Sometimes it is the little things that get to you. Scene 1: There are times when it seems that 98 per cent of Dublin drivers have forgotten the purpose of yellow boxes.
Instead of only entering them when the way ahead is clear, drivers sit on the criss-cross lines, studiously ignoring the frustrated attempts of other drivers to get into the stream of traffic. In fact, the only time memory is restored is when some terrified-looking garda who seems to be aged about 12 is sent out to mind yellow boxes.
Scene 2: A mobile telephone rings at Mass. Instead of diving in frantic embarrassment to turn it off, the caller proceeds to have a conversation. "Where are you? Yeah. I'm at Mass. Here, I'll call you when I get out. What? Yeah. I'll pick one up for you on the way home."
Meanwhile, other worshippers are ruminating, if not quite on Sartre's "Hell is other people", at the very least, on the concept of Purgatory.
Scene 3: Irish Times columnist, working herself up to a nice New Year froth of righteous indignation about the general rise in rude and discourteous behaviour, discovers a stack of readers' letters, none of which she has acknowledged or answered. Ouch. Then, trying to empty an overstuffed e-mail inbox, she discovers lots of unanswered e-mails from people who have taken the trouble to comment on her articles. Double ouch.
Rudeness is always a description of the way other people act, isn't it? The beam in our own eye remains blissfully invisible.
People who study such things use the term "incivility" to describe rude and obnoxious behaviour.
A national US survey found that, although 90 per cent of respondents felt that incivility was on the rise, only 26 per cent felt that they personally were more uncivil than they used to be. A bit like this Irish Times columnist getting in a knot about drivers and mobile-phone users, while ignoring people who had taken the trouble to write to her.
Are we more rude and demanding than we used to be? It depends on how you define civil behaviour. Stephen Carter, who wrote a book called Civility, defined it as "the sum of the many sacrifices we are called to make for the sake of living together".
Robin Kowalski, who has researched this area extensively, feels that there is another aspect which deserves to be highlighted, that is, the ambiguous nature of rudeness.
It is often not clear what the intentions of the person are, whether they really intend to be obnoxious, or are just being thoughtless? The perpetrator will often deny any intent to hurt, so, for example, nasty comments will be explained away as good-natured slagging, and the person who has taken offence will be accused of lacking a sense of humour, or being oversensitive.
As a result Kowalski defined incivility as "rude, discourteous behaviour, the intent of which is often ambiguous to the victim, that violates norms of social behaviour".
Part of the problem is establishing what constitutes norms of social behaviour. Princess Diana may have written her thank-you notes the same day, but few others write any at all. I am a staunch defender of our much-maligned youth, but they are definitely more casual and sometimes more rude than their elders were at the same age.
A friend of mine who asked a class to pick up the rubbish they had strewn at their feet received the calm suggestion that she should do it, because after all, she was receiving a salary and they were not. But then, given that being obnoxious to teachers seems to start with the Minister for Education these days, perhaps it is not surprising that students occasionally treat teachers like the hired help.
Attendance inspectors for politicians, anyone?
Young people are also living in a "Jackass" culture. When MTV found its popularity waning in the mid-1990s, it deliberately set out both to create and make celebrities of the "mooks", the stereotypically crude, adolescent males who formerly confined their behaviour to the peer group, but who now received an approving platform.
When you see television shows that feature delights such as "puke pizza", that is, vomiting on and then eating pizza, you can see why table manners might seem a bit passé.
Adults overwhelmed with work have fewer opportunities to model good manners. Family meals are increasingly rare. It is quite common to find 10-year-olds who have always eaten with their fingers. They don't see the point of using knives and forks, because it is so much more convenient to shovel food into their mouths while watching television.
Table manners are one thing, but common courtesies such as "please" and "thank you" are also on the way out. It is not for want of parents trying. Parents testify to repeating the need to say "please" every single time a request is made, but the message never seems to get through, probably because there is little reinforcement from the culture in which young people live.
None of this would be more than a minor irritant if we did not have an uneasy sense that our inability to show concern for others in small ways is a contributory factor in far more deadly developments. Physical fights were always reprehensible, but for the most part had boundaries. Now, someone knocked to the ground in a fight will be lucky to get up again without serious injury.
Researchers talk about an "incivility spiral" as a factor in the rise of violent behaviour. Those who feel they have been treated with little respect respond in kind, and the situation escalates rapidly.
Even in far less threatening situations, there is a sense of something being lost that made life more bearable and pleasant for all of us. The little civilities, such as giving a seat to a pregnant woman or an elderly person, had much to commend them.
Young men in particular are often afraid to be polite, for fear of being labelled wimps, or worse, sexist.
As for my own lack of manners, I hope that a humble apology and declaration of firm purpose of amendment to neglected letter and e-mail writers will help.