"fvck Off"

cazzy · 10-10-2007 10:53PM

boreds wrote:

How many of us were strapped in as children?

back in the day cars didnt have back seat belts and noone used the belts in the front. Nowadays Ive got so used to a seat belt that I'd feel naked without it. Noone wore seat belts in Galway in the 80's. It was unheard of. But then I guess there was a lot less cars on the road. O k Im rambling now.

Still theres no excuse for rudeness - maybe though you shud have been a bit more tactical in telling her off.

At least you did your part.

Unpossible · 10-10-2007 11:03PM

julep wrote:

"I'm going to do your child"
I have a strap-on".

I didnt want to go that far, thought I might get banned

Terry · 10-10-2007 11:14PM

Unpossible wrote:

I didnt want to go that far, thought I might get banned

No rule against satire.

Unless I make one up in order to ban you.

eoin5 · 11-10-2007 01:59AM

6ix wrote:

"You're going to kill your child"?

I hope you're not that blunt in everything you say. Of course the parent was wrong not to have the child strapped in, but surely you could have worded it better. If someone spoke to me in such a condescending tone, I certainly wouldn't respond well.

Condescending tone vs childs life. Round one... fight!

Where does the responsibility of tact fall exactly?

Unpossible · 11-10-2007 08:06AM

now I don't know whether or not to keep pushing on the julep thing

Capt'n Midnight · 12-10-2007 12:09AM

in the olden days cars did not have seat belts

in the olden days
* pre scrappage the Average car was 8 years old, with company cars pushing the average down
* car wern't as fast
* drivers did not go as fast, no ABS , worse brakes

One person in my class in primary and in secondary died on the roads as did a person in a cycling club I was in.

Then again our roads would be a lot safer if passengers used belts and the drivers air bag was replaced with a harpoon.

And our motorway stats are freaky, in most other countries motorways are FAR safer than ordinary roads, here they are only a bit safer.

Reku · 12-10-2007 08:31AM

Just shows that you don't need to be poor to be a bit of a selfcentred scumbag...
Just keep reminding yourself OP that she'll be off the roads in no time (or at least she would if the Gardai* would get the finger out) since a passanger not using their seatbelt = points on your licence.

As for how many of us were strapped in as kids:
1. Many cars did not have rear passenger seatbelts.
2. It was not legally required
3. People drove less then, now people won't even walk 5 minutes to the shop if they have a car.
4. Fewer people had cars in the pre-celtic tiger days (possibly part of the reason for point 3), less cars on the road = less chance of a collision.

*can't do fadas thanks to the new boards software!

Hagar · 12-10-2007 08:39AM

Press down and hold the "Alt Gr" key, right of space bar, while typing your letter áéíóú ÁÉÍÓÚ.

Reku · 12-10-2007 08:47AM

Doesn't work for me, just results in italics tags. Worked fine last week so the boards software change is all I can put it down to.
áé(italics tag)ó(underline tag)

But that wouldn't explain why you're not getting the same problem...

Unpossible · 12-10-2007 09:22AM

Many cars did not have rear passenger seatbelts.

How long ago was this? A couple of posters have mentioned this yet I can never remember any of my family's cars not having seatbelts (and my parents always made us wear them).
In some countries I've been in its seen as an insult to the driver to wear a seat belt (Russia and China), I told them it was the other drivers I didn't trust

Hagar · 12-10-2007 09:44AM

Very good chart near the bottom of the link.

dade · 12-10-2007 09:45AM

Unpossible wrote: »

How long ago was this? A couple of posters have mentioned this yet I can never remember any of my family's cars not having seatbelts

Late 80s i think, i only became mandatory for all cars in this country to have belts fitted then but i don't know if it was mandatory to wear them. I believe it was a case of wear them if you've got them. but you couldn't be done if the car was not fitted with them or something like that

SpitfireIV · 12-10-2007 09:55AM

JohnnyStones wrote: »

your right i always put my cat in the boot;)

I can remember going places in my aunts car, a mid 80's fiesta, and me and my brother had to sit in the boot on them 'lumps' over the back wheel as the back seat would be full!

we used to make faces at the cars behind us and write notes and stick them on the window to distract the driver or get him/her to flash the lights....

That was about 12 or 13 years back, sure what need had we for seatbelts or safety then?

Unpossible · 12-10-2007 10:05AM

dade wrote:

Late 80s i think, i only became mandatory for all cars in this country to have belts fitted then but i don't know if it was mandatory to wear them.

Come to think of it, at least one of the seatbelts was home made (my gran was able to make them from the right material), my parents were pretty insistant on the seatbelt thing so I guess they made sure we always had them.

Latchy · 12-10-2007 10:52AM

Quote Forfar Just shows that you don't need to be poor to be a bit of a selfcentred scumbag

So understated , i can picture this em lady sitting over her morning cofee moaning about how the countrys gone to the dogs lol .Bad manners and road etiquette still abound quite a lot .

John Mason · 12-10-2007 11:16AM

Mairt, you done the right thing, fair play to you.

I was sitting in traffic in between Croke Park and Jurys Hotel one morning. The car in front of me had a a young child not strapped in, in fact she has hanging out the window. Now unbeknowest to myself, there was an unmarked police car behind me, they drive up read the woman the riot act and made her get out of the car and strap the screaming child in.

these parents should have their licences revoked and be heavily fined, this is child abuse - god damit

Nuttzz · 12-10-2007 11:55AM

childern are over rated....

biko · 12-10-2007 12:01PM

Terry wrote: »

"I'm going to do your child"
I have a strap-on".

First LOL of the day. Thanks mate

MOH · 12-10-2007 04:26PM

DeVore wrote: »

Yes, hands up all those who didn't die in road accidents!

You should google the Anthropic Principle if you still don't understand why thats a logical fallacy

DeV.

I did, and got confused. Then depressed because I was confused. But then I felt better after I read:
"The anthropic principle has led to more than a little confusion and controversy, partly because several distinct ideas carry this label"

Anyway, the obvious explanation is that the woman actually was on her way to a secluded location to kill her child, and panicked when the OP rumbled her.

WindSock · 12-10-2007 05:32PM

farohar wrote: »

2. It was not legally required

So only now that it has become a legal requirement, it is suddenly disgusting child abuse to not strap them in, whereas it was not as dangerous when there was no law for it?

wil · 12-10-2007 11:11PM

Mairt wrote: »

waiting beside me was a respectable looking woman (I purposely won't call her a lady) in her late 20's, driving a nice Merc.......

Mairt - Britney says sorry, she had a bit of a bad couple of weeks and a really bad hair day and today was her only day to get the kids unsupervised and well like they never told her only that not to put them on her lap while driving and her bouncers had deserted her otherwise you'd never have even got that close and well like whatever so I hope you understand.:p

Names mentioned in this post are fictitious and any similarity to person/s, living or deceased is purely coincidental

Reku · 13-10-2007 01:31PM

boreds wrote: »

So only now that it has become a legal requirement, it is suddenly disgusting child abuse to not strap them in, whereas it was not as dangerous when there was no law for it?

I never said anything about it being child abuse or disgusting, my "scumbag" reference was in response to her response to the (valid) concern of another citizen.
As to why it was ok before, we simply didn't know any better, people used to pee & poo in a pot and toss it out the window, onto the street, we now view that as a disgusting thing to do also.

thefinalstage · 13-10-2007 03:00PM

farohar wrote: »

I never said anything about it being child abuse or disgusting, my "scumbag" reference was in response to her response to the (valid) concern of another citizen.
As to why it was ok before, we simply didn't know any better, people used to pee & poo in a pot and toss it out the window, onto the street, we now view that as a disgusting thing to do also.

But very convenient and handy in case enemies come calling.

yomchi · 13-10-2007 03:18PM

|Cookies wrote: »

Her child, not yours. Mind your own business.

What a stupid comment! Now lets pretend it was a garda that stopped her..

"my child guard, now mind your own business"

She could also be reported, and have a case to hear about from social workers re; negligence

:rolleyes:

In fact Mairt may have saved her child and preventd her from getting a fine, all he gave was a casual reminder. It doesn't take a crash for a child to fall forward and bang their head sufficiently enough to cause death, all it takes is a little hard breaking.

Not all things are as back and white as you would like them to be

JohnnyStones · 13-10-2007 03:21PM

Jon wrote: »

What a stupid comment! Now lets pretend it was a garda that stopped her..

"my child guard, now mind your own business"

:rolleyes:

In fact Mairt may have saved her child and preventd her from getting a fine, all he gave was a casual reminder. It doesn't take a crash for a child to fall forward and bang their head sufficiently enough to cause death, all it takes is a little hard breaking.

Not all things are as back and white as you would like them to be

How's that a stupid comment?

the OP is not a guard(as far as i know),so he has/had no right to say anything to this woman, but i do think he was right to say something!

indough · 13-10-2007 03:23PM

of course he had the right to say something, you don't have to be a guard for that, she also has the right to disregard what he said

yomchi · 13-10-2007 03:26PM

No Mairt is not a guard, but works for state security and anyone that knows him will vouch for his ability to help joe public when he needs to.

The fact I thought it a stupid comment was that a child's life was in danger, no buts about it - simple as that. To be flippant about it saying its none of your business is silly, the protection of children should be everyone's responsibility, and if some knob end of a parent decides to risk their childs life, well then she/he deserves to be told!

Knowing the type of guy Mairt is, if he decided to say, meh..its none of my business there would be a few people who would be less well off on the streets of Dublin. (I refer to a thread posted about his good deeds a few months back)

JohnnyStones · 13-10-2007 03:27PM

indough wrote: »

of course he had the right to say something, you don't have to be a guard for that, she also has the right to disregard what he said

Yes in this country we have free speach-anybody can say anything to anybody(well almost).:)

indough · 13-10-2007 03:29PM

JohnnyStones wrote: »

Yes in this country we have free speach-anybody can say anything to anybody(well almost).:)

Not for too long more by the looks of it

"fvck Off"

Comments