Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Car going backwards, yes. Bike going forward, no - Taco Bell drive-thru (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/900903-car-going-backwards-yes-bike-going-forward-no-taco-bell-drive-thru.html)

1nterceptor 07-11-13 04:30 PM

Car going backwards, yes. Bike going forward, no - Taco Bell drive-thru
 
Not only will a cyclist be denied service, we'll grab your camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=4S1mc4n8M9Q

ahsposo 07-11-13 05:26 PM

He should be thankful they wouldn't serve him.

That said I say send it to A&S and let the real brains of BF decide what should be done.

Allen 07-11-13 06:04 PM

Agreed. Sending this to A&S from Foo.

FBinNY 07-11-13 06:33 PM

They're a business and can make up any policy they want. You have a simple remedy, go elsewhere.

In any case there's no percentage debating their policy (if they actually have one) with minimum wage employees who neither make policy, nor know if they have the latitude to make exceptions.

howsteepisit 07-11-13 06:35 PM

Not the first time I have seen service refused to bicyclists, have also seen no walk up service. If I recall, not just taco bell either, but cannot be sure of which one it was. Other than adding to the annoyance factor, the car had nothing to do with the bicyclist, they'd refuse service regardless of the car or not.

'Course my simple solution is to not go to Taco Bell, not to film and post it.

turbo1889 07-11-13 07:15 PM

Refusal of service to cyclist in drive through service is by no means new or unique. Common rationalizations given are insurance reasons and "for your own safety" (Don't you know its dangerous to ride a bike in a lane with cars?).

Its actually more common the policy then not in my experience with drive through restaurants, sometimes they will serve you if you are on an e-bike and you tell them you are riding an electric moped. As far as my personal opinion is concerned its just as bad and comes from the same base root intolerance as refusing to serve someone of a particular race or ethnicity but short of complaining to management and/or refusing to continue to do business with them not much can be done about it.

Worknomore 07-11-13 07:42 PM

That was an assault! Should show that one to the cops.

Jimi77 07-11-13 08:08 PM

Taco Bell blows anyway.

turbo1889 07-11-13 08:21 PM

I certainly like the food from Qdoba way better, but at 3:00a.m. your options get pretty limited with only a few places still open and Taco Bell is one of the few places that stays open for the late night crowd (notice the video was after dark).

DX-MAN 07-11-13 08:30 PM

On the face of it, the motive is equal rights for bikes; it misses the vital point that the "same rights and responsibilities" laws do not apply to private property, which virtually every retail establishment IS. That said, there would be one less Taco Bell food drone at that location within about 24 hours from that incident....

Dchiefransom 07-11-13 08:43 PM

The statement in the video is incorrect. In California, a bicycle is not a vehicle.

Chris516 07-11-13 09:34 PM

On the one hand, it is discriminatory, in the same way(but obviously not to the same extent) as the race wars of the 1960's and before that decade.(racial discrimination still exists) But until cyclists' are treated fairly, it won't change.

On the other hand, Taco Bell's food, is as bad, as the logo on their fast food restaurants.

Don in Austin 07-11-13 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbo1889 (Post 15841364)
Refusal of service to cyclist in drive through service is by no means new or unique. Common rationalizations given are insurance reasons and "for your own safety" (Don't you know its dangerous to ride a bike in a lane with cars?).

Its actually more common the policy then not in my experience with drive through restaurants, sometimes they will serve you if you are on an e-bike and you tell them you are riding an electric moped. As far as my personal opinion is concerned its just as bad and comes from the same base root intolerance as refusing to serve someone of a particular race or ethnicity but short of complaining to management and/or refusing to continue to do business with them not much can be done about it.

Starbucks won't serve cyclists. That is one reason why I boycott them when walking or in a car. Fortunately, Austin, Texas has lots of independently owned coffee shops that are all extremely friendly to cyclists. They will serve you in a friendly manner and fill your water bottles for you.

Don in Austin

turbo1889 07-11-13 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dchiefransom (Post 15841658)
The statement in the video is incorrect. In California, a bicycle is not a vehicle.

Got any links to CA code to back that up? I know in my state of MT a bicycle is a "vehicle" but is not a "motor vehicle":

Quote:

Originally Posted by MT State Code
61-1-101. Definitions. As used in this title, unless the context indicates otherwise, the following definitions apply:
. . .
(46) (a) "Motor vehicle" means:
(i) a vehicle propelled by its own power and designed or used to transport persons or property upon the highways of the state;
(ii) a quadricycle if it is equipped for use on the highways as prescribed in chapter 9; and
(iii) a golf cart only if it is equipped for use on the highways as prescribed in chapter 9 and is operated pursuant to 61-8-391 or by a person with a low-speed restricted driver's license.
(b) The term does not include a bicycle as defined in 61-8-102, an electric personal assistive mobility device, a motorized nonstandard vehicle, or a motorized wheelchair or other low-powered, mechanically propelled vehicle that is designed specifically for use by a physically disabled person and that is used as a means of mobility for that person.
. . .

(". . ." indicates where definitions of other types of vehicles were omitted, its a long list.)

Source = http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/61/1/61-1-101.htm


Quote:

Originally Posted by MT State Code
61-8-102. Uniformity of interpretation -- definitions.
(1) Interpretation of this chapter in this state must be as consistent as possible with the interpretation of similar laws in other states.
(2) As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise, the following definitions apply:
. . .
(b) "Bicycle" means:
(i) a vehicle propelled solely by human power upon which any person may ride and that has two tandem wheels and a seat height of more than 25 inches from the ground when the seat is raised to its highest position, except scooters and similar devices; or
(ii) a vehicle equipped with two or three wheels, foot pedals to permit muscular propulsion, and an independent power source providing a maximum of 2 brake horsepower. If a combustion engine is used, the maximum piston or rotor displacement may not exceed 3.05 cubic inches, 50 centimeters, regardless of the number of chambers in the power source. The power source may not be capable of propelling the device, unassisted, at a speed exceeding 30 miles an hour, 48.28 kilometers an hour, on a level surface. The device must be equipped with a power drive system that functions directly or automatically only and does not require clutching or shifting by the operator after the drive system is engaged.
. . .

(". . ." indicates where definitions of other types of vehicles were omitted, its a long list.)

Source = http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/61/8/61-8-102.htm

turbo1889 07-11-13 10:42 PM

As to how I personally think is the best way for society to deal with people who choose to deny services at a private establishment (non public property or public service) to others based on them being of a different race, or ethnicity, or creed, or being a bicycle driver instead of a car driver, etc . . .

I think there is something behind this whole freedom thing, even when it is used to push prejudices and I don't want the government to turn into a big brother nazi like behemoth that tries to regulate every single little thing, especially on private property.

But I see no reason why basic public services can't be denied those who choose to engage in such prejudiced behavior.

Want to hang put a sign on the door of your business along the lines of "Whites Only" or "All Brothers Welcome, NO CRACKERS" or "All vehicles welcome in drive through except for bicycles, we don't serve you stupid idiots who dare to think you have a right to use the roads too". Well you can go ahead and do that and since its private property big brother isn't going to beat down your door with the SWAT team. BUT in addition to customers choosing not to patronize your establishment due to your prejudiced policies you will also be denied basic public services. Have a robbery at your place and call the cops to come help, tough luck, they won't come to help you. Your place starts on fire, need the fire department, tough luck, the only reason they will show up is to keep the fire from spreading beyond your place. Obviously a warning letter of notice of the cutting off of public services based on such behavior is in order but I think that would be the best way for civilized society to deal with suck backwards prejudiced knuckle head without sacrificing freedom for a police state. They want to deny service, well back at them, deny them the basic public services as well.

delcrossv 07-12-13 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbo1889 (Post 15841938)
As to how I personally think is the best way for society to deal with people who choose to deny services at a private establishment (non public property or public service) to others based on them being of a different race, or ethnicity, or creed, or being a bicycle driver instead of a car driver, etc . . .

I think there is something behind this whole freedom thing, even when it is used to push prejudices and I don't want the government to turn into a big brother nazi like behemoth that tries to regulate every single little thing, especially on private property.

But I see no reason why basic public services can't be denied those who choose to engage in such prejudiced behavior.

Want to hang put a sign on the door of your business along the lines of "Whites Only" or "All Brothers Welcome, NO CRACKERS" or "All vehicles welcome in drive through except for bicycles, we don't serve you stupid idiots who dare to think you have a right to use the roads too". Well you can go ahead and do that and since its private property big brother isn't going to beat down your door with the SWAT team. BUT in addition to customers choosing not to patronize your establishment due to your prejudiced policies you will also be denied basic public services. Have a robbery at your place and call the cops to come help, tough luck, they won't come to help you. Your place starts on fire, need the fire department, tough luck, the only reason they will show up is to keep the fire from spreading beyond your place. Obviously a warning letter of notice of the cutting off of public services based on such behavior is in order but I think that would be the best way for civilized society to deal with suck backwards prejudiced knuckle head without sacrificing freedom for a police state. They want to deny service, well back at them, deny them the basic public services as well.

Works if the owner then doesn't have to pay taxes. The real wy to address this issue is to start writing letters to the CEO. IIRC the corporate marketing folks think that 1 letter = 10,000 irratated customers. so a few letters can make a diff. More so than a whiny youtube vid.

Astrozombie 07-12-13 07:16 AM

This is the same place that makes people move forward (i heard something about them being timed) and then they bring you the order outside or you have to back up when your food is ready. Yah.........

It's all good, just take your money elsewhere.

dynodonn 07-12-13 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrozombie (Post 15842605)

It's all good, just take your money elsewhere.


Not really, it's not only Taco Bell drive ups that some BF members have commented about, in their not being able to do a business transaction. A number of BF members have been refused service at their local banking institution drive ups, which is a little more involved in taking their money elsewhere than ordering a taco.

wphamilton 07-12-13 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbo1889 (Post 15841891)
Got any links to CA code to back that up? I know in my state of MT a bicycle is a "vehicle" but is not a "motor vehicle":...

I had the same thought and looked into it ... I think he's right, evidently bicycles are not called "vehicles" in the CA code. I gather it's a matter of terminology though since it has the expected language bicycles have all the rights and responsibilities as vehicles etc etc.

I don't think it's very relevant to private establishments refusing service, either way. Public road, private service window, I don't really see the relationship that the cyclist in the video is implying.

CommuteCommando 07-12-13 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahsposo (Post 15841014)
He should be thankful they wouldn't serve him.

:thumb:

FBinNY 07-12-13 08:43 AM

Being denied service at a drive up isn't being denied service, only convenience. I've yet to hear of a cyclist that was denied service when he walked in the door.

I'm not defending Taco Bell or other merchants that won't serve a cyclist at a drive up window, but let's not make this into something it isn't. The remedy is to write corporate explaining why they should be more accommodating, or take your business elsewhere.

I bank at one bank that welcomes me (on the bike) at their drive up teller. But at another, the manager asked me not to (nicely) and explained that the corporate honchos considered serving pedestrians at the drive up teller a possible liability issue. OTOH, he suggested I bring the bike into the branch where it would be safe when I came in. I felt this was a very reasonable compromise.

LesterOfPuppets 07-12-13 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15842947)
Being denied service at a drive up isn't being denied service, only convenience. I've yet to hear of a cyclist that was denied service when he walked in the door.

I'm not defending Taco Bell or other merchants that won't serve a cyclist at a drive up window, but let's not make this into something it isn't. The remedy is to write corporate explaining why they should be more accommodating, or take your business elsewhere.

I bank at one bank that welcomes me (on the bike) at their drive up teller. But at another, the manager asked me not to (nicely) and explained that the corporate honchos considered serving pedestrians at the drive up teller a possible liability issue. OTOH, he suggested I bring the bike into the branch where it would be safe when I came in. I felt this was a very reasonable compromise.

I used to work 'til midnight and couldn't get food at McD's or Taco Bell after work. Dining rooms shut at 10pm and both places were total ******** about cycling in their drive-thrus.

Here in the Vancouver/Portland metro area Burgerville officially recognized bicycles in drive-thrus at all their stores.

Now it appears Fred Meyer's has officially allowed bicycles in drive-thrus at all their pharmacy windows.

Progress is afoot.

JakiChan 07-12-13 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worknomore (Post 15841451)
That was an assault! Should show that one to the cops.

Bingo. The company has the right to refuse service to whomever it wants. No right to assault though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dchiefransom (Post 15841658)
The statement in the video is incorrect. In California, a bicycle is not a vehicle.

If you can prove that it'd be awesome. Every ALC safety speech I've heard has the line "Bicycles are vehicles under the California Vehicle Code"....it's be good to know if they were wrong.

FBinNY 07-12-13 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets (Post 15842992)
I used to work 'til midnight and couldn't get food at McD's or Taco Bell after work. Dining rooms shut at 10pm.

Here in the Vancouver/Portland metro area Burgerville officially recognized bicycles in drive-thrus at all their stores.

Now it appears Fred Meyer's has officially allowed bicycles in drive-thrus at all their pharmacy windows.

Progress is afoot.

If the dining room is closed but the drive up window is open that's something different. OTOH, I don't believe we have some kind of right to service at a drive up window, unless they serve pedestrians in which case what's the difference.

If they want to keep a place staffed and a window open yet turn away business, it's their loss.

genec 07-12-13 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JakiChan (Post 15843002)
Bingo. The company has the right to refuse service to whomever it wants. No right to assault though.



If you can prove that it'd be awesome. Every ALC safety speech I've heard has the line "Bicycles are vehicles under the California Vehicle Code"....it's be good to know if they were wrong.

Per CA Vehicle code. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc231.htm


V C Section 231 Bicycle
Bicycle

231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject to the provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.

Thus a bicycle is a human powered device... But, "a person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle..." According to CVC 21200.

All the CVC is available here: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc_index_b.htm


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:26 AM.