Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
Had one today exactly that. Twice put two wheels on the verge.
Looked like a cadaver with its nose up against the wheel when I finally passed her,
0 -
If people are going to use AI to create English language political propaganda for YT then surely they need to teach it how to read the English language first. Farcical.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Old people and driving is one point where I have to agree with you Rick. Some of them are so slow they would be better off taking a bus. And buses are there mainly for the benefit of biddies and codgers, so they should use them more.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
One day you'll be old, if you're lucky, Stevo, and I'd rather you drove at a speed that is proportionate to your reflexes. You'll be moaning to yourself about all those youngsters driving too fast and having no patience, while you dawdle off down to the drop-in centre for retired tax supremos 😉
1 -
Thinking that I had a tin of chopped tomatoes in the cupboard that turned out to be lentils. Tonight's bolognaise sauce is going to be novel.
0 -
In the Netherlands you have to retake your test at 65 and if your fail you can still drive a small electric vehicle that can do up to 25kph but is only allowed around small streets.
0 -
65 is nothing. There was an old lady in Topsham who kept on driving till a few months before she died, who could barely see over the steering wheel she was virtually wedged against. She was 90.
That NL idea isn't a bad one in essence, but 65 seems a rather arbitrary age. They'd be better of with (say) a five-yearly perception and reaction test.
0 -
It might surprise you but I’m in favour, definitely at 70. And every subsequent 5 years. My wife is thinking of giving up driving as it is too stressful. She is 66.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
If it gets to the stage where I have to drive around really slowly then I'll take taxis instead. Don't like being selfish and holding people up. That's a long way off though and I intend tend enjoy my driving in the meantime 🙂
Edit: there must be a codger on the forum because someone liked your post 😀
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'll come back to you in 20 years and ask 70-something Stevo if you're ready to give up your motoring independence, even if you're feeling perky. I've no idea what my perception of speed will be in 20 years' time, but I'm not expecting it to stay constant. At the moment, with no driving-specific formal tests to pass regularly, it often falls to people like opticians to 'ask the question', but if my family's experience is anything to go by, they tend not to want to be the one to take away elderly drivers' independence.
FWIW, my (80yo) gran stopped driving when she (gently) crashed into a parked car she didn't see. We'd all liked her to have stopped driving a few years earlier.
0 -
Stick it in your diary then. Not an issue for me any time soon.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Is it a case of cars and dicks or dicks and cars.😉
0 -
-
Hopefully, advancements in self-drive technology will allow you to just sit in your car dribbling and staring out of the side window and still arrive safely at your destination. That’s if you can remember where you actually wanted to go. The bowling green, probably.
0 -
Apple have given up on their project so I'll take that as a sign that autonomous cars are possibly not coming quite as soon as anticipated. At least not profitable mass market.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
Let's hope the forum is still alive in 20 years then 🙂
And we have 3 codgers on the forum...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
People who probably never normally set foot in a church getting upset when they decide to have a church wedding then complain about the vicar putting restrictions on their photographer.
0 -
My house, my rules. How is that hard to grasp? Bridezillas must be the bane of their lives.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Churches who take people's money for church weddings and then try.to pretend it's the 17th century.
0 -
I bloody love a church but I’m very not religious so I thought it was too disingenuous to get married in one.
Sometimes I feel a right mug, as I show more respect to the church and the people who run it that apparent Christians.
0 -
Annoying.
0 -
Thought it was God's house? I haven't seen anything in the bible about 'thou shalt not use cameras'.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's first and foremost a religious ceremony if you opt to get married in a church. Ifthey want somewhere that's going to let them set up for a professional photo shoot just choose a civil venue and maybe find a nearby closed church for some external shots. I regularly sing at weddings and they've got over the top with people seemingly wanting to outdo their friends on social media. The worst was a groom who hired a helicopter to fly him and the bride from the church to the reception about 5 miles away (she didn't know about it and didn't look happy as the rotor blades blew her expensively groomed hair and veil all over the place 😂)
0 -
God's house but the priest or minister is his manager 😉. Their house, their rules. Respect them and if you don't like them go elsewhere. I did as I'm not hypocritical and I am atheist.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yup, having done gazillions of weddings in various roles, I think it's perfectly acceptable for the vicar to ensure that the ceremony doesn't just turn into a photo shoot, given that the focus should be on the import of the words and the life change they represent. If I were a vicar, I'd probably allow photos, but only from discreet vantage points agreed beforehand, and at certain points of the ceremony, not a continuous stream of clicking.
0 -
The churches need the money though, so if they are going to choose to hold their noses and marry anyone, then I think they need to accept that photographs are a part of that.
0 -
Not disagreeing with that, but having done some weddings where the ceremony definitely took second stage to the photographers' antics & intrusiveness, I think it's fair enough to draw a line somewhere, and, as Pross said, if the couple marrying are so determined that it should primarily be a photoshoot, then alternatives are available.
0 -
I've done a photoshoot at a wedding. The minister was fine as long as I stayed out of the way, didn't use flash, and my camera had a near silent shutter. Bridezillas will demand more, much more.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Over in much of East Asia you get the wedding photos done several months before the wedding. The results of the photo shoot are then on display at the wedding.
0
