turbo1889

You just told us everything we need to know about you - "Bicycle riders are pedestrians with wheels, and should stay on the sidewalk where they belong" - I've run into your kind before usually hanging their heads out of a car window screaming something about getting on the sidewalk.

FBinNY 

I guess you can take anything to mean whatever you want it to, which is fine by me.

A less paranoid reading might have been, a cars only policy is very different from a no bicycles policy.

While I think cars only may not make sense, it's their right. But it's a strong unjustifiable anti bicycle statement if they serve either cars or pedestrians but not cyclists.

As far as knowing all about me, draw any conclusion that you want, but I've been a cyclist and advocate for full rights to the roads since before many on this forum were born.

genec

Does a "cars only policy" also exclude other two wheel vehicles... such as motorcycles, scooters, etc?

Or is it more of a "no human powered vehicles/devices or footpower" policy? Thus also eliminating skateboards and roller skates too.

FBinNY 

The post you quote was in direct response to Lester's post regarding a situation where the drive in is open but the dining room isn't. So my comment should be read as "do they restrict service to cars only?" or do they serve serve other walk up trade but not bicycles?"

You can parse this any way you want, but I see a difference between not being in a defined category, ie cars and trucks, that's included, and being in a defined category that's specifically excluded. My post is about logic, and not an endorsement, or non-endorsement of drive up policies.

In this particular instance, the policy is just plain stupid, since they've opened the window, and are engaged with the cyclist and could just have easily taken his money. OTOH, we never know the underlying history, and it's entirely possible they've had run-ins with him in the past and the problem isn't the bike but it's rider.

prathmann

Section 670 of the California Vehicle Code specifically excludes bicycles and other human-powered devices from the definition of vehicle:

"670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks."

But there's the usual rule that bicyclists have the rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers.

genec

We are in full agreement on this.

northernlights

Duh it's called a drive-thru for a reason. Not a ride-thru or walk-thru.

gerald_g 

There is one difference between bicycles and other two wheeled vehicles (motorbikes etc) that a company may be considering. (I can't read their corporate minds, but maybe...) Motor vehicles are expected to carry some type of insurance. Collision, liability etc.

Pedestrians and cyclist do not have this (skateboarders, roller bladers, etc.)

The policy may be based on the idea of a customer having insurance on their vehicle of choice or not having it.

(a bit of a guess, but may have some influence)

RaleighSport

My kitchen is always open to myself at 3am.... and I can make stuff just as bad as taco bell, but tastier.

FBinNY 

As explained to me by the manager of the one bank that doesn't let me ride up to the drive up window, it's a concern for potential liability for the bank. They carry "trip and fall" insurance, but feel that "encouraging" me to stand in a lane that some crazy driver may speed through could imply fault on their part should I be injured that way.

He may have a point, given all the damage to railings and posts in the drive up lane.

turbo1889

Both of you either didn't even watch the video or conveniently forgot the wording at the very end. Motorcycles, scooters, mopeds, etc . . . are okay in their drive through. Both of which are "ride through" rather then "drive through" just like bicycles, and contrary to the false information being spread by one of you in most states are NOT required to carry liability insurance just like bicycles and the operator is in just as much danger and are just as exposed as a bicyclist. As I said, I've been able to get around the rule by riding an e-bike and saying it was an electric moped, which they allow because its just human only powered bicycle vehicles they choose to discriminate against.

PatrickGSR94

But what is the definition of "driving" vs. "riding"? Could you not be considered to be "driving" a motorcycle, scooter, a moped, or even a bike? You could also be considered to be "riding" in a car.

Thankfully I've never had any problems depositing checks at the drive-thru bank branch nearest my office while on my bike. My bank chain doesn't do business directly through the window in the building anymore, for security reasons. They only operate through the vacuum tube thingies. But I just pull up and use just the same as if in my car.

turbo1889

I also have yet to have any problems at bank drive ups. So far it has just been late night or early morning drive through restaurants where there are only a few places open and they have their dining rooms closed and its drive through service only. Once place I've gone through enough times on an e-bike and told them enough time that I'm riding and electric moped that I've been able to sneak through a couple times on a pedal only bike and since they knew I was that guy with the e-bike that calls it an electric moped and they didn't look close enough to realize I was riding a pedal only that day I managed to get through without getting caught !!!

northernlights

We can split hairs about what is and isn't considered street legal all day long but it doesn't matter. The restaurant is a private business and has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason (barring refusal based on race, handicap or something like that). Sorry to break it to you but cyclists aren't one of the protected groups covered under the civil rights act. That guy can park his bike and go inside the restaurant like a normal person. No need to argue and make a big scene about it at the drive-thru window. He is only embarrassing himself while accomplishing nothing imo. I'll gladly stand up for cyclists rights but not the ones who act like idiots.

genec

I wonder if you could ride a bike with panniers and racks and tell them it is an ebike and that the motor is in the panniers and see if they "buy it." Thus foiling their evil plot to deny service to humans driving human powered devices.

genec

Uh, that doesn't work when the dining area is closed at night and only the drive thru is open... where service is denied to peds and cyclists.

turbo1889

As to drive through restaurants refusing service to cyclists being completely legal so we should all just go alone with it quietly ~ well at one time it is completely legal for restaurants to refuse service to you for other reasons they can't get away with anymore. [sarcasm]Wonder if it would still be that way if those people had continued to just ago along with it quietly.[/sarcasm]

dynodonn 

Yep, be a good little cyclist, keep quiet, and maintain the status quo.

FBinNY 

This thread has had too many words wasted on what is really a non issue. What I fail to understand is why anybody would want to spend a single penny patronizing a store with policies they don't like.

Either visit during the day and speak to a real manager or write to corporate and ask for a change in policy, especially if the window has longer hours than the inside counter. OR spend your money elsewhere, not only at night, but entirely. If this is the ONLY place open at night, keep food at home, or brown bag it to work.

If it's really important to you that you can eat here, consider coming during busier times during the day with a large sign saying the place is unfair to cyclists and pedestrians and asking for support in getting them to change by with holding business.

Another alternative it to raise the bar on the embarrassment factor, by seeing of a local TV station is interested in a story about how they serve only drivers at night, and turn away pedestrians and cyclists. It's not a big story, so don't try to sell it that way, but it might have a certain appeal (especially if the local reporter didn't like the place already).

dynodonn 

I've done my fair share of writing letters to corporate hierarchy, sometimes you get results, but more often you get a canned response or no response at all. It's amazing the results one gets when one's YouTube video goes viral.

FBinNY 

Yes, except that 328 views in 9 days, probably mostly by folks on this thread isn't exactly going viral.

dynodonn 

Viral no, but at least it's out there and being seen by more people than the persons involved and a corporate mail reading tool.

FBinNY 

We don't even know that it's corporate policy. Nor do we know if this is a corporate store or a franchise, which is why I suggested starting with a visit during the daytime to speak to the manager on site and discuss the problem.

wphamilton

As I understand it, admittedly second-hand, the insurance and liability reasons are red herrings. There are no insurance penalties for allowing walk-up or bikes in the drive-through. This might be what the kids running the place are told or are instructed to tell people, so they may not be deliberately lying to you.

It is sometimes a security concern. Businesses are afraid of someone with easier access to the window and employee than a motor vehicle would afford, and who are more anonymous than they'd be in a vehicle with license tags that could be also be identified by make, color etc. It doesn't make much sense analytically, but it's a righteous concern. Secondly, for all we know the Taco Bell may have previously experienced too much hassle with walk-ups to make it worth the business they're losing. Not detecting the person at the menu, maybe even cutting in line, people getting to the window before placing an order which would be just as bad.

I'm with FBinNY: if they treat you badly don't do business with them. Or abide by their policies if the food is that good - and in that case, if I happen to see a manager (a real one) when I'm a paying customer, I might clue him in about how often his Taco Bell loses out because of the policy. Probably not in my area though because there are many fast food places and most aren't worth the free advice.

dynodonn 

Talking to the manager at most fast foods will not garner much in the way of policy changes, since employees are usually following management rules in the first place, especially noted in the level of behavior shown in the video by the employees.

One of the reasons for banning cyclists from using drive thrus is due to insurance company policies, in that cyclists might be injured by a motorist using the drive thru as well. One can talk the to the business manager or go straight to the corporate level, but more likely it may have to come down to having one's state enacting legislation to make drive thrus services be available for cyclists when the main business lobby is closed for the evening, such as Maine did in 2008.