FITNESS

Gym Sins

Fitness club managers dish about their members' most obnoxious habits.

Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 9, 2008 | Updated: 9:45  a.m. ET Jun 9, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: babooy69 @ 09/13/2009 12:02:57 AM

    I choose to sanitize my piece of workout equipment before I use it because I know not everyone else is up to speed with the proper etiquette. When I'm finished I repeat the clean up process. My Gym provides all the clean wipe down towels I could possibly need plus the disinfectant. It's akin to safe sex, I choose to protect my self and others from what they or I may be carrying. Babooy to you all

  • Posted By: rbbythesea @ 06/10/2008 8:01:38 AM

    This has nothing to do with behavior at the gym; it is the same everywhere. People on planes taking off their shoes and putting their feet on the seat arms in front of them, young couples bringing babies to high end restaurants at 7:30 on Sat night and placing them on their tables. Even the idiots who cruise in the left lane on the highway for 7 miles going the same speed as the people in the right lane. We are truly in the midst of the "me" generation.

    • Posted By: postin @ 06/10/2008 9:08:50 AM

      I agreed with you until you stated, "Even the idiots who cruise in the left lane... same speed as people in the right lane".
      As long as those people in the left lane are doing the legal speed limit I don't have a problem with them at all. I DO have a problem with people that think it's 'ok' to speed beyond the legal limit in the left lane (which is the case MOST of the time). I sometimes imagine those types of people (people who have no consideration for the safety of other motorists and/or the LAW) illegally/unsafely speeding past losing control of their vehicles and crashing due to their carelessness. I then imagine myself passing by them and waving.

      If they have no consideration for improving others'/mine/their own safety by driving appropriately why should I be concerned with pulling over to make sure that they are safe? For those that DO show concern for others'/mine/their own safety I, in turn, respond with concern for their well-being.

      Don't get me wrong--if I have not had the opportunity to witness the considerate/inconsiderate behavior of a person then I will, indeed, treat them as I would like to be treated---but if I HAVE witnessed the considerate/inconsiderate behavior of a person then I treat them with the same respect that they provide others.

      • Posted By: Ponzi @ 06/10/2008 10:06:30 AM

        How fortunate for the rest of us that you have the ability to know why someone is driving faster. Certainly you'd move to the slow lane if you know the person behind you was rushing to the hospital or if they had just gotten a call that there was a family emergency. Thank goodness for all of us that there is a considerate jerk in front of us.

        • Posted By: postin @ 06/10/2008 2:19:56 PM

          I would NOT move to a "slow lane" (I truly *hate* you people that believe there is such a thing--it is as if you believe the posted speed limit is 'slow') regardless of their 'supposed emergency'. Drivers of EMERGENCY VEHICLES are the only appropriately trained people who are authorized to exceed posted speed limits. BTW, do not even try to pass that bologna as if it happens so often that it is even a consideration (family emergencies). You know good and well that most (probably over 95%) people who speed like that do so only because they believe that the laws are ridiculous, they generally do not care, or they belive they are somehow more experienced (or even better people) than other drivers on the road by their own poor judgements (people like you believe that you are above the law or something--NO regard for the safety of yourself or others' whatsoever). Just look at your ridiculous argument... you truly believe that there are certain circumstances where driving inappropriately can be considered acceptable. You deserve everything you get... really. Yes, 'thank goodness' that there are considerate 'jerks' unlike you plain jerks.

          • Posted By: jack8472 @ 06/10/2008 4:37:39 PM

            What kind of morals/values do you posess that you wouldn't move over for someone that is having an emergency? What kind of logic are you employing when you think that 95% of speeders are not having an emergency, yet you would still not pull over for the other 5% that have actual emergencies? Probably the same kind of logic that tells you that it is ok for you to not yield the right of way when you are in the left lane. You think that you are enforcing the law when in fact you are actually breaking it.

            I agree that you should definately drive no faster than the posted speed limit. They created those laws just for people like you.

            • Posted By: postin @ 06/11/2008 10:24:51 AM

              So, apparently, you also take the stance that 'there are certain circumstances where driving inappropriately can be considered acceptable'. I am in no way enforcing any laws. I am simply obeying the laws by abiding the posted limits.

              As I said before, only drivers of EMERGENCY VEHICLES have the appropriate training/authorization/judgement to drive cautiously aggressive. I yield to their training/authorization/judgements--not yours or any other chumps with poor judgement who maintain a belief that you hold such a stature.

              The logic I employ is the safety of myself and of those around me which those who intend to speed past (with no proper training/authorization/judgement) are readily putting in jeopardy.

              BTW, your hypocrisy is overwhelmingly blatant. You state, "I agree that you should definately drive no faster than the posted limit" yet you also state (under my double-post) how technological advances allow motorists to "safely drive over 100mph".

              An immediate consideration appears... 'Now, why you someone maintain such a confident belief of being able to "safely drive over 100mph" (implicitly *off* of race tracks but *on* local roads and highways) unless you had some sort of experience in doing so?' While you stew some malarki tangent about 'assumptions', next, pray tell, what do you think the percentage of roads and highways in the U.S. are which have posted speed limits of anything close 100mph (or generally anything even above 75mph)?

              All of your retorts and arguments are primarily an attempt to rationalize why you and other motorists should be allowed to exceed the speed limits imposed--"Technology allows me to speed." "It's my road because I pay (taxes) for it which allows me to use it how I wish." "You should move to the right lane so me and my buddies can speed and it might even be because I think I have an emergency!"... you fool...

              • Posted By: blueberry @ 06/11/2008 12:11:04 PM

                postin, you truly are a jack***.

                The right lane may not be a "slow" lane, however, the left lane is a passing lane. If you are not passing anyone (i.e. going the same speed as those in the right lane), then you need to move over. Period. Did you know that in some states this is actually the law? You would be pulled over and given a ticket for just riding in the left lane and not passing anyone. Besides who are you to try an enforce the laws on someone else? If they want to speed and risk a ticket or accident, so be it! Get over into the right lane and them pass you. When they do get pulled over, you can find joy in your eventually driving by them, waving, and laughing at them! Maybe then they'll learn their lesson, but it's not up to you to try an enforce the laws. Plus, have you ever thought that by not moving over, you may be the cause of an accident?? If that person is hellbent on speeding, their gonna do it, and you're not gonna stop them. You just might cause them to do something even more stupid and dangerous - all because you won't get out of the way. You fool...

                • Posted By: postin @ 06/11/2008 5:28:36 PM

                  "If they want to speed and risk an accident, so be it!".... If you are not a speeder then you are surely as ignorant as one. Allow me to put your comment into perspective: "If they want to speed and risk losing control of their vehicle (due to blowout or whatever), smashing into my vehicle and/or any other vehicles/families/pedestrians and, in turn, potentially murdering my children, myself, and/or others involved, so be it!" Really? This seems 'ok' with you? Seriously??

                  Also, yes, I am aware of such particular state laws and lane usage regarding those laws. However, when I state that I 'would not move over' I am specifically referring to those situations where both (or all) lanes are occupied with each vehicle cruising parallel to each other at the same (posted) speed. I mean to imply that I would NOT slow down/speed up for the purpose of getting behind/ahead of the vehicle which I am currently paralleling. I do *not* make a habit of driving in the left lane (there may indeed be an emergency vehicle which requires the use of said lane/s). That said, please describe to me how I am enforcing any law simply because I am obeying the posted speed limits.

                  You and the other poster continue to display the belief that I am somehow wrong for obeying the speed limit. The scenario: A 4 lane highway (2 N, 2 S) with two vehicles side-by-side maintaining the posted speed limit. Vehicle 1 is in the left lane, vehicle 2 is in the right lane. Vehicle 3 [speeding, non-emergency/with no flashing emergency lights(high-beams are *not* emergency lights)--i.e. a vehicle that is not paid for by taxes] approaches from behind and moves into the left lane and begins tailgating/honking behind vehicle 1. Your argument states that it is inappropriate for vehicle 1 to maintain their current speed. Do you believe the driver of vehicle 3 does not intend to potentially cause harm by driving in such a manner? If someone threatens you and your children at gunpoint do you stand up to the attacker or do you tell your children to try and outrun the attacker and his bullets (and to also keep up with you)?

                  • Posted By: blueberry @ 06/12/2008 1:21:39 PM

                    postin, you are totally missing the point. You are not wrong by obeying the speed limit. However, your scenario above is ridiculous and actually proves my point. Vehicle 1 above is in the left lane side by side with another car, and is going exactly the same speed. Vehicle 1 is NOT passing Vehicle 2 and should have never been in the left lane to begin with!!! Which is exactly my point - the left lane is a passing lane, and if you are not passing anyone (as in your scenario above), then you need to get over. If Vehicle 1 does not want to break the law by going above the posted speed limit in order to pass Vehicle 2, then, yes, they should slow down to get over and let vehicle 3 pass.

                    And in reponse tpo your first paragraph, so this situation would never happen if I was going under the speed limit? Going 5 or even 10 miles over the speed limit does not mean I'm going to crash into you and murder you and your children. What you're saying here is that no one who goes the posted speed limit poses a threat? If you lost control, had a blowout, etc on the highway, you would have the same results whether you were going the speed limit or going 10 miles over the limit.

                    • Posted By: postin @ 06/12/2008 3:37:33 PM

                      Who is actually missing the point?? You don't think that perhaps vehicle 1 was intending to pass vehicle 2 which might have initially been going below the speed limit and then--as vehicle 1 attempts to pass vehicle 2--vehicle 2 speeds up to the posted limit? This point is so key in the scenario that I hoped it would not need be mentioned but I continuously underestimate the neglect of you people who believe that there are certain circumstances where driving inappropriately may be considered acceptable.

                      The limits are there to greatly reduce the threats of collision. Do you believe that going 5-10mph above the posted limit does not significantly increase said threats (especially when others are possibly driving 5-10mph *slower* than the posted speed)?? QUIT TRYING TO RATIONALIZE THE NEGLECT OF SAFETY AND THE LAW. You ARE wrong for driving above the posted speed limits.

                      • Posted By: blueberry @ 06/13/2008 10:11:29 AM

                        Umm, still you. If the first vehicle intended to pass the second, then they need to finish passing them.

                        And you still don't get the fact that someone going a little over the speed limit is not posing any threat to you if you simply got over into the right lane. They only become a danger to you when you don't move over. All you're accomlishing at this point is to annoy and piss them off because they want to pass. Like I said before, if they want to speed, they're going to, and now here you are blocking their way and won't move. They're then going to try their best to get around you somehow (i.e. tailgating, honking their horn and flashing lights at you, cutting people off) and that is when they become a threat and a danger to you and others. I am not condoning or rationalizing this behavior or saying that it's right - I am just making the point that they would not be a threat to you (by going 5 or maybe 10 over) or others if you simply moved over and let them pass. By not moving over in a situation where the speeder is becoming annoyed and angry because they can't get around you, you are actually putting yourself in a potentially dangerous situation. Why not be safe and remove yourself by moving over? I've seen some people do some crazy and dangerous stuff when they're in a hurry and people aren't going fast enough for them and won't get out of their way. I always hope there's a cop ahead who'll pull them over. Like I said before, I'm not condoning their bahavior, but why keep yourself in that situation? It's like provoking an angry gunman...

                        • Posted By: postin @ 06/13/2008 11:52:32 AM

                          The speeder has already threatened the safety of other motorists simply by driving 5-10 mph over the speed limit. Do not delude yourself--going "a little over the speed limit" IS IN FACT significantly increasing the risk/threat of collision. To argue otherwise is complete nonsense.

                          "...finish passing them." This comment inherently states that you believe there are certain circumstances where driving inappropriately (speeding to "finish passing them") may be considered acceptable. In the scenario, I stated that both vehicles paralleling each other were driving the posted speed limit and now you suggest the driver of the left lane should increase their speed above the posted limit (and increase risk/threat of collision) in order change lanes into the right lane to get in front of vehicle 2 and allow the speeder to drive through (and threaten more people's lives down the road btw). The fact that vehicle 3 is honking/tailgating/etc. is irrelevant because the driver of vehicle 3 has already shown contempt for the law and threatened the safety of the other motorists simply by exceeding the speed limit--anything else (honking/tailgating) is gravy.

                          "...someone going a little over the speed limit is not posing any threat" ANY threat?! No threat at all?! Not even a small amount according to your opinion. According to your statement, driving faster does not decrease or increase the risk of collision but somehow imposes a neutral level of risk. Please explain how this is possible. How could you possibly believe that "going a little over the speed limit" does NOT increase the risk/threat to the safety of yourself and/or others? Even if driving 5mph over the speed limit were to increase risk in the most minute amount (which it does NOT--the increase of risk is more significant than you are willing to become aware of), it is not worth someones life--especially when you are disobeying the law to increase that risk.

                          "I'm not condoning or rationalizing this bahavior..." I never implied that you condoned/rationalized vehicle 3's potential reactions to vehicle 1's actions. However, I *did* state (not just imply) that you condoned and continue to attempt to rationalize reckless driving in general as being acceptable (speeding--even if it's "just a little over" it's still speeding).

                          You might obviously notice that I am not focusing on the issue of who belongs in which lane as much as I am harping on the problem of people who speed. There are a few reasons for this. The primary reason is that I personally believe that the same people who believe driving above the posted speed limit is 'ok' (regardless of how far above) are the same people that begin to attempt to rationalize neglect of other disciplines of the road (and life in general). Since speeding affects such a great multitude of people, it seems to be one of the most logical problems to address first.

                          • Posted By: blueberry @ 06/13/2008 1:53:34 PM

                            First of all, you act like if you go 1 mph over the speed limit, some imaginary switch is going to flip, and you're going to automatically lose control and crash! Gimme a break! Since when is going 5, 10, or even 15 mph over the speed limit reckless? It only becomes reckless when the driver starts swerving, switching in and out of lanes, cutting people off, and tailgating. Last time I checked, if I got pulled over for going those speeds, I would get a SPEEDING ticket. Only when you go 20 mph over does it become reckless driving. And when was the last time you heard of or saw someone get pulled over for going 5 mph over?? I never have...Why? Because it's NOT a big deal! Because it does NOT "significantly increase the risk of collision"!

                            Most speed limits are posted below the actual safe limit anyway. It's a great source of income for the county/city/state. I'll give you an extreme example, but a good example nonetheless. In a small town about an hour from where I live, there's a 6 lane divided highway (3 lanes each way). The speed limit for this road should easily be 45, if not 55 mph. However, the posted speed limit is 25 mph. 25 mph!!! That is a ridiculously slow speed for a 6 lane divided highway. Why is it only 25 mph? Not because if you go 26 mph it becomes highly unsafe. But because it makes the town money!

                            By the way, if me and other posters are soooo wrong, I wonder why no one has posted in your defense?

                            • Posted By: postin @ 06/15/2008 8:17:56 AM

                              I again state the following--According to your statement, driving faster does not decrease or increase the risk of collision but somehow imposes a *neutral* level of risk. Please explain how this is possible. Literally, please explain how this is possible... In other words, type out a specific and detailed description of how driving above the speed limit allows one to maintain the same level of risk as those who drive at the speed limit. Is there a neutral cap for each speed limit zone (i.e. at what point for each speed limit zone does risk stop increasing? Please give just one example. Please, oh please.)?

                              Also, you misunderstand me. The term 'significant' varies between people. To me, when considering threat/risk of death or injury, any increase should be considered significant (anyone who truly believes in the sanctity of life agrees with this). Whereas, with you it is obviously not.

                              As for your example, did you participate in or attend the town hall meeting which imposed the 25mph limit? Did you receive any type of newsletter from that town stating the malarkey you claim? I can see it now: "To concerned citizens: The town council of Sassafras, Missouri would like to inform you that, due to a decreased town budget this year, there will be a new speed limit imposed indefinitely on State Highway 321 which will seem ridiculously low for the purpose of forcing people to speed and receive tickets. Those tickets will then pay our salaries. Thank you."

                              Your opinion of what a speed limit *should* be on any particular road is just that--your *single* opinion (and not even an expert one at that).

                              You do realize that people usually vote on these things right? Yes, you read correctly... I said PEOPLE... as in *more* than one (and they are usually elected officials--elected by more people like you or I).

                              Why would I need someone to 'post in my defense'? I cut through your hogwash easily enough.

                              • Posted By: blueberry @ 06/16/2008 2:10:59 PM

                                Sorry, I don't know why it decided to put 3 question marks in place of an apostrophe in my last response.

                                • Posted By: AdityaU @ 07/14/2009 6:33:20 PM

                                  Get a life, you losers... do you spend all your time having long drawn-out arguments in a comments section?

                                  • Posted By: zz333 @ 09/06/2009 7:53:00 AM

                                    So what are you doing here reading the comments? I wonder who the loser is!

                              • Posted By: blueberry @ 06/16/2008 2:05:01 PM

                                So what you???re saying here is, if there is a difference in speeds between 2 drivers (i.e. one is going 5 mph faster than the other), you feel there is only a significant threat if the faster driver is going over the speed limit? But if the faster driver is going the speed limit or they are both going under the speed limit, there is no threat or risk whatsoever?

                                You say, ???when considering threat/risk of death or injury, any increase should be considered significant.??? So that???s only an increase over the posted speed limit? What if you???re driving along at the speed limit and you come up behind someone who???s going 15 under the speed limit and won???t get over so you can pass? According to your logic, you would pose no threat whatsoever to the safety of this driver?

                                • Posted By: postin @ 06/17/2008 7:40:49 AM

                                  "But if the faster driver is going the speed limit or they are both going under the speed limit, there is no threat or risk whatsoever?"

                                  I do not understand how you reached this conclusion. I never implied that driving at or under the speed limit did not involve risk. Risk begins when we begin to exist. I simply state that driving above the speed limit not only increases risk but is also illegal.

                                  No my logic does not state that a person who drives the limit poses no threat but yes the safety of the person driving 15 mph under would be decreased. However, the risk of someone losing control when driving at the limit is reduced compared to someone driving above the limit.

                                  If a speeder begins to lose control their first instinct is to hit the brake and not the gas. Why is this? Consider the physics of it. Which would allow a driver to regain control easier--driving at the limit or driving above it?

                                  Consider the variations of response times different drivers may have. Which would allow an elderly person (or first-time driver) to be able to potentially respond more appropriately--driving at the limit or driving above it?

                                  The limits posted are time-tested. They would not be written into law if they were not relevant and the leniencies of particular county law enforcement branches does not change that fact.

                                  Now I am paranoid. I left out some commas and apostraphes for fear of being questioned marked to death.

                  • Posted By: heternis64 @ 06/12/2008 3:02:48 AM

                    postin, unfortunately, your misunderstanding of common courtesy, common sense and the basic rules of the road make driving more dangerous for us all. In the two states where I drive--OR and WA--it is the law. A driver stays in the left lane only to pass. In some countries, Germany for example, it is the primary rule of highway driving, namely rechtsfahren--keep right. Keeping right is about the flow of traffic. Excessive speed is a problem, a problem that the highway patrol is there to stop. Your job as a driver is not to be passive/aggressive, it is to be sensible and prudent. Keep right, and let the police go after speeding violations

                    • Posted By: postin @ 06/12/2008 3:50:17 PM

                      My response to 'blueberry' also applies to your post/double-post (man, this site has such a great comment system for newcomers!---note sarcasm. BTW, what was the initial article about anyway? Oh yeah, nasty people in the gyms... wow, this thread sure touched some nerves and got off topic...).

                      • Posted By: cimorene @ 11/20/2008 6:24:50 PM

                        postin, you also double-posted. Just sayin.

                  • Posted By: heternis64 @ 06/12/2008 2:49:50 AM

                    postin, unfortunately, you are so out of line it is ridiculous. In many states, WA and OR, staying in the left lane and not passing is a violation of the law. In Germany, driving slow in the left lane is the most egregious offense. There, the primary rule of highway driving is rechtsfahren--keep right--. Keeping right keeps the flow of traffic moving. Just keep right, let the police take care of those who speed excessively and figure out what it means to be a civil citizen

          • Posted By: zz333 @ 09/06/2009 7:50:51 AM

            Read the law. You do not have a right to stay on the left lane.IT is used for passing. Go to driving school. Others have the same rights as you, you have no leg to stand on.

      • Posted By: c_l_phillips72 @ 06/11/2008 12:04:32 PM

        postin - it sounds like you have some serious mental issues. If I was you, I'd be in the fast lane trying to get some help. Maybe you're already there and keep running into yourself. Anyway, it sounds like you just want to force others to obey the law. Maybe you've been forced your whole life to also obey the law, so you feel it's your obligation to "teach" others to do so as well. I can tell you that people do not like to be "taught" something they haven't asked for, so your work will never come to fruition. I guess that's a long way of saying "move the f over" when there's someone coming up behind you when you're in the PASSING (not fast) lane and you're not driving their same speed.

    • Posted By: postin @ 06/10/2008 9:07:49 AM

      I agreed with you until you stated, "Even the idiots who cruise in the left lane... same speed as people in the right lane".
      As long as those people in the left lane are doing the legal speed limit I don't have a problem with them at all. I DO have a problem with people that think it's 'ok' to speed beyond the legal limit in the left lane (which is the case MOST of the time). I sometimes imagine those types of people (people who have no consideration for the safety of other motorists and/or the LAW) illegally/unsafely speeding past losing control of their vehicles and crashing due to their carelessness. I then imagine myself passing by them and waving.

      If they have no consideration for improving others'/mine/their own safety by driving appropriately why should I be concerned with pulling over to make sure that they are safe? For those that DO show concern for others'/mine/their own safety I, in turn, respond with concern for their well-being.

      Don't get me wrong--if I have not had the opportunity to witness the considerate/inconsiderate behavior of a person then I will, indeed, treat them as I would like to be treated---but if I HAVE witnessed the considerate/inconsiderate behavior of a person then I treat them with the same respect that they provide others.

      • Posted By: jack84722 @ 06/10/2008 2:03:30 PM

        If someone is driving over the speed limit, it is not your job to enforce it. That's what the tard cops that can't find a serious crime to enforce do.

        We have the technology now to build cars that can do 100 mph safely. The majority of the accidents that happen are due to people like you who do not use any common sense when driving on our roads. The roads are built with our tax money so that does not give you the right to drive on them however you wish. The rules of the road are right lane slow and each lane to the left of that is for cars that want/need to go faster.

        So please, have some consideration for the other drivers that have paid for these roads just as you have. If you are in the far left lane and you see someone approaching from the rear, get the f over goofball! I don't care if you are doing 100 and you see someone come up. Get over and quit being a pain in the *** to everyone

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/11/2008 3:42:21 PM

          In all fairness, your "the roads are built w/ our tax money so that does not give you the right to drive on them however you wish" applies to your argument, as well. Doing 100 mph when the posted speed is 55-70 (depending on the state) is NOT safe and is against the law.
          There has to be a happy medium. Drivers that putt along in the passing lane irritate me, but so do drivers who recklessly weave in and out of 70 mph traffic at 100 mph. At least the guy putting along in the passing lane isn't gonna kill someone.
          That said, the left lane is for faster moving vehicles. I live in Ohio, one of those states w/ sluggish speed limits, and even we have signs posted that say "slower vehicles stay in the right lane" or something to that effect. If you're driving the same speed as the person next to you...then what's so wrong about MOVING OVER behind that person and letting someone else go by? If you're going 65 and someone wants to go 70...is that person really being reckless or 'speeding'? No. Even cops give you 9-10 miles of wiggle room.

          • Posted By: postin @ 06/13/2008 9:13:47 AM

            I felt obligated to respond here because I did not want readers to mistakenly think that I had posted my 'wish for pain' to you instead of the intended poster 'jack84722'. However, I do have an argument regarding the '5-10 mph over the speed limit is not reckless' portion of your comment. I stated my opinion regarding said argument in a response to 'blueberry' directly above this thread (on my double-post).

        • Posted By: postin @ 06/10/2008 2:23:58 PM

          I wish much pain for you in a car crash that YOU will most likely be the cause of. "can do 100mph safely" you fool...

          • Posted By: jack84722 @ 06/10/2008 2:36:36 PM

            Good, well thought out response...Uhh, have you driven a decent new car recently? Do you understand that they make tires that are rated at 160 mph? Of course you don't, you dumb, inconsiderate POS. How many wrecks have you caused by forcing someone to pass you on the right instead of just moving over like a responsible member of the human race would do? Let me guess...0? That's because your head is wedged in your ***!

            • Posted By: postin @ 06/10/2008 2:50:35 PM

              Oh, ok. Good--in that case, you will have absolutely no problem with all 15 year-olds who just received a permit driving at the same wreckless speeds that you do. Or for that matter the elderly--because we all know that the faster they drive on the roads the better their response times get. Speeding on the road is actually the fountain of youth! That is exactly what we need--HIGHER speed limits! Yes! If we all start driving faster then we'll all become better drivers and eventually there will be no more collisions! I'll stick with what I said before.... 'you fool'.

  • Posted By: kenyatta @ 09/06/2009 3:35:45 AM

    These sins, while humorous, don't sound nearly as bad as the kind of stuff that goes in some of the LA Fitness Clubs I've used. In particular, more than a few patrons, men usually, have been discovered in flagrante, often in the shower or a bathroom stall. Absolutely disgusting. Gyms aren't nearly as stringent as they should be with this sort of thing.

  • Posted By: sieg6529 @ 08/18/2009 1:16:45 PM

    how is grunting not on the list? I can't stand it when some meat head is grunting louder than a gorilla while doing curls or shrugs. Or what about the most annoying habit of the gym itself: playing the radio so loud that the patrons have no choice but to listen to whatever the trainers are playing?

  • Posted By: Dude2617 @ 06/09/2008 3:23:51 PM

    People that work out at the gym are self-centered, egotistical fools, and get what they deserve. If you feel the urge to wear out your body exercising, try bicycling, walking, running, outside. Or buy a set of free weights for $100 and use them at home.

    • Posted By: AdityaU @ 07/14/2009 6:27:18 PM

      Wow. So you propose that people not work out and "wear out" their bodies? What are you, 500 lbs?

    • Posted By: NooYawkWoman @ 07/13/2009 3:38:29 PM

      What happened to you that makes you think that way? I go to the gym because it's got all the equipment I need, people to show me how to use it, and people to work out with. If I make an appointment to meet someone for excercise, I am much more likely to work out; at home I am too distracted by housework that needs to be done, phones calls, TV, the book Is I want to read, and all the other details of daily life. I am certainly not looking for people at the gym to admire my body, but I am looking to get my body into admirable condition.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/10/2008 9:01:31 AM

      Wow, someone's bitter. Most people work out at gyms for the variety of equipment, which many can't afford nor have the room for in their homes, and the classes, personal trainers, etc. Plus it's never raining, snowing, cold, windy, etc in a gym. Geez. I used to run outside and use weights at home when I was a poor college kid, but now I enjoy the gym...especially for the indoor pool...can't fit one in my home and can't use the outdoor ones year-round where I live.

  • Posted By: NooYawkWoman @ 07/13/2009 3:27:26 PM

    I have belonged to a Bally's in Queens, NY, for 2 years. Most of the patrons present no problems, but you only need a few who: drag a bench over and use the locker room mirror to see as they pop zits in personal ares; hock and spit in the showers or pool; don't shower befor the workout (PHEW!); use perfume before working out; think nothing of getting in your space in classes in the gym or pool then get annoyed if you bump them; insist on using the designated personal training area and complaining if the trainers and clients are in their way; gathering in conversational clusters around machines they are not using or in the doorway; taking up the entire bench in the locker room; insisting on trying to engage others in conversation when it's clear that the other person just wants to get the workout over with; hovering impatiently around the machines while waiting their turns even though the person already using it still has more than 5 minutes left; jumping in front of someone who has been waiting for a machine; signing up repeatedly for the same machine using different aliases. Oh, I could go on and on. Iin case you think that all I meet at my gym are inconsiderate oafs, I want to say again that these people are definitely in the minority, and many examples I listed apply to the same people. For the most part, management does a pretty good job of redirecting the rude and clueless.

  • Posted By: NooYawkWoman @ 07/13/2009 3:26:32 PM

    I have belonged to a Bally's in Queens, NY, for 2 years. Most of the patrons present no problems, but you only need a few who: drag a bench over and use the locker room mirror to see as they pop zits in personal ares; hock and spit in the showers or pool; don't shower befor the workout (PHEW!); use perfume before working out; think nothing of getting in your space in classes in the gym or pool then get annoyed if you bump them; insist on using the designated personal training area and complaining if the trainers and clients are in their way; gathering in conversational clusters around machines they are not using or in the doorway; taking up the entire bench in the locker room; insisting on trying to engage others in conversation when it's clear that the other person just wants to get the workout over with; hovering impatiently around the machines while waiting their turns even though the person already using it still has more than 5 minutes left; jumping in front of someone who has been waiting for a machine; signing up repeatedly for the same machine using different aliases. Oh, I could go on and on. Iin case you think that all I meet at my gym are inconsiderate oafs, I want to say again that these people are definitely in the minority, and many examples I listed apply to the same people. For the most part, management does a pretty good job of redirecting the rude and clueless.

  • Posted By: offensiveppl @ 07/13/2009 1:26:31 PM

    Another thing that pisses me off is society's disgust of fat or overweight people. This is now the only condition that society is openly allowed and socially acceptable to discriminate against.

  • Posted By: offensiveppl @ 07/13/2009 1:23:12 PM

    What pisses me off is the person who uses a particular piece of equipment well past the 30 minute allotment. They are there everyday even if I vary my workout time.

  • Posted By: offensiveppl @ 07/13/2009 1:21:49 PM

    What pisses me off is the person who hogs the machine past the 30 minute allowance.

  • Posted By: jbz7879 @ 04/09/2009 7:13:17 AM

    i have seen people using the showers as toilets in esporta and throwing orange peels and banana skins in steam room -but its not just the users -the esporta club staff are equally unreasonable and absurd too -
    their behaviour is absolutely inexcusable -i think before damning gym rats -do talk about the gym cats as they are even worst then the rats -at least the esporta in london with its 7 clubs is the worst sports facility i have ever used and i have used gyms for 20 years now

  • Posted By: G_man @ 06/11/2008 9:35:22 PM

    Whats the deal with people freaking out over nakedness? Its no different than seeing someones little toe/elbow/or even face and being offended at that... we shower/bathe naked... we are even born naked if you can believe that. Not to mention the whole animal kingdom is naked. People can be so uptight with nakedness to the point of stupidity.

    • Posted By: A_Less_Morbid_Marla_Singer @ 06/11/2008 10:25:36 PM

      Well, the scale was OUTSIDE the locker room, and I can see why this would be a problem. 1: Most gyms have kids daycare sections where parents can drop off their kids while they spend some time on the machines, so if there could have easily been parents walking by with their kids.....and I'm sure you can understand why not everyone wants their children seeing a full grown naked man. Second of all, There are very few gyms that aren't co-ed, and personally, just because I want to go work out, it doesn't mean I want to see a naked guy weighing himself. And lastly, the whole world is not a giant nudist colony, great for you if you're all fine with seeing naked people in public places, but not everyone is, move to a nudist colony if you think the rest of the world is overreacting about the "natural state" because as far as things go, socially, public nudity is't accepted, and is illegal.

      • Posted By: oudine @ 01/30/2009 2:59:28 AM

        It's a gaddamn gym. There's going to be nudity. If you don't want kids to see it then don't bring them. If you don't want to see it then find a naked-free gym and stop bitching. As far as public nudity is concerned, locker rooms don't fall into that category. Get over yourself and unclench that thigh ass of yours.

        • Posted By: foster2u @ 03/24/2009 11:49:33 PM

          "The two men didn't seem daunted by the fact that the scale was outside the locker room." The scale was NOT in the locker room. Still ok?

      • Posted By: asomatous @ 06/12/2008 12:03:42 AM

        Society's disgust over the nude human form makes absolutely no sense. Everyone has a body. Maybe if children were raised knowing that their external genetalia are not evil, they'd have less insecurities.

        • Posted By: tlily7716 @ 03/24/2009 5:32:09 PM

          That's so not the point. The point is keep nakedness in the locker room, where it belongs.

        • Posted By: MatchesMalone @ 06/12/2008 9:34:20 PM

          Right, but f*ckers like you ruin for the rest of us who AREN'T obese, you chicken-eating d!ckl!ck. Keep your *** clothes on, you fat f*ck.

  • Posted By: Henri0909 @ 03/24/2009 10:13:05 PM

    They forgot to mention the "spitters." Those macho guys who spit in the asuna and locker room. Of course only "real" men spit and hock luggies to mark their territory. When one *** spit in the asuna I told gave him an earful and he said what am I supposed to do, swollow it? Then he asked me if I had something against Spanish-speaking people. I don't care what his background was, I hate when jerks spit. Afterall, would you walk in a restaraunt and hock abig white slimy luggie on the floor while people are eating? Gimme a break you jerks!

  • Posted By: Henri0909 @ 03/24/2009 10:07:34 PM

    They forgot to mention the "spitters." Those macho guys who walk around and spit in the sauna r locker room floor. You're a "real man" if you spit and hock luggies everywhere, right?

  • Posted By: goodmanners @ 03/24/2009 6:38:10 PM

    Speaking of gym etiquette...I love the guys who dry their family jewels with the hair dryer...and not from a foot away! HEY..when I'm done drying mine I don't want to find some black curlys in my blind mane! AND...then theirs the guys who set their sweaty butts RIGHT on the bench..NO towel...and LEAVE their crotch hairs, smell and desease just WAITING for another host to infect!! And for all your silly two year olds, that believe it's oK to walk OUT of the dressing room NAKED....try that while walking out to the curb to get the paper...or up to the store for that quart of milk.

  • Posted By: Wound Tight @ 01/31/2009 4:11:45 PM

    These are awesome !! But every fitness club "Core Member"as the Fitness Industry calls them, has their own list of Gymrat Rules...Read others and list your own at www.gymratrules.com

  • Posted By: chubsoda @ 06/14/2008 5:54:43 PM

    Some of you folks are missing the point. I can hardly believe what I am reading. It's not about being naked you freaking idiots. This is a gym we're talking about, not a nudist camp. Keep your dik hidden from me cause I don't want to see it, period. If you want to show it, then YOU have the problem, especially if you do not have a problem showing it to kids. Gyms are not "show-and-tell" for all of you freaks. Keep it hidden.

    • Posted By: oudine @ 01/30/2009 2:47:40 AM

      If you don't want to see someone's junk then don't look.

  • Posted By: thrennion @ 01/09/2009 4:12:30 PM

    wstephenjackson, that is the correct way to weightlift. Find a different gym if it's that overcrowded on the equipment, or hit the gym at off hours when most people are home or at work.

  • Posted By: wstephenjackson @ 11/28/2008 9:47:44 AM

    You missed the moost annoying and most obvious. The person who, once they sit in on a piiece of equipment, such as a curl machine, insists on doing a set, then having a rest, another set, another rest, as if no one else were there. I constantly have to eject these types, who are often seeminly outraged that I will not wait 20 minutes for them to finish, or to do 'just one more set'. The 'professional trainers' at health clubs seem to reinforce, rather than discourage this. Come on, folks .... didn't you learn better in kindergarten?

  • Posted By: chrismullin @ 11/18/2008 12:59:12 PM

    All very true - check out (http://www.powermyself.com/kb_results.asp?ID=2) where they've picked out several annoying gym habits. I particularly like Mr. Mobile and the Equipment Hogger, so very true!!!

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse