many suburban areas. The various surveys that I've seen from RSA and others show 60% to 80% of drivers breaking speed limits. In my experience, so-called professional drivers in vans, trucks and taxis are among the worst drivers in terms of speeding, phoning, texting etc.

Whether I drive or cycle, I see most drivers will routinely break the speed limit when they get half the chance. I frequently break the speed limit when driving, and on those occasions when I choose to stick rigidly to the speed limit, I find that there is a queue of frustrated cars lined up behind me, surprised at this unusually slow driver 'holding up' traffic.

That's the reality of life on the roads. Almost every road user breaks the rules, it's just a matter of which rules they break and how they break them.


No moral high ground here. Look at what I actually said. I never justified anyone breaking the law. I never claimed that I never broke the law. Try arguing with what I actually said.

I've seen a few of these around, usually newer 15D or 16D reg cars, usually bigger/fancier cars, and hugely surprised if I get to tell them that they've no back lights on.


Or maybe they're just asking for you to drive safely, and be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Stop blaming victims.

You're wrong in that last point, anybody walking at night should have a high viz and a flashlight, maybe it's easy to see them walking in a well lit Dublin street where I take it you live but a dark country road is a different matter.

whoopsadoodles

RainyDay wrote: »

And if pedestrians need hi-vis, so do cars......

What next - stab vests for everyone who goes into town, otherwise it's their own fault if they get stabbed, right?

Holy sh*t. The stupidity of this post is as dazzling as the high beams mentioned continually on thread.

_Jamie_

RainyDay wrote: »

There is no evidence that hi-vis actually protects.

This is oft-said but I think it relates to hi-vis being used in urban areas. I think it has limited usefulness in places with lots of street lights. But having grown up in a rural area, hi-vis most definitely helps pedestrians be seen in pitch black or twilightly countryside. Driving along with my pops as a childer, I noticed how it helps many times. And how invisible a walker is in dark clothing. As I said a post up, it's better to be alive than "right".

Optimalprimerib

The train barriers that go down 5 minutes before the train is even due. Coolmine station is a nightmare for this as the carpark is the opposite side for me, meaning that in the mornings, there are about 3 trains in 15 minutes so if the barrier goes down, it won't go back up until all trains are gone.

I miss my train and there is a massive tailback. Either shorten the barrier time or build a bridge.

Seth Brundle

andala wrote: »

Don't even get me started on cyclist. Some refuse to use cycling paths and hold up everyone behind them. I get it. You have a bike and a beard. You're wearing lycra. That would make me hate the world too, but don't make my life harder only because you had a lapse of judgment buying gear in Aldi. Or don't go cycling on a narrow bendy country road where it's impossible to overtake you at around school drop off/collection time knowing that people from 3 schools have to take that road.

Most cycle paths aren't fit for purpose which is why cyclists choose to go on the road with ignorant muppet drivers who think that cyclists just want to block the road!

HellSquirrel

Parent/child spaces seem to get an awful lot of flak. I don't quite get why. Disabled spaces are off-limits because it's illegal, but parent/child spaces are okay to park in because it's not a legal requirement, just something the shop does to help out parents with young children. But they're closer to the shop and wider, therefore something something MINE?

Isn't there an empathy spark going on anywhere? I dunno, I wouldn't do it myself, partially because I'm probably ridiculously law-abiding, but also because it's really not going to hurt me to walk a few more yards and anyway, it seems to be the right thing to do. They have more things to control (kids, shopping trolley/loading shopping into car) than I do, it seems only like the courteous thing to do to help them out by not parking in the bays intended for people in that situation. Bugs me when people act entitled to them because it's not a legal requirement, anyway.

Jawgap

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Parent/child spaces seem to get an awful lot of flak. I don't quite get why. Disabled spaces are off-limits because it's illegal, but parent/child spaces are okay to park in because it's not a legal requirement, just something the shop does to help out parents with young children. But they're closer to the shop and wider, therefore something something MINE?

Isn't there an empathy spark going on anywhere? I dunno, I wouldn't do it myself, partially because I'm probably ridiculously law-abiding, but also because it's really not going to hurt me to walk a few more yards and anyway, it seems to be the right thing to do. They have more things to control (kids, shopping trolley/loading shopping into car) than I do, it seems only like the courteous thing to do to help them out by not parking in the bays intended for people in that situation. Bugs me when people act entitled to them because it's not a legal requirement, anyway.

Our local supermarket is open from 8-00am to 10-00pm - you have a choice about bringing your ankle-biters with you when you go shopping. You don't have a choice about being disabled.

Parent and child spaces are just a sop, a convenience for a market segment - I, for one, don't have a lot of problems with people using them.

I remember one yummy-mummy getting upset with me using one when I brought my mother shopping - I pointed out she was a parent, I was a child and nowhere on the sign does it say the child can't be the driver

Jawgap

kbannon wrote: »

Most cycle paths aren't fit for purpose which is why cyclists choose to go on the road with ignorant muppet drivers who think that cyclists just want to block the road!

....especially at this time of year.

They're never cleaned or maintained so any cycle path near trees is now covered with a layer of slippy, slimey leaf mulch.

Much safer and quicker to stay on the road.

HellSquirrel

Jawgap wrote: »

Our local supermarket is open from 8-00am to 10-00pm - you have a choice about bringing your ankle-biters with you when you go shopping. You don't have a choice about being disabled.

Parent and child spaces are just a sop, a convenience for a market segment - I, for one, don't have a lot of problems with people using them.

I remember one yummy-mummy getting upset with me using one when I brought my mother shopping - I pointed out she was a parent, I was a child and nowhere on the sign does it say the child can't be the driver

I'd probably not have approached you in the position of that "yummy mummy" because I'm not particularly confrontational, but I can see why she was annoyed. Although I'd generally be more okay with people using them because they have an elderly person with them for much the same reason as people having small children with them. The less they have to travel across the car park, the better for everyone.

As for the rest, you might not have the choice about bringing your ankle-biters. A single parent that doesn't have another one to look after them, a parent who lives out in the country whose best option is to bring the kids with on the way back from school/daycare, a parent whose partner isn't available for some reason (working late/working awkward shifts/working away from home). Like, if you don't -know- why they need to corral their children in a carpark while coping with shopping, why not give them the benefit of the doubt? If it's a convenience to a market segment, why try to make it harder for them against the wishes of the place you're patronising? I don't really get it. It's not a legal requirement, so I'm just as entitled to those spaces as the people they were aimed at so I'll take one to protect my car doors, rather than let them take it to protect their children.

???

Human courtesy and kindness goes beyond the word of the law, imo.

Jawgap

HellSquirrel wrote: »

I'd probably not have approached you in the position of that "yummy mummy" because I'm not particularly confrontational, but I can see why she was annoyed. Although I'd generally be more okay with people using them because they have an elderly person with them for much the same reason as people having small children with them. The less they have to travel across the car park, the better for everyone.

As for the rest, you might not have the choice about bringing your ankle-biters. A single parent that doesn't have another one to look after them, a parent who lives out in the country whose best option is to bring the kids with on the way back from school/daycare, a parent whose partner isn't available for some reason (working late/working awkward shifts/working away from home). Like, if you don't -know- why they need to corral their children in a carpark while coping with shopping, why not give them the benefit of the doubt? If it's a convenience to a market segment, why try to make it harder for them against the wishes of the place you're patronising? I don't really get it. It's not a legal requirement, so I'm just as entitled to those spaces as the people they were aimed at so I'll take one to protect my car doors, rather than let them take it to protect their children.

???

Human courtesy and kindness goes beyond the word of the law, imo.

As I said, lots of supermarkets are open long hours so there are very few people who can't arrange their lives so they can go shopping without the sprogs.

I'm not trying to make it harder for anyone - but if they want to improve convenience, improve it for everyone. My euro is worth just as much as any other parents.

And it's not about protecting their children - its about convenience

Jawgap

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Human courtesy and kindness goes beyond the word of the law, imo.

I quite agree, so maybe parents can work a bit harder to control their kids - supermarkets, restaurants etc are not playgrounds, and kids running around screaming are not being 'adorable.'

......and to wander back towards the topic......driving your kids 500m to school, then blocking the road with your inconsiderate parking so the little snowflakes have 10m less to walk to the school gate is not being courteous to other road users, and even other parents.

Seth Brundle

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not trying to make it harder for anyone - but if they want to improve convenience, improve it for everyone. My euro is worth just as much as any other parents.

Yeah because it can take so long for an able bodied adult to get from their car to the shop!
:rolleyes:

Cantona's Collars

People who slam on the brakes every time another vehicle approaches. They are on the other side of the road you tools.
Weird road layouts that cause more problems than they are supposed to solve. The junction boxes at the top of the overtaking lane at Ferrycarrig near Wexford is a case in point. Whoever came up with that must never drive.

Jawgap

kbannon wrote: »

Yeah because it can take so long for an able bodied adult to get from their car to the shop!
:rolleyes:

Indeed, so it makes you wonder why 'parent and child' spots are even necessary

sundodger5

Alun wrote: »

Not on any car I've driven they don't.

Well they do on mine. Actually think its a different bulb in the fog light lens used as DRL's
Oh i have a 151 passat so assume many of the VAG group cars are the same.

seamus

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not trying to make it harder for anyone - but if they want to improve convenience, improve it for everyone. My euro is worth just as much as any other parents.

It's not really. It's more fickle. People won't drag their kids around to 3 or 4 shops to save a few euro. They won't go to a different shop every week.
If a shop provides additional convenience for people with children, they're more likely to retain that business on an ongoing basis.

People who go shopping on their own (whether they have kids or not), tend to care less about things like this unless the car park is always full or a layout disaster.