Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

Here's the bottom line. McDonalds does it because they can. Their corporate lawyers may tell them not to allow bicyclists in the drive through, but from a logical standpoint any reason they have is thin at best.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

I don't frequent McDonalds, but it seems every time I do, they have cars in the drive through line pull ahead of the pick up window and wait for someone to bring their food out. There's an oil spot there and it is right where people have to walk to enter that side of the building. That point for the poster before you. I mentioned the stroller because someone said a bicycle was too big to walk into a McDonalds. That's the only reason I mentioned the stroller. I reckoned the kind of stroller I pictured had a footprint about the overall size of a bike footprint. Explain in detail how it's foolish for me to compare the respective footprints. Not the necessity of a stroller, but the footprint.

I don't care one bit whether any place allows bicycles in the drive through. I certainly don't think bicyclists should feel persecuted, and I didn't get the sense that the OP did. I understand that it's fun to turn on the OP. It's been standard forum fare for a long time. So too is resorting to things like calling someone foolish or clueless when you can't form a substantive response.

Here's the bottom line. McDonalds does it because they can. Their corporate lawyers may tell them not to allow bicyclists in the drive through, but from a logical standpoint any reason they have is thin at best.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

I don't know about all the drama stuff, but when I hear illogical crap as a reason for McDonalds not allowing something, I question that bad logic. So when someone cites safety concerns as a reason for not allowing bicycles in the slow moving drive through, I question how being in the slow moving drive through is more hazardous than being in the faster moving parking lot. No response to that challenge. When I question the amount of space a bike takes up as being a logical reason for not allowing bikes inside, I get a response like yours, which from a logical standpoint helped me make my case.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

You've read a lot of so-called "illogical crap as reasons" provided by BF posters, not any reasons provided by the management from any of the stores involved. IOW you are challenging the conjured guesses of BF folk.

For a more enjoyable session of tilting at the windmills of your mind see:

Originally Posted by User1

Yes that's basically the bottom line. It's their property and their service. Which was also something that PO'd me. I'm paying for that service I can't use!

Originally Posted by wphamilton

so I think I have some insight into the reasons beyond conjectured guesses. I can't say what McDonald's reasons are of course.

Originally Posted by NYMXer

what cyclist eats at McDonalds (?).

Originally Posted by gp

my club and other local clubs stop at a mcdonald's/am-pm in a valley before (or after) riding in the hills. Clif bars get old after a while. Sometimes you need a monster, hostess fruit pie and a big mac.

We lean our bikes on the wall outside. I do the same when i go there by myself. I've never been there at night though.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

I don't know about all the drama stuff, but when I hear illogical crap as a reason for McDonalds not allowing something, I question that bad logic. So when someone cites safety concerns as a reason for not allowing bicycles in the slow moving drive through, I question how being in the slow moving drive through is more hazardous than being in the faster moving parking lot. No response to that challenge. When I question the amount of space a bike takes up as being a logical reason for not allowing bikes inside, I get a response like yours, which from a logical standpoint helped me make my case.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

I don't frequent McDonalds, but it seems every time I do, they have cars in the drive through line pull ahead of the pick up window and wait for someone to bring their food out. There's an oil spot there and it is right where people have to walk to enter that side of the building. That point for the poster before you. I mentioned the stroller because someone said a bicycle was too big to walk into a McDonalds. That's the only reason I mentioned the stroller. I reckoned the kind of stroller I pictured had a footprint about the overall size of a bike footprint. Explain in detail how it's foolish for me to compare the respective footprints. Not the necessity of a stroller, but the footprint.

I don't care one bit whether any place allows bicycles in the drive through. I certainly don't think bicyclists should feel persecuted, and I didn't get the sense that the OP did. I understand that it's fun to turn on the OP. It's been standard forum fare for a long time. So too is resorting to things like calling someone foolish or clueless when you can't form a substantive response.

Here's the bottom line. McDonalds does it because they can. Their corporate lawyers may tell them not to allow bicyclists in the drive through, but from a logical standpoint any reason they have is thin at best.

Originally Posted by GP

My club and other local clubs stop at a McDonald's/AM-PM in a valley before (or after) riding in the hills. Clif bars get old after a while. Sometimes you need a Monster, Hostess fruit pie or a Big Mac.

We lean our bikes on the wall outside. I do the same when I go there by myself. I've never been there at night though.

Originally Posted by rossiny

as far as them being worried about liability, I think the driver would be liable , not Mickey D. I don't get it , just typical mentality from the corporate world,,,, FOLLOW OUR POLICIES ,,,or else.

Originally Posted by rossiny

as far as them being worried about liability, I think the driver would be liable , not Mickey D. I don't get it , just typical mentality from the corporate world,,,, FOLLOW OUR POLICIES ,,,or else.

Originally Posted by rossiny

as far as them being worried about liability, I think the driver would be liable , not Mickey D. I don't get it , just typical mentality from the corporate world,,,, FOLLOW OUR POLICIES ,,,or else.

Originally Posted by bakes1

Someone has no idea what the term liability means as it pertains to accidents on other people's property...

Originally Posted by StanSeven

I saw a statement from McDonalds in the UK. They cite three reasons - close proximity to cars (assumes this means a tap from an auto bumper does serious harm to a cyclist, less visibility of cyclists especially due to the right angle turns, and cyclists possibility losing control of thie bikes handling food and beverages being passed.

All this makes perfect sense to me. For a few pennies of profit from a cyclists expenditure, they run risks of multi million dollar lawsuits

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

Logically each one of those concerns can be argued.

Originally Posted by wphamilton

I think I know what the issue is. When you're car-free you want to feel like you've replaced the car, for everything. There's nothing you can't do, no downside that you can't overcome. I've felt that way a little myself, from time to time. Then when you're refused service because you don't have a car, it's like a failure. Maybe even feels like an indictment of your lifestyle. Although it's objectively no big deal, you still feel slighted.

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

Logically each one of those concerns can be argued.

Originally Posted by gregf83

Of course. And in the end there is no right or wrong answer but the corporations have decided to err on the conservative side which is a perfectly rational position.

And while you can argue their rationale all day long I've not heard any sound business reasons why McDonald's should change their policy so the three cyclists in America (who also happen to post on BF) can ride through a drive through on their bicycles.