2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I feel that a large part of the problem is bicyclists schizophrenia.  Are they following pedestrian rules, car rules, motorcycle rules or bicycle rules?  All of the above, depending on which is best for the cyclist at that moment.  If bicycles were simply required to follow the rules of motorcycles, a lot of problems would be avoided. 

If cyclists were actually penalized for breaking said rules it would ease a lot of the conflict.  What part of the word "sidewalk" says "Ride your bike here", I do not understand.  Similarly, if I drove up the right side of  a line of traffic to pass all those waiting at a light, I'd probably lose my license.  Not to mention that doing so repeatedly puts the cyclist at risk because the same cars passing them have to pass them again and again.

We don't need more rules, we need simpler rules and we need those simpler rules to be enforced.

posted 2 years, 12 months ago
view in context

Dear Think Out Loud,

I have to say that, as an ex-Regence employee, you missed one critical point.  Kerry stated that Regence was a "not-for-profit" but the commentator repeated "non-profit".  There is a big difference. 

Regence is hiding behind the "not-for-profit" shield because they reap huge tax benefits by doing so.  (Note that their web site is regence.com, not regence.org, for example.) I watched our "free" benefits become "competitive in the marketplace".  Translation:  The people making the stuff started charging those responsible for making it and the price keeps going up while coverage erodes. 

Regence pays huge salaries and huge "golden parachute" severances to the 6-figure upper echelon.  Regence pays huge bonuses to "the board" every year, win, lose or draw.  The party line that Kerry spouted about being in business to care for people is nothing short of horse feathers.  I couldn't stand by with a clear conscience and watch the egregious spending hand-over-fist on failed technology projects and other monumental wastes of money such as their "REMAC" project, to name but one.

I, for one, was glad to take a huge pay cut and move into a job making over 1/4 less money and am now happily, truly helping patients by working in a health clinic.  I may be poor but at least I earn an honest days living.

Sincerely

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context