rydabent

So---------------let me get this straight. Several are saying that the reason bikes cant use drive thrus is because some drivers are distracted dangerous and stupid? Wow that is logical.

rydabent

BTW some contrary person asked what I do if I ride my bike to a theater or some place that doesnt have bike racks. I dont, I drive my car.

BUT ----------------- if it is a simple ride that I can mail letters or some other simple task, and I get hungry I should be able to use a drive thru. It remains there is simply no logical reason that a bike should be banned from drive thrus. After all the speed limit in most drive thrus is not 75mph!!!!!

RomansFiveEight

Personally, not entirely convinced that it isn't simply a situation of it being inconvenient for drivers; and the organizations 'blowing smoke' and telling us it's a liability issue. We're allowed in their parking lots; what happens if someone mows me down with their face in a burger in the parking lot?

I-Like-To-Bike

Called "contrary" by rydabent? Oh My!

See your first paragraph; drive your car and get your late nite munchie burger; or continue to complain about discrimination because fast food joints do not revolve around your 24/7 preferences, or that nobody else cares about the cost of your bentmobiles.

BTW how many late night burger windows have turned YOU away?

I-Like-To-Bike

I am fairly sure there is a lot of smoke blowing going on about liability/lawsuits but doubt that drivers' concerns about inconvenience are a factor. Some business operators apparently consider bike riders a nuisance at their drive in windows and have made a decision and see no practical reason to change it; end of story.

Baseless threats about future lost business or discrimination lawsuits will more than likely result in a few guffaws and reaffirm the operators' decisions about dealing with a nuisance factor.

howsteepisit

Rydabent Why should the world adhere to your sense of logic? You seem to think that if something appears logical to you the world at large should do follow along. Even Economists, the most coldly logical of social scientists have included behavioral studies because people do not always act rationally.

kickstart

A drive through isn't some sort of afterthought, its a significant part of how fast food establishments are constructed, and are specifically engineered at great expense to serve one particular type of customer in an efficient manner. One must be really obtuse to not understand why they wouldn't want to be exposed to potential liability, or discommode the targeted customer that happens to be a major percentage of their clientele and sales volume to accommodate the occasional oddball transaction.

Fast food is a time sensitive service industry, if they choose to close the lobby, not have a walk up window, and have restrictions for their drive up service, they have made an informed, deliberate, and conscious decision that they're under no obligation to justify. To say its for liability makes a lot more business sense, even if it's not a major concern, than tell a customer their business isn't profitable enough to accommodate at a particular time or place.

howsteepisit

To some extent I have to disagree with your analysis, kickstart. I think the real reason is the for some undefined reason, bicycles just piss off car drivers. Since thats 98% of a drive through's business base, there is no logical reason to piss off 98 people to serve 2.

EDIT the part I disagree with is that is any demonstrable inefficiency to serving bicycles as opposed to automobiles

I-Like-To-Bike

Individuals who seem to prefer to fly their "oddball" flag high appear to be the most obtuse on this subject.

I-Like-To-Bike

I concur but would estimate that except in rare cases (proximity to college campus or equivalent) the ratio probably is closer 9999 to 1 or higher for customers arriving by cars to bike.

howsteepisit

Your probably right i was exercising some confirmation bias in my 98/2 ratio, or wistful thinking or something.

I-Like-To-Bike

The "or something" may have been an overdose of A&S Brand Cold Logic™. It can cause all sort of wacky hallucinations.

kickstart

I didn't really mean to imply that an individual cyclist would necessarily create a meaningfully tangible disruption to efficiency, but that a drive through is optimized to motor vehicles in a way that makes them less than ideal for other customers.

KraneXL

Forget the lawyers, its the politician that are Satan's spawn. Somehow they've gotten it into their heads that their sole purpose to solving all our issues is more laws. And that's the last thing a so call "free" society needs.

bicyclelove

Lawyers, politicians what's the difference? LOL
I agree more laws rarely help anything.

I-Like-To-Bike

Ahh, just what A&S needs, another disciple of the B-crats is our Enemy Ranter. Let's all have some Tea at their Party!

KraneXL

Their solutions are our headaches. I can't think of a better villain to vanquish. Can you?

I-Like-To-Bike

As far as villains who create a negative aroma about bicycling advocacy, I can think of no better target than smug, sanctimonious bicyclists who rant and rave in public with simplistic nonsense and gross generalizations/stereotypes about politicians, b-crats, evil doing-motorists, policemen, courts, lawyers and middle class life in general as the enemies of all Right Thinking Bicyclists™.

howsteepisit

This is why I pretty much believe that the advocates have do virtually nothing for cycling since the 1970's (in the US), and most if not all the gains have been due to increases of fuel prices and concerns over global climate change.

KD5NRH

Actually, most passenger cars; 2m is 6'6" and the limit before you need clearance lamps in the US is 6'8". Not sure whether they include mirrors in the Polish limit though; US specs typically don't.

KD5NRH

I wish there was a difference; it should be a conflict of interest for anyone who makes a living off laws being to idiotically worded for the average person to interpret, to serve in any capacity where they will be writing/amending/passing laws.

k_obeastly

Considering the financial state of many governments, I don't think they should be telling anyone how to run a business that relies on profit to sustain itself.

I've been through a drive through on bike once. I was greeted with smiles and gratitude for biking instead of driving due to the shape I was in.

As a business, they should have the right/privilege to deny service to anyone. They can exercise that at will, and I will exercise my right/privilege to choose where to go. After reading about a certain resteraunt refusing to serve some cops because they wouldn't leave their guns in the car, I no longer eat there. Deny service for a reason I find offensive and you won't get my business.

Melissa Davis

it is grossly misleading.

TransitBiker

I lol'd.

Only place with a drive thru i'd even consider using is dunkin donuts honestly, and the one in town here is in the middle of a row of shops. Sadly nowhere to really lock up, so i park next to the window and sit just inside.

I am going to be petitioning the township here aboutransport equality issues, including requiring sturdy, widely compatible and properly installed bike racks at places that prohibit cycling on the i guess pedestrian side-walky area outside some of these shopping areas. Also some road crossing issues where people disregard "pedestrian first" road crossings.

In general, i feel that a cyclist should be allowed to use any thoroughfare that a motorist does to procure goods or services. It isnt even really a "no bikes" thing its more of a discrimination thing. Why do i need to be operating an automobile or truck to purchase the food or whatever? Makes no sense.

- Andy