Bike Forums - Commuting and Workplace Wellness

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)

- Commuting (https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/)

- - Commuting and Workplace Wellness (https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/988509-commuting-workplace-wellness.html)

I voted well... although I feel lucky in this part of the country to choose that option. My building has covered outdoor bike parking, but I bring my bike inside and store it in my office. We also have a small exercise-room with lockers and showers, which is a nice benefit with my long-ish commute.

Living the dream, bike commuter-wise. My boss is super green, and we are all encouraged to bike/walk/public transit. We're not allowed to drive, actually! We can keep our bikes pretty much anywhere in the office, and have stocked showers with toiletries and towels and all. It's a great set up. Many others in the office ride, so it's very bike friendly.

Only "problem" is that I'm only about a 10 minute bike ride from work, which doesn't result in all the much exercise, so I switch off between riding and walking. Maybe I just need to extend my route...

i voted "very well".

i work in a small office of 7 people and we have secure indoor bike storage in the basement of our building.

out of my coworkers, i'm the only 4-season bike commuter, but 1 co-worker is a dedicated 3-season bike commuter, 3 others (including one of the bosses) are occasional warm-weather bike commuters, and the remaining 2 are dedicated cagers. nobody ever gives me any grief about bike commuting.

I guess I will have to change my original response. I saw that my effort to bring Biking to the Masses at work has resulted in a bike locker to be installed in the primary lot.

It is one more small step forward... or should I say one more pedal stroke forward. :)

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=432411

Quote:

Originally Posted by no motor? (Post 17446650)

You're almost right. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit, not make people healthier. They don't like risk they can't control, and are happy to take in premiums from unhealthy customers as long as the odds are in favor of the insurance company. They don't like paying for things that will save anyone money beyond the expiration date of your insurance policy, and that's why they won't pay for things that you'd think would be common sense to pay for.
Wendell Potter knows a lot about this. He's an exinsurance company big shot who got a conscience and wrote about some of the things mentioned above if you want to know more.

Two updates to this thread:

First, we talked about for-profit insurance companies; however, if you want to understand some SERIOUS issues with the for-profit companies in the healthcare companies.... check this out:

(language warning, this is from HBO)

So, health insurance companies are under heavy regulations from states and federal government (ACA) limiting prices and profits - and pharma companies have no oversight on their profits. We are making a major mistake focusing all our attention insurance providers and ignoring pharma, doctors, hospitals, etc.

Second, I stated earlier than my wife's employer did not support bike-commuting; update, they have started a bike-commuting promotion for 2015. She had moved to a corp building (no longer in a leased off-campus building) and will have access to showers and locker rooms. I'm excited to help her start commuting this summer.

The insurance industry is under some sort of scrutiny to be restrict their profits, but similar rules have allowed not for profit organizations like the Red Cross and Susan G. Komen to be very profitable enterprises. You're right about there being plenty of other wrongs (both financial and otherwise) to focus on, especially when they are so interconnected like the drug and insurance companies.

Everyone knows health and peace are good things, but as long as the alternatives are so profitable we're going to be stuck with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan s (Post 17446662)

You do realize that once this is out of the top 5 threads, no one will read it, and after it drops off the first page, it is ancient history. Good luck keeping it active and getting anything useful out of it.

No, the irony is that Machka herself frequently resurrects threads that are 10 years old or more. One purpose of a forum is to archive threads so that people can use the information at a later date. If threads are deleted, that value is gone. Also, the forum has a search function which is less useful when old threads are randomly deleted.