RL peeves! >< @$!#
-
One time, I had someone text me with that after I was unable to respond to their messages for 30 minutes. This was the resulting text conversation:
She: I guess you just don't care.
Me: I don't anymore, no.
She: Are you breaking up with me?
Me: Not exactly. You forced the issue.
She: I don't fucking understand.
Me: That's the other problem.Passive-aggressive behavior can be amusing at times!
-
Peeve:
A member of the household wants everyone in the house to try a new diet. Then expects ME to do all the research into recipes that will fall within the diet's parameters, AND the shopping for ingredients, AND the cooking with little to no input or aid from the person who initially wanted to be on the diet. When I wasn't working, fine, whatever, I have all day long to do this stuff. But I'm working. So apparently I should give up all of MY free time to ensure that everyone else can eat accordingly.
-
I do the cooking. I do the grocery shopping. When the other members of my family are old, mature, skilled, and income-producing enough to take over the duties, then they can dictate the menu. Otherwise, they will eat what I serve unless they decide to be sufficient enough in their own devices to cook their own meals.
For my kids, that might happen in 15 years. For my partner, probably never; she rather likes what I make.
-
Yeah, in this case, the person doing the dictating is older than I.
-
I really do want a job.
But damned if writing about myself didn't give me panic attacks and feel like slamming my face into a cheese grater. I'm okay! I'm friendly and I refill the coffee pots.
-
See, I hate being able to ONLY fill out the base information asked for in applications. Up until VERY recently, I hadn't worked in about 7 years. That's a looooooooong time to be out of the workforce. But, I had kids to raise, and those kids have issues that made it more beneficial to them if I was home. After school care wasn't an option for one of my kids, he'd been kicked out of three. But that's not something that you get to put on an application. So any chance I get to give a little more explanation into the situation is great for me.
-
I'm just terrified of writing about myself, especially in a positive light for some reason. Drives me NUTS.
-
I lie on every application when I apply for jobs. It really takes a lot of the pressure off.
-
@Miss-Demeanor said:
See, I hate being able to ONLY fill out the base information asked for in applications. Up until VERY recently, I hadn't worked in about 7 years. That's a looooooooong time to be out of the workforce. But, I had kids to raise, and those kids have issues that made it more beneficial to them if I was home. After school care wasn't an option for one of my kids, he'd been kicked out of three. But that's not something that you get to put on an application. So any chance I get to give a little more explanation into the situation is great for me.
It's generally actually better to make note on resume / applications of the time you weren't working, what you were doing. Listing 'homemaker' for that time period, and if you did any volunteer work during that time period (even like PTA or whatnot) list that, too. If you didn't, do some! It is generally always better to explain long periods of not working, and homemaker is generally something people understand.
-
Oh I've always put down the 'homemaker' thing and the general list of skills applicable to a job that that entails. But seven years is still a hellaciously long time to be playing Mrs. Cleaver when you want to work. But, thankfully I have at least a part-time position now so I can toss that down on a resume/application.
-
Okay, cool. Some people I've worked with aren't aware, so I like to fuss about that point. I know for the hiring panels I've been on at work, 'homemaker' has never been a black mark for a candidate as long as it was noted, because the time has been accounted for. Last round we actually hired someone that had been a stay-at-home mom for 10 years over somebody who was currently at another agency doing a similar job, because she was very capable of relating how her experiences applied to the job, and was able to state clearly why it wasn't going to be a problem for her returning to the workforce.
ETA: I should note that I work in leadership of the division within my state agency that has the most entry level positions, the foot-in-the-door for the agency.
-
Bikers. Specifically, the "holier-than-thou inner city" kind of bikers.
Now, I'm a transplant to rural Oregon, and I have to drive to downtown Portland(ia) for school. It's not even that much, as the highway dumps right into the street that has the parking garage. So we're talking, at most, 6 intersections a day, two days a week. I can't even claim to know what all the "rules of the road" for bikes are, but I assume there's a level of common sense to them (this may be an incorrect stance to take, given some of the "native" Portlandia population.)
I can't count the number of times I've been at an intersection. It's a red light. I'm signalling to turn right. When it's clear, I start to make my turn. Meanwhile, there is always one Captain Spandex tearing down the bike lane at 25+MPH, and has the nerve to get indignant (some even start to shout), if I turn in front of him. Now, common sense (maybe even THE LAW) tells me that bikes too have to stop at a red light, or at the very least, stop to see if their ass is gonna get run down by cross traffic. Most of the time, they do stop, and follow intersection signals. Yet there's always one idiot, and I'm the villain when they just about slam into my car because they're too hopped up on GMO-free free-range organic tofu protein shakes to come down and think like a rational person, and stop at a fucking red light.
Luckily, I haven't had anyone get violent. The worst that's happened is some guy pulled out a bunch of large peace stickers and start slapping them onto my back windshield, which, I found quite amusing.
-
@Spitfire I just looked this up, and from what I see you're supposed to move over into the bike lane when it's clear and signal your turn when you're turning right. Oregon laws treat the bicycle lane as another traffic lane and permit people in that lane to overtake and pass another vehicle in a lane to the left when that vehicle is slower-moving or stopped.
Effectively, if you don't move into the bike lane to turn right, it's like you are making a right-hand turn from the center lane of three-lane street. If there is no bike lane at the intersection then the bike can't pass you on the shoulder, but that's not what you say is happening. So, yeah, from what you say, you're in the wrong and need to change what you're doing instead of being smug about endangering others because you haven't bothered to learn about traffic laws.
-
Writing an application for a grant. For work. When you've never done it before, but your boss is sure you'll do great at it because "you're a good writer".
Getting right on that, no pressure! flail
-
Are bike lanes the same size as regular lanes? That seems weird to me. Ours are small. Too small for a car because, you know, bikes are small.
Here, bikes do have to obey traffic laws. They have to stop at red lights and stop signs. They often don't so we learned to watch for that. We have a huge problem with the critical mass douches.
But the douchy, screaming, non law abiding Portland cyclist (bikers ride real bikes that go fast and obey the laws less) is enough of a cliche that there's Portlandia segments dedicated to it. Haha. Oh Spyke.
Fun? What is this fun thou speakest of?
-
@Luna said:
But the douchy, screaming, non law abiding Portland cyclist (bikers ride real bikes that go fast and obey the laws less) is enough of a cliche that there's Portlandia segments dedicated to it. Haha. Oh Spyke.
PNW >.<
-
Yeah, it's absolutely a PNW thing rather than Portland. Mutter.
-
@ThatOneDude You just have it out for the whole region!
@Sunny I claim no real knowledge here. I'm from Texas and I've spent a touch of time on the east coast. I've learned to avoid places that are too overcast, snow, or small cities.
-
@BetterJudgment said:
Effectively, if you don't move into the bike lane to turn right, it's like you are making a right-hand turn from the center lane of three-lane street. If there is no bike lane at the intersection then the bike can't pass you on the shoulder, but that's not what you say is happening.
I'm gonna need to check your sources.
Source: ODOT Driver's Manual 2014-2015
http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/37.pdfPage 38
Do not move into a bicycle lane in preparation for a right hand turn.
Page 82
Do not move into a bicycle lane in preparation for a turn.
Oregon does not treat a Bicycle Lane like a roadway lane. 99% of the time, you are never supposed to be in the bike lane for any reason. It' is the Holy Lane.
An average Portland street doesn't operate like Lane > Bike Lane > Curb/Sidewalk. Quite often, there are a bunch of other bullshit lanes like a Bus Only lane, a Tram rail lane, and if those are absent, then a street parallel parking area. Which, to the douchebaggiest of bikers, translates into "an extra bike lane". So even if I were to stick myself in the bike lane, the idiots would just cut into a special lane if it's available, or as I see most do, weave between a parallel parked car and a turning car.
Since you doubt my diligence as a licensed driver in the state of Oregon, I went ahead and looked up the bike rules at an intersection:
Source: ODOT Biker's Manual 2010 (latest edition), page 6
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/hwy/bikeped/docs/bike_manual.pdfObey Traffic Signs and Signals
So, it is illegal for a bike to pass a car making a right turn on a red light. Cars yield to bicycles when the light is green (just like one would yield to pedestrians using the crosswalk.)
To clarify: I well know what I am supposed to do at an intersection. I don't know what the hell bikers are supposed to do with all the fancy shit painted on the road and whatnot (I just know I'm not allowed there), but I'm almost positive it isn't "don't stop at a red light, zoom right into cross-traffic".
-
@Spitfire said:
@BetterJudgment said:
Effectively, if you don't move into the bike lane to turn right, it's like you are making a right-hand turn from the center lane of three-lane street. If there is no bike lane at the intersection then the bike can't pass you on the shoulder, but that's not what you say is happening.
I'm gonna need to check your sources.
Source: ODOT Driver's Manual 2014-2015
http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/37.pdfPage 38
Do not move into a bicycle lane in preparation for a right hand turn.
Page 82
Do not move into a bicycle lane in preparation for a turn.
I was wrong, but in fairness this is a mess. I was looking at the Oregon Revised Statutes on a PDF that's in the history of a machine that I don't have access to right now, but what I saw as confirmed at http://www.stc-law.com/bike_right_turn.html was that motor vehicles can enter the bicycle lane to turn right and that a cyclist can move left to avoid a vehicle in that lane that is turning right. At the same time, another statute says that motor vehicles have to yield to bikes in the bike lane; as that page puts it, "the law clearly [sic] requires motor vehicles to first yield the right-of-way to bicyclists occupying the bike lane, just as vehicles changing lanes on a multi-lane roadway must first yield the right-of-way to other vehicles occupying the lane the driver would like to enter." No mater what that bicyclist lawyer says, that's not very clear, and I can certainly understand being confused by it.
So, in Oregon, unlike elsewhere (where those turning right are expected to merge into the bike lane), you do have to yield to bicyclists on the right when turning right on a road with a bike lane. I was definitely wrong about that. On the other hand, you do have to yield to bicyclists on the right when turning right on a road with a bike lane. No matter how irritating they are, that's what cyclists are expecting because it's the law. If you don't do it, you run an increased risk of injuring someone and causing yourself a huge amount of hassle.
