Pet Peeves IV

As I understand it, folk who have declared an interest in having a heterosexual civil partnership don't want to get married. However, they want the legal and financial protection (and potential tax benefits) that civil partnership allows them. I don't see anything wrong with that.

The bottom line is there is currently a desirable legal/financial protection route available to gay couples, which is not available to heterosexual couples. I think that, as a basic principle, is wrong and it appears the court agreed today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

But again...so what? That's just moving it on from a "it's no fair, they're allowed to, but I'm no" argument to "but they started it".

---

If we're going to do something then do it properly. Equality should be just that.

If two people want to have a civil partnership they should be allowed to irrespective of their sex/or whatever.
"The Law is an ass". It always has been.

What's the point in a civil partnership when same sex marriage is now allowed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Future17

As I understand it, folk who have declared an interest in having a heterosexual civil partnership don't want to get married. However, they want the legal and financial protection (and potential tax benefits) that civil partnership allows them. I don't see anything wrong with that.

The bottom line is there is currently a desirable legal/financial protection route available to gay couples, which is not available to heterosexual couples. I think that, as a basic principle, is wrong and it appears the court agreed today.

---

I'm not saying there's anything "wrong with it" as such. I am saying that going to court in order to get the right to have a civil partnership, which gives you the same rights as a married couple, is completely unnecessary. You are already allowed to get married, just do that. Saying that marriage "isn't for you" but a civil partnership is, is just bollocks.

The legal/financial protection available to gay couples is available to hetro couples. It's called marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peevemor

A (hetro) couple who have lived together for years, with or without kids, but have decided against marriage are not legally recognised as next of kin. This is the case for my sister and her bloke, they've been together for 35 years and have 3 grown up kids.

That's just one difference.

---

But they can get married.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

What's the point in a civil partnership when same sex marriage is now allowed?

---

Was it not a sort of half measure before same sex marriage was legalised? Now that the elegal status exists, they can't really do away with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

What's the point in a civil partnership when same sex marriage is now allowed?

---

Because some people are want to be awkward.

lyonhibs makes the point well -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lyonhibs

But the vestiges of inequality that the term "marriage" brings just "fit" how they see their "roles" maaaaaaaaaan.

I agree with you entirely. Folk looking to kick up a fuss and get in the papers.

As if, upon getting married, the man is going to chain the wife to the kitchen counter and take possession of all her worldy goods and assets, or whatever it is about marriage that these attention seekers feel doesn't "fit" with them.

Heehaw changes when you get married from that point of view, assuming you're a normal human being in a healthy relationship in the first place. It's an awesome big party where everyone puts on their gladrags, gets pished and dances, and there's some nice words in there at the beginning.

Legal stuff etc I get (and that's why everyone, regardless of gender, can quite rightly get ****ing married in the UK now - save for those unfortunate enough to be NI obviously) but this court case is pure "look at me" posturing IMO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

But they can get married.

---

But not everyone wants to. Same sex couples have a choice which isn't available to hetro couples. That's not equality as I understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

Because some people are want to be awkward.

lyonhibs makes the point well -

---

It's nothing to do with being awkward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peevemor

But not everyone wants to. Same sex couples have a choice which isn't available to hetro couples. That's not equality as I understand it.

---

Life isn't equal. Not everything has to be. We still live (well I do, not you) in a country that has a Royal Family, I'd like to be King for a bit, I can't, it's not fair. I'll just get on with my life instead of greeting about it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peevemor

It's nothing to do with being awkward.

---

I say it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

But they can get married.

---

So can gay couples (in most jurisdictions). So why do they have the option but hetero couples don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Future17

So can gay couples (in most jurisdictions). So why do they have the option but hetero couples don't?

---

Because instead of just saying right from the outset that gay couples could get married, which they should have done, civil partnership was introduced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

Life isn't equal. Not everything has to be. We still live (well I do, not you) in a country that has a Royal Family, I'd like to be King for a bit, I can't, it's not fair. I'll just get on with my life instead of greeting about it though.

---

Not a very good comparison is it? The government of the day don't decide who the monarch is - they do impose laws though.

Quote:

---

I say it is.

---

Isn't! :na na:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

Because instead of just saying right from the outset that gay couples could get married, which they should have done, civil partnership was introduced.

---

​That's a different argument, though it probably served as a softener before going the full same sex marriage hog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peevemor

Not a very good comparison is it? The government of the day don't decide who the monarch is - they do impose laws though.

---

It's not a direct comparison, it's merely pointing out that sometimes life isn't fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peevemor

Isn't! :na na:

---

:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

That was me on Friday last week. From landing in Dubai, I had 20 mins for the plane to taxi to the gate, then for them to let the posh seat folk out first, then I had to Ninja Warrior my way through the rest of the cattle class, and then run what seemed like 10 miles, to get to my connecting flight in time. It's a big airport.

Just made it.


I encountered a big airport peeve that day too. We check in at the desk, where they remind me I'll need my departure card, no problem, got it sorted. Through security, where there are posters in various languages, with pictures, "remember you need your departure card". No problem, got it ready. Then down the escalator to passport control bit, big sign again at the top of the escalator, "remember you need your departure card". Then again at the bottom of the escalator. So you wait in the queue, get almost to the front, then the family of 6 in front of you are shocked to find out they need to complete a departure card to get through. But, on top of that, they're ****ing idiots who can barely hold a pen. I'd have made them go to the back of the queue and fill them out, but they all just block everyone, holding everyone up. Arse. Holes.

---

Absolutely................air travel is a complete pain in the neck................just a succession of queues - check in , security , boarding , exiting the plane , passport control. It's a necessary evil if I'm going on holiday.......if I'm going to London for work i'll take the train.

Just get hitched in a registry office. Same thing, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easty

Life isn't equal. Not everything has to be. We still live (well I do, not you) in a country that has a Royal Family, I'd like to be King for a bit, I can't, it's not fair. I'll just get on with my life instead of greeting about it though.



I say it is.

---

You're just being awkward now. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stantonhibby

Absolutely................air travel is a complete pain in the neck................just a succession of queues - check in , security , boarding , exiting the plane , passport control. It's a necessary evil if I'm going on holiday.......if I'm going to London for work i'll take the train.

---

Couple of air travel peeves:

- people who don't check luggage in but board with sometimes 3 pieces of very large hand luggage that they expect to put in the overhead lockers, then get arsey with the cabin crew who are trying to help them (when they should really tell them to gtf with that volume of hand luggage)

- aforementioned people with lots of/huge hand luggage who never seem to get challenged at check in that their hand luggage is too big or too many

- folk who are too busy buying as much duty free as possible and make the plane late in leaving because they can't get to the gate in a timely manner

I'm afraid i agree with @easty on the 'Civil partnership for hetrosexuals' nonsense.

Can someone please tell me what the difference is between the 2 of them?

People who are constantly late for meetings then always have an excuse.
It's bollox most of the time, they are late because they couldn't be ersed to make plans to ensure they arrive on time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee

People who are constantly late for meetings then always have an excuse.
It's bollox most of the time, they are late because they couldn't be ersed to make plans to ensure they arrive on time.

---

When i worked for Citibank, no one in that office would turn up for a meeting on time. Used to do my nut in!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee

People who are constantly late for meetings then always have an excuse.
It's bollox most of the time, they are late because they couldn't be ersed to make plans to ensure they arrive on time.

---

The folk who are late but turn up with a coffee so have managed to get to the canteen.

Similar to meetings is training sessions, I have a rule, once I have started my introduction you ain't getting in and will have to attend another session. Pissed many a person off but they turn up on time for the next one.

Folk having Holy Ground debates on the Pet Peeves thread. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stantonhibby

The folk who are late but turn up with a coffee so have managed to get to the canteen.

---

Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stantonhibby

The folk who are late but turn up with a coffee so have managed to get to the canteen.

---

Or the folk who turn up late for work with a Costa/Starbucks cup in their hand.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

I'm afraid i agree with @easty on the 'Civil partnership for hetrosexuals' nonsense.

Can someone please tell me what the difference is between the 2 of them?

---

Is there not a tax benefit for married/civil partners?

So if you don't want to get married but want the tax benefit you get civilled up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matty_f

Folk having Holy Ground debates on the Pet Peeves thread. :greengrin

---

Yep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danderhall Hibs

Is there not a tax benefit for married/civil partners?

So if you don't want to get married but want the tax benefit you get civilled up.

---

That's not a difference between the 2 of them though?
That's a similarity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

That's not a difference between the 2 of them though?
That's a similarity.

---

The point is, discrimination by definition is treating people differently. How id this not discrimination. Who cares what the differences are. Bit like saying why did gay people need to keep going for marriage when they had civil partnerships.

Bit like the guides/scouts debate. Or the Muirfield issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beensaidbefore

The point is, discrimination by definition is treating people differently. How id this not discrimination. Who cares what the differences are. Bit like saying why did gay people need to keep going for marriage when they had civil partnerships.

Bit like the guides/scouts debate. Or the Muirfield issue.

---

I would like to know what the differences are as I see no point in wanting civil partnership for heterosexuals if it is exactly the same as a marriage. Bear in mind, the couple who started this nonsense have stated it is nothing to do with "the gays can do it, why can't we" so this is why I am asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

I'm afraid i agree with @easty on the 'Civil partnership for hetrosexuals' nonsense.

Can someone please tell me what the difference is between the 2 of them?

---

If you get married, you are married. If you enter into a civil partnership, you are not married. It's quite simple really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

I would like to know what the differences are as I see no point in wanting civil partnership for heterosexuals if it is exactly the same as a marriage. Bear in mind, the couple who started this nonsense have stated it is nothing to do with "the gays can do it, why can't we" so this is why I am asking.

---

Whilst that isn't their motivation, their legal argument is absolutely everything to do with this...albeit, it's probably been worded slightly differently. :greengrin

The size of luggage some folk take onboard as hand luggage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

I would like to know what the differences are as I see no point in wanting civil partnership for heterosexuals if it is exactly the same as a marriage. Bear in mind, the couple who started this nonsense have stated it is nothing to do with "the gays can do it, why can't we" so this is why I am asking.

---

Equally you could say why did gay folk bother harping on about marriage when the could just get a civil partnership.

People that either are totally unaware or really couldn't care less as to how their actions affect others.

Hand luggage too big
Holding up bus queue looking for change
Stopping car in a place that causes massive disruption to flow of traffic
The list is endless, there really are some ignorant tossers in this world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beensaidbefore

Equally you could say why did gay folk bother harping on about marriage when the could just get a civil partnership.

---

Jeezo, you really don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

Jeezo, you really don't get it.

---

Neither do you get that this is the Pet Peeves board not the Holy Ground. Bugger off and stop clogging us up. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee

People that either are totally unaware or really couldn't care less as to how their actions affect others.

Hand luggage too big
Holding up bus queue looking for change
Stopping car in a place that causes massive disruption to flow of traffic
The list is endless, there really are some ignorant tossers in this world.

---

That's one of my big gripes. Ignorami.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

Jeezo, you really don't get it.

---

What dont i get? That you think there should be different rules around marriage and civil partnership depending on your sexual orientation. Is that really your belief?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beensaidbefore

What dont i get? That you think there should be different rules around marriage and civil partnership depending on your sexual orientation. Is that really your belief?

---

FFS! The question i asked was what is the difference between being married or being in a civil partnership. Nothing to do with sexual orientation. The couple who are wanting this say marriage doesn't "fit" for them, but civil partnership does.

Extremely irrational but those giant posters in Tesco where people are presenting their dishes like "Jimmys proper Steak" and "Jo's amazing fish pie".

Who are you likes?

Get your food and your beards out my face.

The BBC news. "That was Lorna Gordon reporting from Scotland, now here's Alison Freeman reporting from Blackpool" said with a dead straight face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete

Extremely irrational but those giant posters in Tesco where people are presenting their dishes like "Jimmys proper Steak" and "Jo's amazing fish pie".

Who are you likes?

Get your food and your beards out my face.

---

:agree:

Was just thinking this yesterday.

The keypads on iPads not having a tab key or end key ,or when they change to login to some email accounts and have different keys available that I'd like to see all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

FFS! The question i asked was what is the difference between being married or being in a civil partnership. Nothing to do with sexual orientation. The couple who are wanting this say marriage doesn't "fit" for them, but civil partnership does.

---

Who knows. That's why I think folk should be free to investigate and go for whatever suits them best.

Nothing seems to be annoying me today. Can't think why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig_HFC

Nothing seems to be annoying me today. Can't think why.

---

:agree:

But folk who join the motorway from the slip road and just immediately dart into the outside lane.

Drivers who move their cars in a jerky motion when moving in and out of traffic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeping giant

:agree:

But folk who join the motorway from the slip road and just immediately dart into the outside lane.

Drivers who move their cars in a jerky motion when moving in and out of traffic.

---

Cars that don't let you join the motorway easily by either refusing to move to the other lane or speed up to make sure they're ahead of you when you join from the slip road.

On a completely separate note, when people tempt fate. "I love how we've got a goalie that doesn't make mistakes". I just about got up and left the ground when I heard that sentence 5 minutes in last night, pleased I never but the point still stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee

People who are constantly late for meetings then always have an excuse.
It's bollox most of the time, they are late because they couldn't be ersed to make plans to ensure they arrive on time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stantonhibby

The folk who are late but turn up with a coffee so have managed to get to the canteen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee

Similar to meetings is training sessions, I have a rule, once I have started my introduction you ain't getting in and will have to attend another session. Pissed many a person off but they turn up on time for the next one.

---

:agree: Oh hell yes!!!

same with the people who turn up late stinking of fag smoke, had time for that.

Ive even had people show up late to meetings and training sessions with hot food in their hand, which they've had time to go and get. Usually the smirk comes off their face when told they're not eating it during the meeting/session.

People (mainly Jambos) who are trying to get Cathro removed as Hearts manager!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee

People that either are totally unaware or really couldn't care less as to how their actions affect others.

Hand luggage too big
Holding up bus queue looking for change
Stopping car in a place that causes massive disruption to flow of traffic
The list is endless, there really are some ignorant tossers in this world.

---

Indeed. Guy tonight stopped on a mini roundabout to chat to pedestrians. Originally thought breakdown how sad to what a far kin duck....
This morning in the snow someone decided to attempt to switch lanes on the roundabout at Hermiston right in front of me. While I hit the brakes I slid on. How we never hit Gord only knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo70

Cars that don't let you join the motorway easily by either refusing to move to the other lane or speed up to make sure they're ahead of you when you join from the slip road.

On a completely separate note, when people tempt fate. "I love how we've got a goalie that doesn't make mistakes". I just about got up and left the ground when I heard that sentence 5 minutes in last night, pleased I never but the point still stands.

---

Did this last night with my son did the normal night routine and it went better than it usually does, cue me saying "well that went well he's sleeping soundly now" to which the baby monitor suddenly sprang into life with a screech that can only be described as a wailing banshee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo70

Cars that don't let you join the motorway easily by either refusing to move to the other lane or speed up to make sure they're ahead of you when you join from the slip road.

On a completely separate note, when people tempt fate. "I love how we've got a goalie that doesn't make mistakes". I just about got up and left the ground when I heard that sentence 5 minutes in last night, pleased I never but the point still stands.

---

Drivers who expect me to move into the right hand lane or just about stop to let them in when they join from sliproad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killiehibbie

Drivers who expect me to move into the right hand lane or just about stop to let them in when they join from sliproad.

---

:agree:
I mentioned that a few pages ago.

If you joining from a slip road , you should be giving way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeping giant

:agree:
I mentioned that a few pages ago.

If you joining from a slip road , you should be giving way.

---

You'll need to educate me here.

I'm on the slip road getting up to speed of the rest of the traffic, you then don't allow me on the motor way as i need to give way to you, I then run out of slip road to get back up to speed? Surely that's more dangerous than you moving across a lane (if empty) or slowing down slightly to allow me to join?

I've always assumed that as I'm effectively merging on to the motorway there is an onus on the cars there to allow me on to the road. Is that not the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo70

You'll need to educate me here.

I'm on the slip road getting up to speed of the rest of the traffic, you then don't allow me on the motor way as i need to give way to you, I then run out of slip road to get back up to speed? Surely that's more dangerous than you moving across a lane (if empty) or slowing down slightly to allow me to join?

I've always assumed that as I'm effectively merging on to the motorway there is an onus on the cars there to allow me on to the road. Is that not the case?

---

Not as far as I understand however, IMO drivers on both roads should use common sense and anticipate what's coming.
It only takes one selfish (or naive) idiot to cause chaos on in these situations. I'm sure we've all seen them on the slip road and on the main road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo70

You'll need to educate me here.

I'm on the slip road getting up to speed of the rest of the traffic, you then don't allow me on the motor way as i need to give way to you, I then run out of slip road to get back up to speed? Surely that's more dangerous than you moving across a lane (if empty) or slowing down slightly to allow me to join?

I've always assumed that as I'm effectively merging on to the motorway there is an onus on the cars there to allow me on to the road. Is that not the case?

---

I'll always allow you to go in front of me, as long as I don't have to perform an emergency stop. Foot off accelerator and in you go but if you try and force your way into the side of me i'm not moving over into the path of faster moving traffic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killiehibbie

I'll always allow you to go in front of me, as long as I don't have to perform an emergency stop. Foot off accelerator and in you go but if you try and force your way into the side of me i'm not moving over into the path of faster moving traffic.

---

I'm pretty much the same, always aware of slip road and traffic approaching on it, will change lanes to let you in if I can or slow down enough to give you space to merge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo70

You'll need to educate me here.

I'm on the slip road getting up to speed of the rest of the traffic, you then don't allow me on the motor way as i need to give way to you, I then run out of slip road to get back up to speed? Surely that's more dangerous than you moving across a lane (if empty) or slowing down slightly to allow me to join?

I've always assumed that as I'm effectively merging on to the motorway there is an onus on the cars there to allow me on to the road. Is that not the case?

---

You are obviously going too fast if you run out of slip road.


I would move over btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killiehibbie

I'll always allow you to go in front of me, as long as I don't have to perform an emergency stop. Foot off accelerator and in you go but if you try and force your way into the side of me i'm not moving over into the path of faster moving traffic.

---

Agree it is some common sense because those that move slowly out to the right to let someone in from the slip but force the much faster moving traffic on the right to put the brakes on are probably causing more issues. Only move over if it is free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo70

You'll need to educate me here.

I'm on the slip road getting up to speed of the rest of the traffic, you then don't allow me on the motor way as i need to give way to you, I then run out of slip road to get back up to speed? Surely that's more dangerous than you moving across a lane (if empty) or slowing down slightly to allow me to join?

I've always assumed that as I'm effectively merging on to the motorway there is an onus on the cars there to allow me on to the road. Is that not the case?

---

No it's not and I'm always surprised when I hear drivers say this. Remember, you have a license to drive, it's up to you to ensure you're up to speed (excuse the pun) with the rules.
Like others have said, if I see a vehicle joining I'll try my best to regulate my speed so they can merge, but I won't accelerate out the way and I won't drop anchor either,,,,I'll either maintain my speed (which is better for those joining) or I'll come off the gas to allow a gap to develop up front.
Ultimately, it's up to the vehicle joining to get up to the prevailing speed of others around, as quickly & safely as possible, and merge like a zipper.

Whilst we're on driving pet peeves, folk that don't understand road signs or carriageway speed limits. Example, A8 road from RBS to Ratho Station. It's signed either direction with National Speed limit signs. Many drivers don't know what this means so sit in the outside lane holding others up either through ignorance or stubbornness. I'm not necessarily in a hurry all the time, but if you can't demonstrate your understanding of speed limits then perhaps you should hang your keys up :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

FFS! The question i asked was what is the difference between being married or being in a civil partnership. Nothing to do with sexual orientation. The couple who are wanting this say marriage doesn't "fit" for them, but civil partnership does.

---

The difference is its easier to dissolve a civil partnership than go through divorce.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Peeps that sit in the outside Lane on the Calder road, to stay out the bus lane, and drive at 30, 10 mph below the speed limit .... then toot their horn as you drift past on the inside at 38 mph 2 mph LESS than the speed limit (prob even less in reality).

At 4am.... THERE IS NO BUS LANE AT THAT TIME OF DAY!!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales

No it's not and I'm always surprised when I hear drivers say this. Remember, you have a license to drive, it's up to you to ensure you're up to speed (excuse the pun) with the rules.
Like others have said, if I see a vehicle joining I'll try my best to regulate my speed so they can merge, but I won't accelerate out the way and I won't drop anchor either,,,,I'll either maintain my speed (which is better for those joining) or I'll come off the gas to allow a gap to develop up front.
Ultimately, it's up to the vehicle joining to get up to the prevailing speed of others around, as quickly & safely as possible, and merge like a zipper.

Whilst we're on driving pet peeves, folk that don't understand road signs or carriageway speed limits. Example, A8 road from RBS to Ratho Station. It's signed either direction with National Speed limit signs. Many drivers don't know what this means so sit in the outside lane holding others up either through ignorance or stubbornness. I'm not necessarily in a hurry all the time, but if you can't demonstrate your understanding of speed limits then perhaps you should hang your keys up :rolleyes:

---

:agree: 70mph

Re the the motorway merging bit... this thread really shows up the issue.

One guy mentions speeding up to match the main road speed (for me the least impacting on those already on the motorway if they speed up a bit/ slow down a bit to increase any gap)

Then another mentions if you can't slow down (stop?) Before the merge Lane ends then you're in the wrong.

If I was in the motorway I'd much rather have someone join at around the same speed as me. I can't see any benefit of having someone joining at very low speed??

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabis

:agree: 70mph

---

:thumbsup: 10 points to Gryffindor :thumbsup:
Maybe it's just me, but many folk don't know this, even my sister-in-law who drives in that way every day from Broxburn. When I told her it was akin to me saying the world is not flat!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales

No it's not and I'm always surprised when I hear drivers say this. Remember, you have a license to drive, it's up to you to ensure you're up to speed (excuse the pun) with the rules.
Like others have said, if I see a vehicle joining I'll try my best to regulate my speed so they can merge, but I won't accelerate out the way and I won't drop anchor either,,,,I'll either maintain my speed (which is better for those joining) or I'll come off the gas to allow a gap to develop up front.
Ultimately, it's up to the vehicle joining to get up to the prevailing speed of others around, as quickly & safely as possible, and merge like a zipper.

Whilst we're on driving pet peeves, folk that don't understand road signs or carriageway speed limits. Example, A8 road from RBS to Ratho Station. It's signed either direction with National Speed limit signs. Many drivers don't know what this means so sit in the outside lane holding others up either through ignorance or stubbornness. I'm not necessarily in a hurry all the time, but if you can't demonstrate your understanding of speed limits then perhaps you should hang your keys up :rolleyes:

---

By that I assume you mean a white circle with a black diagonal?
That means 60mph max as far as I know.
Am I correct? I await responses from folk who have a higher knowledge of road signs than myself
(Jabis is quoting 70 mph which is correct if the sign says 70mph).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snooky

By that I assume you mean a white circle with a black diagonal?
That means 60mph max as far as I know. (Jabis is quoting 70 mph which is correct if the sign says 70mph).
Am I correct? I await responses from folk who have a higher knowledge of road signs than myself.

---

70 if it's a dual carriageway and you're driving a car

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liscious_hibs

The difference is its easier to dissolve a civil partnership than go through divorce.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

---

Interesting. In what way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

Interesting. In what way?

---

I dunno, that's what I got told when I asked a while ago about what the difference and just believed it haha might have been winding me up now that I think about it...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snooky

By that I assume you mean a white circle with a black diagonal?
That means 60mph max as far as I know.
Am I correct? I await responses from folk who have a higher knowledge of road signs than myself
(Jabis is quoting 70 mph which is correct if the sign says 70mph).

---

70 on a dual carriageway in car
60 on single carriageway in car

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snooky

By that I assume you mean a white circle with a black diagonal?
That means 60mph max as far as I know.
Am I correct? I await responses from folk who have a higher knowledge of road signs than myself
(Jabis is quoting 70 mph which is correct if the sign says 70mph).

---

And this is the rub, all drivers should know the speed limit for the road they are on, and understand the signage on the road.
National speed limit, on a dual carriageway, for a standard car, is 70mph.
Regarding the A8, nobody should be forced or harried in to driving faster than they're comfortable, but I've been behind folk driving at anything from 40 up to 60/70. I've had verbals for going "too fast" and when I explain the speed limit to them they are in denial.
Absolute fact is, if you can't demonstrate knowledge of the speed limit (best way is to drive just under it, if it is safe) then an examiner can fail you during a driving test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liscious_hibs

I dunno, that's what I got told when I asked a while ago about what the difference and just believed it haha might have been winding me up now that I think about it...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

---

O think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liscious_hibs

I dunno, that's what I got told when I asked a while ago about what the difference and just believed it haha might have been winding me up now that I think about it...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

---

I think someone's pulling your leg. It was a piece of piss when i got divorced - wait a year, complete a form, pay your money - nae bother. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

I think someone's pulling your leg. It was a piece of piss when i got divorced - wait a year, complete a form, pay your money - nae bother. :greengrin

---

I think it was my mum that told me that. Think it's just cause her divorce took 2 years cause he wouldni sign 😂 never been married (will be soon) so not something I've ever really researched. Good to know it doesn't take long though... y know... just in case ;)

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

When you use a bus lane within the permitted times and folk give absolute evils as if you've just murdered somebody. If they look at the signs they will see they can use them too.:rolleyes:

Baths.

My shower room is getting done so I've had to use the bath. Honestly, what is the point?

You get in it, lie back and your knees are sticking out. You get your knees submerged and your back is arched awkwardly as you try and half support you upper body.

Once you get comfortablish you think "what am I supposed to be doing?" When you're in the shower it's pretty obvious but it's as if you're just wallowing in your own muck. The minute you try washing or shampooing anything the water turns manky.

It's for children or girls who get a bit tipsy and want things like candles surrounding them. Pointless waste of space and is getting ripped out if I have my way.

Children under the age of 9 on aeroplanes.

London Road, junction with Meadowbank shops. Guy on a bike , middle aged, well dressed, sailed straight through a red light in front of me as I was coming through the lights. I could have killed him. Idiot. Still shaking.

People that get were and where mixed up. "The fans where terrific on Wednesday night"

I'm no grammar police and there's lots about the England language I get wrong but I don't get how people get those two mixed up, they even sound completely different.

Pet Peeves threads that eventually start going round in circles. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo70

People that get were and where mixed up. "The fans where terrific on Wednesday night"

I'm no grammar police and there's lots about the England language I get wrong but I don't get how people get those two mixed up, they even sound completely different.

---

I find the England language difficult at times too.
😁

Folk on football forums who make big noises about refusing to click on links for information they are dying to know about, then in the same breath ask someone else to click on the link to cut and paste. It's only one click so why can't they bloody well click on it themselves and do the cutting and pasting for everybody else. Second peeve - folk who accommodate them and go away and do it.

Folk who show no interest in a sport all year then a big event comes up and they suddenly become an expert and pontificate on everything to do with it. I understand big sporting events always attract a wider audience but I'm talking about those who become short term experts.

I follow horse racing throughout the jumps season and have a pretty good understanding of the sport. With Cheltenham 2 weeks away the 4 day experts start to appear regurgitating something they read on the Daily Express racing page as fact. 'Cue Card just won't stay up that hill at 12', 'Yanworth doesn't jump well enough to win a Champion Hurdle' etc. They then fluke a 20/1 shot in one of the handicaps and think they are a betting sage for a few days.

See also folk who watch 4 tennis matches a year then become experts on Andy Murrays serve during Wimbledon.

Bus drivers who open the doors early whilst they are in a queue for the stop. Happened last night at top of Easter Road, every other driver waited till at stop before opening doors meaning people got on in sequence of the queue. Then the Dickhead driving the 26 decided he would open his doors whilst sitting behind another bus. The result was that people at the front of the queue became suddenly at the back and never got on the bus as it filled up. Felt sorry for guy at front of queue with two young kids who hado to wait for yet another bus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee

Bus drivers who open the doors early whilst they are in a queue for the stop. Happened last night at top of Easter Road, every other driver waited till at stop before opening doors meaning people got on in sequence of the queue. Then the Dickhead driving the 26 decided he would open his doors whilst sitting behind another bus. The result was that people at the front of the queue became suddenly at the back and never got on the bus as it filled up. Felt sorry for guy at front of queue with two young kids who hado to wait for yet another bus.

---

That's poor, they're only supposed to let folk off if there waiting in a queue of buses.

There's some awful drivers out there. Selfish, lazy, complacent.

Ideally, everyone should have to retake their test every three years or so. Not gonna happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

Folk who show no interest in a sport all year then a big event comes up and they suddenly become an expert and pontificate on everything to do with it. I understand big sporting events always attract a wider audience but I'm talking about those who become short term experts.

I follow horse racing throughout the jumps season and have a pretty good understanding of the sport. With Cheltenham 2 weeks away the 4 day experts start to appear regurgitating something they read on the Daily Express racing page as fact. 'Cue Card just won't stay up that hill at 12', 'Yanworth doesn't jump well enough to win a Champion Hurdle' etc. They then fluke a 20/1 shot in one of the handicaps and think they are a betting sage for a few days.

See also folk who watch 4 tennis matches a year then become experts on Andy Murrays serve during Wimbledon.

---

Drives me nuts. I don't follow the horses much these days but love reading the Cheltenham thread on here to see what you and the other guys have got to say. I used to know a guy like that at work, only told you about his winning bets, spoke in McCririck-type slang like "it's gone out to burlington" and pish like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

Folk who show no interest in a sport all year then a big event comes up and they suddenly become an expert and pontificate on everything to do with it. I understand big sporting events always attract a wider audience but I'm talking about those who become short term experts.

I follow horse racing throughout the jumps season and have a pretty good understanding of the sport. With Cheltenham 2 weeks away the 4 day experts start to appear regurgitating something they read on the Daily Express racing page as fact. 'Cue Card just won't stay up that hill at 12', 'Yanworth doesn't jump well enough to win a Champion Hurdle' etc. They then fluke a 20/1 shot in one of the handicaps and think they are a betting sage for a few days.

See also folk who watch 4 tennis matches a year then become experts on Andy Murrays serve during Wimbledon.

---

I used to play tennis to a good level when I was a kid and played against the Murray brothers in various tournaments (I actually beat one but they cheated at match point, I think it was Jamie my dad says Andy....I was a fair bit older than them which was significant at that age but let's not get bogged down with details).....anyway I find myself unable to watch tennis now because of the experts and how they go on about unforced errors. There's pretty much no such thing as if the guys at this level don't try to hit lines they're going to lost the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim44

Folk on football forums who make big noises about refusing to click on links for information they are dying to know about, then in the same breath ask someone else to click on the link to cut and paste. It's only one click so why can't they bloody well click on it themselves and do the cutting and pasting for everybody else. Second peeve - folk who accommodate them and go away and do it.

---

I am genuinely too scared to try:na na:

While I'm here..........Edinfekkinburgh district council.

.

Takeaway food delivered cold.

Horrendous photos posted on Facebook followed by comments of "great photo hun" or "you look gorgeous"when in reality they look like a bulldog chewing a wasp. Some folk need to recognise they are not photogenic, I know I'm not ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee

Horrendous photos posted on Facebook followed by comments of "great photo hun" or "you look gorgeous"when in reality they look like a bulldog chewing a wasp. Some folk need to recognise they are not photogenic, I know I'm not ;-)

---

I think worse is horrendous photos of folks kids on Twitter that are ugly as sin and folk commenting "gorgeous"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

I think worse is horrendous photos of folks kids on Twitter that are ugly as sin and folk commenting "gorgeous"

---

All children are beautiful in their own way. Ugly as sin could be used for the way someone acts as well as the way they look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee

Horrendous photos posted on Facebook followed by comments of "great photo hun" or "you look gorgeous"when in reality they look like a bulldog chewing a wasp. Some folk need to recognise they are not photogenic, I know I'm not ;-)

---

😂😂😂

Since this thread has taken on a traffic theme:

Angry, impatient drivers. I know rush hour traffic is annoying but calm the **** down. The number of times I've almost been hit by cars going through a red light at the crossing in Newmarket (Auckland) is ridiculous. Red means stop. I thought that was a pretty simple rule.

People taking risks crossing a busy road with kids or a dog. Fine risk your own neck, judging by your actions your passing will only be mourned by the writers of the Darwin awards but your kids and pets don't need to go with you.

Lorry drivers, mostly those that don't come from Sweden and are drinving in the snow/ice no winter tires and drive so close to your arse that the can see which gear i'm in. I do love messing with them when we get to hill though.

The lack of smart planning on road closures. The amount of times the obvious diversion route is also clogged up with planned works is madness. It's as if the planners sit down and say right if we dig this road up what are the likely routes folk will take. Once those routes are identified they dig them up as well.