Originally Posted by
jefnvk
Do you support people being able to walk through a drive thru?
Yes. Well, "through a drive-thru lane".
Originally Posted by
jefnvk
I'm curious as to your opinion on that. What separates you on a bike from anyone else on a bike, or any other pedestrians, just because you are a cyclist?
I didn't say I am (although, I am).
Originally Posted by
jefnvk
Every morning on my commute, I see plenty of people on bikes that are certainly not hanging out on these forums. Would you prefer they set themselves up for any number of discrimination lawsuits because they pick and choose which bike is OK because one is a cyclist and one is less kitted out and more homeless looking?
I'm not sure who you are referring to as "they", or how you leapt to "homeless looking" (whatever that means). It almost seems as if you're trying to put words into my mouth.
Originally Posted by
jefnvk
Anyone can name anyone in any lawsuit.
Sure, but that doesn't mean the court will allow it. I'm pretty sure I included that part. Yep. I did. I guess you missed it.
Originally Posted by
jefnvk
Allowing incidents with foreseeable risk to happen on your property, and you can easily be held liable, and even if the incident isn't foreseeable, you're still likely to get the lawyers involved and cut a quick check over going to court in anything but the most ridiculous accusation. This is an incredibly basic concept. If Wal-Mart has to defend themselves in court because a police officer killed a man in their store holding a BB gun, I have absolutely no doubt McDonalds could be named if you are ordering a Big Mac and get run over.
As you wish.
Originally Posted by
jefnvk
Injury is not generally realized in fender benders between two vehicles, the speed simply does not exist in most situations to cause injury. Getting crushed between two cars, even at low speed, does cause very real injury, as does getting hit and getting caught under the bumper, as does getting hit and smacking your head on the hood. While I admit my wording was odd, if the person behind you has their foot slip off the brake and runs you into the back of a van in front of you, the injury you are likely to sustain is FAR greater than if those two cars had just run into each other. I've been rear ended twice in drive thru lines, it is hardly an unforseeable event. If I were on a bike, I'd think I'd have been worse off than a scratched bumper and a scratched trailer.
And, yet, it just doesn't seem to be happening. The only example I could find in my (admittedly) cursory search, was an incident that resulted in only minor injuries, not the mass carnage you're predicting. Perhaps we are correcting a problem that simply does not exist?
Originally Posted by
jefnvk
At the end of the day, what YOU want is not relevant to the policies a business decides to enact, it is their business and their right to run it in a way that is not contrary to established law. Your failing to see a reason to prohibit the practice is incredibly irrelevant, and I could likewise say that you don't see an issue exactly because such policies are in place. I fail to see why I HAVE to wear a shirt in McDonalds, but that is the rule, if I want to eat there, I wear the shirt.
Actually, as a customer, what I want is the
only thing that matters. Regardless, I haven't mentioned what I want, in this discussion. What I did mention is that banning bicycles in drive-thru lanes doesn't really achieve the stated purpose, which is to satisfy the liability policy.
Originally Posted by
jefnvk
Someone disagreeing with me is indeed not being unreasonable. Someone failing to see why such a rule exists, and insists on it being changed because they can't be bothered with any other reasonable options, is. If this is really that big of a deal to you, send them a letter through their web portal, boycott and go to the local ice cream joint which has a walk up window. I'm not really sure they'll miss your 49 cents worth of business over a long standing, understood-by-most, policy.
Have I insisted that the rule be changed? Have I not read and considered all the other "reasonable" options (none of which were reasonable to OP, at the time)? I did send a letter, I always "boycott" McDonald's (not really; I just don't go there, but it's not an active pursuit), and I do patronize the local ice cream shops, regularly. Besides, if the "long standing policy" is "understood-by-most", why are the store managers lying about the reason for the policy? I mean, if it's so clearly obvious why there is a company policy to protect you, why lie about it?