To think you should sit at an appropriately sized table

[PerryClees]

AIBU to think that if you're a group of 2 you should sit at a table for 2 and leave the tables for 4 for larger groups?

We're at a cafe and 3 adults plus 2 kids crammed on to a table for 2 whilst there's a couple of guys taking up a table for 4. I wouldn't say anything to then obviously but it's a bit annoying. To answer the obvious questions: no, the table for 2 would not have been occupied when they got here, it only just opened and the seats were still on the table when we arrived. Also the seats are not better for the table of 4. The only advantage is more table space.

If I go into a cafe or restaurant on my own or with someone else, I would generally choose the table that suits us best, and that might not be related to the size of the table, but to lighting, the view, away from the counter or area the waiters are coming back and forth. If the gaff is not busy, I'd happily sit at a table for 4.

On trains, I always sit at the table for four.

Fascinating that the Management was stated in a genderfree manner. But the lower role was stated as a feminised.

V off topic, I'm aware. But fascinating nonetheless.

I dunno, where I live the tables "for 2" in the local cafe (eg with 2 seats) are tiny, they are basically an afterthought. The ones with four seats are easily 4 times the size, if you are ordering food it's just awful.

I'd take a larger table if it looks more comfortable, or is better positioned. Probably would avoid taking a huge table, for 6 + if there was only 2 of us. I generally try to be considerate of others, but I am ultimately going out for my own enjoyment, so wouldn't give it huge consideration.
I think it's stranger that you have tried to squeeze yourself around a table for 2 and the staff haven't done anything, you haven't said anything, or just gone elsewhere. If there was enough room to get 5 chairs around the table, surely there was room to get an extra table in.

It depends. When the two men came into the venue supposing there was only a table for 4 and not for 2 available?

If you really want a large table get there in good time, go to a place where you can reserve a table or go elsewhere.

Assuming you hadn’t booked, I’d have gone to another cafe where there was space for you. Bet everyone loved you crowding all round a table when not enough space! And zero incentive for cafe to manage customers if you will just sit round a tiny table and spend the same!

You should have sent DC to sit with them. It’s the reason why I prefer 2 seats table for 2 people - I don’t know any other people joining us.

Sorry I meant that I don’t want other people joining us.

I went out for lunch the other day with my partner and our dog. The table for 2 was shoved in the corner of the garden with barely any space so we sat at a table for 4. I'd be happy to sit at a table for 2 as long as it's actually comfortable and has room to sit down and eat.

If I go out with my DH and LO is in the pushchair then I would sit at a table for 4. A table for 2 leaves nowhere to put the pushchair.
However if it's just 2 of us then I'd sit at a table for 2.

Given the choice, you should exercise common sense. If a cafe looks quiet/ I know it’s likely to be quiet while I’m there, I’ll take a larger table. At busy times I’ll take a small one. And I’ll always offer to move if a larger group comes in and there’s no larger tables free.

If it's me going to a cafe etc and it's fairly empty then yes I'll sit at a table for 4, why not?

I've had this before though, sitting on table for 4, quiet, then 20-30 minutes go past, venue fills up quickly and yes, I've had glares shot my way. Sorry, I was here first!

It's because 2 seater tables are usually so small, especially in cafes. If you're both getting food and drink, it can be difficult to fit everything on, then you have to find somewhere to put the tray, the menus etc.

If tables for 2 were slightly bigger I think most 2s would choose them.

We have 5 kids so there's 7 of us to seat when we go out. I've never thought to get annoyed that someone else is sat at the bigger tables. We just cope as best we can and I'll ask for the spare chairs.

This is one of my pet peeves - fair enough if the cafe/train is empty.

Its the look of total disbelief when someone sat alone on a four/six seater on a train gives you if you dare sit down there. They get bonus wanker points for feet/bags all over the seats trying to take up as much space as they can.

There's two of us, and we always just sit wherever we fancy - if there's a nice view, good legroom, easy access etc. I genuinely don't think I've ever made a decision based on number of chairs and worrying if other people will have somewhere to sit. Maybe I'm just selfish, but to be honest it's not assigned seating and if there's no where that suits you to sit in a cafe surely you just move on to another one, regardless of who's occupying what table - if it's not free it's not free?

Always seems to be men doesn’t it? Taking up a big table for a small number, taking up the four seater tables on the trains. Never looking around as a place fills up and thinking “oh someone might need this space”.

I tend to try to find the space with only one seat by itself if there is one so that no one can sit beside me and spread into my space

Nope never noticed it being men, more often it's mothers with one small child that thinks they should have all the space!

It doesn't though. This isn't a feminist issue

You can always sit beside them if your group is 3 or less

Maybe, it's because where I am from, but I see women do this as often as men. I do this myself and I am woman. I really don't care to think about "whatifs".

What does bother me is if the entire compartment is empty, all the seats are four seaters and I have just picked a seat and some random dude needs to sit across from me while there is plenty of equally comfortable seating open. It is just so damn awkward.

Or equally enjoyable is a near empty parking lot and you pick a space with empty spaces on both sides and some idiots needs to not only park in one of these empty spaces, despite the parking lot being nowhere near full, but parks so close you can barely get your door open. I notice this is often done by men too.

It's like they can't help themselves but encroach on women's personal space bubbles and make them feel awkward and inconvenienced.

No.

If a table for 4 is available I will often take it with Dh over a table of 2. Table for 2 are usually butt up against a wall so feel cramped, and it’s like Tetris trying to then squeeze on breakfast, pot of tea and cups, orange juice, toast rack etc..
If we have to then sure, but not out of choice.

now we have Ds I wouldn’t attempt to squeeze onto a table of 2 even if he’s in highchair as not enough space to move hot drinks away from him

You'll hate me OP. When given a choice in eating establishments I always go for the bigger table as the tables for 2 are just not big enough to sit comfortably once good, drinks, jug of water, glasses etc arrive.

It's an issue with the eateries, squeezing jn as many swats as possible on tiny tables, not the customers who are paying a premium and want to be comfortable when eating out.

Tables for two are often cramped together, and sometimes in the middle instead of the side. If I’m going for a meal or a coffee, I want to be comfortable, not squeezed in.

I was asked to move from a table for 4 when there were two of us, to a table for two so that a family of 4 could sit. It was the dad that asked us and I found it really rude. We were mid meal, and because my pushover friend immediately said yes, we had to stop eating and move everything over, and then they only stayed for a coffee and left. So I disagree - asking is not reasonable, it’s entitled. Why should the family’s needs take priority over a smaller group?