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

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.

Agreed. Sending this to A&S from Foo.

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.

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.

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.

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

Taco Bell blows anyway.

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).

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....

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

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.

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

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":

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


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

:thumb:

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.

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.

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.

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