Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

uncommon_name wrote: »

Cyclists that do not cycle on cycle lanes when they are provided right beside them should be shot.

I got stuck behind 2 cyclists the other day that held me up for a good few minutes, there was a bloody brand new 2 lane cycle path right beside them, but they wanted to cycle on the road in front of me instead. When I beeped at them I got the finger and when I gave out when eventually overtaking them one of them decided it would be a good idea to punch my back window. Lets finish the story at this point!!!

But yeah, shoot them.

In an ideal world, lanes would be fully used. But spend a few hours trying to cycle in cycle lanes. You’ll see why people are reluctant to stick to them. People park in them, some drivers veer into them or ignore them completely and often they are poorly maintained (potholes etc.). Also, they often end abruptly only to appear again just as abruptly and so on. So you just end up thinking “What’s the point?”.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I think it should be law if a cycle lane is there that cyclist must use it . There is a great new cycle lane near us and yet some cyclist insist on being on the road
And before I am told about uneven surfaces it is new and clean and even

Is it free of obstacles at all times?

the beer revolu wrote: »

When I'm driving and have to stop at a red light, I prefer any cyclists going my way, check for oncoming traffic and break the lights.
When the lights go green, I then don't have to deal with wobbly cyclists just getting going in front of me.
So, in many circumstances, I have no problem with cyclists breaking lights when there is nothing coming.

I also don't mind the odd cyclist on a footpath provided they are cognisant pedestrians and give complete right of way and aren't flying around.

See, this is all sensible. I always stopped at lights. But when I did so, if I was turning left and there were no pedestrians, I’d go through the red light. I can’t see why anyone would have a problem with this. There was no speed involved. And I agree about paths. If the path is clear and the cyclist isn’t speeding and makes way for pedestrians, it should be fine.

And whilst cyclists can kill, motorists just need to understand that those driving a motorised vehicle just have to be held to a much higher standard because they are operating a heavy machine that is far, far more likely to kill somebody than the person on the pushbike. The rules are enforced on them more frequently and seriously because of that.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Yes . It is actually .

Is there a barrier between the road and the cycle path? That’s the only way you could know for sure.

If people are angry about silly things like cyclists and all sorts of silly stuff that don’t affect them they are the problem.

There should be a government agency that goes to miserable peoples houses and makes sure they spend a week or two sleeping the required times, eating healthy foods and exercising.

They would be so much happier and normal people wouldn’t have to deal with them. I would happily take a percentage raise in taxes to pay for this agency.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Why so tetchy ? I didn’t know what you meant . The cycle lane is one a wide path with a kerb . Yes it’s obstacle free , my husband uses that cycle lane daily with a child in a seat behind him and says its a pleasure to use . He sees other cyclists on the road without even bothering to use the cycle lane

The people avoiding them are probably wary of them after many bad experiences. Because if you’re a cyclist, you will have had bad experiences with cycle lanes. If the lane has a kerb, they should be using it for sure and hopefully more and more will.

As the poster after you said though, they’re not required to use the lane. A requirement for cyclists to use cycle lanes will probably only come in effect when there’s a contiguous network of lanes. And that will probably never happen. My own experience of cycle lanes was having to weave in and out of them constantly for various reasons. I very much wanted to use them but it wasn’t easy.

mr_fegelien wrote: »

I think that suicide should be allowed for non terminal illness. Who is to say that a mental illness is less debilitating as a physical one?

All the doctors in the world. If you have a terminal physical illness, then unfortunately your time is up. The most common mental illness that makes people commit suicide is depression. Unfortunately there is still a stigma around it and people suffer in silence, while they go deeper into the dark side. I'm not saying that everyone can be "cured" but it can be treated and there are plenty of people who were once suicidal and made attempts, who are quite happy that they failed. The problem in this country is that mental illness isn't taken as seriously as physical illness. People proactively attend their GP, only to be told their is a long waiting list to see a counsellor. I don't know what the answer is but offering them euthanasia certainly isn't it.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Guinness is over-rated.
It's a alright to drink, but it doesn't live up to the hype.
Peoples insistence on drinking it gives Diageo more power than they should have.
Guinness charge a fortune for the kegs here and then it's sold as the cheapest drink in the pub.

I agree, I love Carling but unfortunately haven't found a pub here that sells it.

fryup wrote: »

Ok here goes.....

...I don't think Dolores O'Riordan was a good singer...her Limerick accent coming through her voice made it like nails down a blackboard for me...as a matter of fact whenever the cranberries came on the radio i'd change stations instantly

I feel the same way about Van Morrisson. He has a big Graeme McDowell on him.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You'd want to see what I live with.

Woman hasn't worked in nearly 8 yrs, refuses to get a job.


It's very difficult to operate a single income household these days.


I'm breaking my bollox off working in a family business that's going down. While she swans around town with her friends for coffee, spending my money and neglecting our son.

Woah , get a good nights sleep lad.

So is it an unpopular opinion that if a kept woman spends 3 euro on a coffee once a week she is neglecting her son?

BDI wrote: »

So is it an unpopular opinion that if a kept woman spends 3 euro on a coffee once a week she is neglecting her son?

God I don't see anywhere that she goes for one coffee a week and nothing more.

The unpopular opinion is that he's not a fan of paternity leave.

He sounds resentful but if she is spending a lot of his hard earned money on clothes, shoes and lunches, then that's not fair.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's not that I can't stand her, I still love her and we have great craic together.



It's just that she has no appreciation of my situation, I don't think our fam business will last another year, we're in dire straits tbh, I actually cried in my office last Thursday after a meeting with our accountant. I'm under unreal stress.


She doesn't give a hoot about this, she's almost childlike when it comes to real life adult issues.

I used to work for a couple and the wife was kinda like yours. Now she did work and wasn't lazy but her attitude to finances was appalling. She spent it quicker than it was coming in and was irresponsible in that she'd go to the cash and carry and not bother to keep the invoice, which is obviously needed for the accountant. It used to drive the husband up the wall because he was the one going to and meeting the accounting/taking care of all the finances etc and she simply didn't give a sh!t. Like you say, it was almost a childlike attitude in her total refusal to consider any sort of responsibility.