Today, while doing my not-so-daily trek from the gym, I was stopped by two bicycle cops. Serious! The problem? Well there were a few … lets take a glance at them:

1. Crossing-over. I was riding in the bike lane. The light was green, but the walk sign was red. As I approached the intersection I swayed into the cross-walk lane (to give myself some distance from the traffic) and went through the green light (red walk sign). Apparently that was bad. According to the cop, I have to be either in the bike lane (following car traffic signals), or in the pedestrian lane (following pedestrian signals). I cannot pick and choose. Sounds a bit picky, but I kind of understand; I guess.
2. No bike helmet. Pretty self-explanatory. I always thought bicycle helmets were an option?
3. Listening to iPod. I only had one headphone in, but according to the good ‘ol police man, that was a no-no. What is strange is that it would have been OK if it was a hands-free set connected to my phone. Sounds a bit unreasonable to me.
4. No reflector lights. I am supposed to have one “white” light on the front of my bike, and one “red” reflector light on the back. This all occurred during the daylight, but they figured they’d mention it anyway.

The end result, a fine of $81 for each offense. Sounds a bit ridiculous to me. I can’t believe each of those carries a fine of $81, so I checked. According to the City of Kent website on Bicycle Safety:

• Always ride on the right side of the road in the same direction as traffic.
• Try to use bicycle lanes.
• If you must ride on a sidewalk for safety-you must be courteous to walkers.
• Watch traffic closely for turning cars or cars pulling out of driveways.
• Stop at all stop signs and obey traffic (red) lights just as cars do.
• Be careful at intersections.
• Always walk your bike across busy intersections using the crosswalk and following traffic signals.
• When riding with friends, always ride single file.
• Never change directions or change lanes without first looking behind you and using the correct hand signals.
• If you ride your bike after dark you must have reflectors on your bike and a working headlight.
• Only one person should be on a bike at a time. DO NOT have a friend sit on the seat behind you or on the handle bars.

And from the City of Kent’s official City Code:

A. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall have committed a traffic infraction punishable by a monetary penalty in the amount of twenty-five dollars ($25).

Hmmm, $81 sure is a long ways away from $25. Easy mistake I guess. And I couldn’t find any information regarding riding with headphones in, but I didn’t really do that thorough of a search. I guess lucky for me I was let off with a warning. It’s sad, but needless to say that will probably be my last trip to the gym via pedal power. I guess that is what I get for trying to be active. Grrr.

Do these bicycle laws sound a bit absurd to anyone else, or is just me?

[Update: 2007.04.08] I got a few questions regarding my ticket, or lack thereof. To be clear, I did not get a ticket, merely a warning. The ticket ‘would’ have been $81 for each offense.

When I initially had the inclination to say goodbye to those golden arches I was thinking I was simply saying goodbye to giving them money. I did not think I was saying goodbye to the food altogether. Well, I surprised myself because since that day I have not eaten anything McDonald’s related. No Big Macs, no Double Quarter Pounders, no French Fries, no McFlurry’s, no McDonald’s period. I do not even eat McDonald’s when people are attempting to give it to me for free. Yes, I know that is very stubborn of me, but it is that stubborn reluctance to accept McDonald’s that gives me cause to say my boycott is stronger than ever.

A few years ago, it used to be that McD’s was the first thought in me and my friends mind when it came time to make a pit stop at a fast food restaurant. However, my refusal to eat McD’s, mixed with my friends willingness to eat elsewhere, has slowly knocked McD’s out of the minds of my friends. They know that I will not eat there, so in turn, they simply do not consider it as a viable option. This has increased my boycott from a one man stand to a community-sized movement.

Now abandoning a fast food restaurant of choice does come with some additional benefits (or burdens depending on how you look at it), the biggest of which is deciding where to eat. McD’s used to be the de-facto standard whenever I was on the run and hungry. However, with McD’s removed from the list altogether, I have began to notice the plethora of fast food options available to me. Everything from burgers to thai to teriyaki to deli to wraps to you name it they make it. It is a definite eye opener.

However, de-facto standards are nice for no other reason than simplicity. It is nice to have a place that you know will always satisfy your craving no matter what it may be. And while I cannot say with 100% that I have one, Subway has recently stepped up and is easily leading the pack to become my choice of choices. In fact, I think I have eaten at Subway more in the last year than I had in the past 10 years of my life.

Then again, all this talk about fast food has me thinking that perhaps I need to take a cooking class or two.

What about you? Do you have a preferred fast food pit stop?

Guys: a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a woman with a career.

So what is my take on the article? Well, while I plan on marrying a career woman, and could never see myself with a pretty housewife, I think he presents a strong argument.

I know the majority of my male friends think about some of the items mentioned (does she make more? will someone be home to watch the kids? is she satisfied with me? etc?) when considering their mate, and for good reason. If both parties have full-time careers, who is left to take care of the home? Questions like these are genuine concerns for both men and women. I personally do not think they’re deal-breakers, but, they are concerns none-the-less.

As for the ladies response one word sums up my feeling: disappointed. I really wish should would have thought out her response a bit more and made her argument more concise and focused. I was expecting to read about the positive aspects of choosing a career woman (increased household income, nicer living conditions, more balanced children, access to better education, longer lives, etc.), but instead I got nothing more than the same old “women have had to deal with …” argument that proves nothing and simply wastes space.

In short, the response was nothing more than sad, as she had a great opportunity to illustrate the strengths that successful and educated women bring to the table. Instead, she did nothing more than highlight the troubles women have struggled through in the past. Oh well, maybe next time.

[Article Link]

Yes, you read that correctly. I personally think it is absurd that people are forced (required, heavily influenced too, told, persuaded, or whatever else you want to call it) into choosing a health care plan where the ultimate decision of your health is in the hands of a business man. But I find it even more appalling that people now have to go jump the border just to go visit a doctor. Aside from the obvious reasons of time, money, distance, emergency, etc., I would have to agree with this statement right here:

“There are quality standards that we are developing and implementing in America that are not going to be implemented there for a long time,” said Jack Lewin, chief executive of the California Medical Association. “In terms of specialized care, it’s critically important that we look beyond just cost savings.”

Oh speak on it Mr., speak on it. It is ridiculous, simply ridiculous. And what I find even more ironic (or worrying), is this statement:

Representatives of Blue Shield of California and Health Net, both of which offer cross-border HMO plans in California, said the quality of care is comparable in both countries. The insurance companies audit Mexican clinics themselves, and then report to the California Department of Managed Health Care.

Ummm, they audit them themselves? And people seem to think that is OK. Can nobody see the OBVIOUS conflict of interest in an insurance company auditing a health care facility which they themselves have a financial interest in? I mean c’mon people. Are you folks just that blind? Or just that desperate to lower your health care costs?

Anyway, click here to go to the page and enter your message.