Roody

If bicyclists WANT to use the drive-thru--even when there are options available--they should be able to make that need known to store owners. Everybody has a right to inform a public business of personal preferences. This is not raising a ruckus, it's requesting better service from a business that is more than happy to take a lot of our hard-earned money.

If you tell cyclists to just park their bikes and walk in, why not say the same to motorists: "You're an able-bodied motorist. You don't NEED the drive-thru. Just park your car and walk into the store. I'm already paying a subsidy to provide you with a huge parking lot that I don't use. Why should I also pay to subsidize your free drive-thru service, which I'm not even allowed to use?"

It's funny how here, on a (supposedly) carfree forum--there is criticism of carfree people using the drive-thru, but it's unquestioned that motorists use it. The onus of making parking lots safe is placed on the bicyclists--not on the car drivers, where it belongs. IF there is a risk issue (not established) for bikes using the drive-thru, the reason is that the car drivers are being unsafe--not that the bicyclists are being reckless.

Yet the solution being proposed by businesses (and the anti-carfree people on this forum) is to ban the bikes. I say the solution is to make the motorists behave more responsibly. If they can't or won't drive safely in parking lots, then ban cars from the drive-thru, not bikes.

cooker

This article posted earlier in the thread describes a couple of cases where corporations responded to cyclist agitation and modified or clarified their policies to allow bikes in the drive-through. It's a question of convenience and fairness. Just because you have no interest in the topic doesn't mean it's non-issue to everybody else.

https://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news...sometimes-both

Ekdog

Yes!

Once again, you are one of the very few posters to this so-called LCF forum who actually stands up for cyclists' rights. Most of the others seem to take the motorists' side almost as a reflex reaction.

Can someone please explain to me why it's any more dangerous for cars and bikes to share a drive-through lane than it is for them to share a lane out in the street.

FBinNY 

It isn't, but that's not the point.

If you go back to the beginning you'll see that the OP is looking for arguments to compel the store to allow bikes to use their drive thru. Nobody here is saying that bicycles shouldn't be allowed, simply that there's no way to compel a business owner or manager to allow them.

As for what excuses managers give, that's just so much noise. It's their decision and they don't have to justify it.

This is the kind of thing that most of us navigate easily enough with some open conversation, and it simply goes away. As noted, there's usually no policy either way handed down from headquarters, so it's simply a matter of making a friendly but persuasive argument to the people on site.

Based on personal experience, I suggest that the way NOT to win these is to say they have to in any way. That just get's peoples backs up and motivates them to prove they don't HAVE to.

Machka 

Absolutely! It wouldn't bother me a bit if "they" got rid of drive-thrus all together. There aren't many left, but I certainly wouldn't miss those few if they disappeared.

As I said earlier, I would be behind a push to make secure bicycle parking available. But encouraging the use of drive-thrus seems counter-productive to me. Get rid of them. Make people get out of their vehicles and walk.

And for after-hours situations, if there is some worry about allowing people into the store after a certain time, have a walk-up "hole in the wall".

zonatandem

Bring you and your bike inside the store to the pharmacy counter . . .

Order our prescriptions through CVS mail order . . .

Ekdog

I imagine the OP is interested in seeing a change to this asinine policy, whether it be by persuading the manager to ease off or by forcing him to do so. The second option may or may not be possible, but it's worth a try if the first one fails. I posted earlier that I'd been successful in getting the manager of a sporting goods store to allow bicycles inside. In that case, it was his superiors at corporate headquarters that eventually told him to give up on the Little Caesar routine and focus on selling sporting goods instead of hassling customers who want to bring their bikes inside with them. If I hadn't taken the time to raise a kerfuffle, both in-store and through social media, he would never have given in. Bootlicking may be a popular response among some of the more obsequious posters to this thread, but it is a method that is almost guaranteed to fail. On the other hand, creating a stink has been known to work--especially if other like-minded cyclists can be brought into the protest--and it can always be followed up by calling for a boycott of the business.

prathmann

From the original post in this thread: "What I'm hoping to do with CVS is to maybe build a better argument and case to get them to allow me to use their drive-through service."

That doesn't sound like he's only looking for ways to "force" CVS to comply, but rather for arguments to use to persuade them to do so.

Now he did also ask whether there were any legal arguments to use and I agree with you that such a tactic is unlikely to be fruitful. But his main point in the initial post of the thread was to ask for persuasive arguments to use in his discussions both with the individual store manager as well as with corporate headquarters in the event that they have set an overall policy.

gregf83 

Drive thrus are opened for business reasons. The proprieters expect to make additional revenue. With cyclists being an infinitesimally small part of their business they have no interest in making any special provisions as the financial impact of not doing so is irrelevant. Opening drive thrus to cyclists adds a potential liability. The risk may be small but so is the reward so it's not worth anyone's time to seriously consider it.

Aren't there a million more important things to ***** about than drive thrus not catering to the whims of cyclists?

cooker

In the grand scheme of things, the entire earth is just a speck of dust in the universe, but to each of us, our convenience or being treated fairly or respectfully are important. I guess the OP finds being refused the same access that drivers get t

cooker

In the grand scheme of things, the entire earth is just a speck of dust and not very important to the well being of the universe, but to each of us, our convenience or being treated fairly or respectfully are important. I guess the OP finds being refused the same vehicular access that drivers get to the CVS is inconvenient or unfair, and since it relates to him not owning a car, this is exactly the right place to discuss it.

Ekdog

I'd add some more risks to the scenario: the risk that a couple hundred cyclists could affect their bottom line by demonstrating in front of their shops and flooding their social networking sites with calls for a boycott, and the risk that bad publicity might harm their public image.

ModeratedUser

+1 enthusiastic thumbs up!!!

You bring up something I've never really considered, but you're right! I am subsidizing for this service that I'm not allowed to use! And basically that pisses me off and I would think it would piss off quite a few others too. And you're right, me as a cyclist am not endangering others, but it's the threat of unsafe drivers that's the issue here. One more thing too, no risk for bikes has been established either.

Also I too was wondering why there was so much pro-car use here in this forum. I never really had a chance to voice my issues regarding this, but it was in the back of my mind. Kinda strange really. There is a push for curbing short travel via cars, right? That's the worst abuse seen driving a car really. A car doesn't even have a chance to get up to operating temperature with travel of <2 miles, which turns into awful wear on the mechanics. Not to mention the bad gas mileage seen. I haven't seen one pro-car poster post this up!

Machka 

Have you failed to read my posts?

https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car...l#post18292033


We don't want to drive a walkable distance (<2 miles) to chemist ... we want to get rid of the drive-thrus and encourage people to walk.

ModeratedUser

I'd pick the drive-through over fitting for my lane any day!

ModeratedUser

I'm all for getting rid of drive-throughs. ESPECIALLY if I'm paying for them and not allowed to use them! Locking my bike in front of the store and walking in does nothing for getting rid of them.

ModeratedUser

Looks like my health plan wants me to pick an HMO. Well I did my research with my doctors office and this place I want to get physical therapy at. I picked one and the good pharmacy, Walgreens, doesn't take that plan. So it was between CVS and Rite Aid. Well CVS was out of the question as I've seen first hand how poorly they take care of issues. So Rite Aid it is. The store is .4 miles away, plus there is talk of Walgreens and Rite Aid are suppose to merge. I did ask Walgreens for some kind of letter stating they have been servicing me for years via the drive-through on my bike, but they declined. They did state that they will tell someone this if they call them up. Which is great that they would do this. Could make a difference.

I'll make sure somewhere down the line that this comes up and CVS lost out a new client.

Machka 

How are you paying for the drive-thrus?

Machka 

So a really easy walk! That's great ... you don't have to worry about drive-thrus anymore.

Ekdog

It cost the pharmacy to build the drive-through infrastructure, didn't it? What about operating and maintaining it? Were you under the impression that all of that was free? One can assume that these costs are passed on to the customers, be they cyclists or motorists, but only the latter are allowed to avail themselves of the service.

Ekdog

Make sure you tell everyone you know about how shoddily CVS has treated you. One lost client might not mean much to them, but a lot of them might make them reconsider.

Ekdog

Have you taken to using the majestic plural?

Ekdog

I suspect that many of those who post here rarely if ever cycle, walk or use public transit to get around.

Ekdog

User1, I think you're better off going to another pharmacy anyway, unless you've yet to reach drinking age and are hankering to legally buy some booze.

Homeopathy contains alcohol and can be sold to minors.

Ekdog

From Twitter:

William P. Ralston ‏@WmRalston 21s21 seconds ago
.@CVS_Extra Why do you discriminate against cyclists who want to use your drive-thru facilities? Walgreens et al have no problem with this.