Murray Missile 

They could use one of those old 3 wheel bike ice cream carts Good Humor used to have.

Clyde1820

Exactly so. At which point, knowing the policy, folks won't be in the lane in any great numbers. If at all. Except for those either (a) not knowing the policy or (b) wanting to push the policy aside.

It's a simple comparison between 4000 lbs of car and 30 lbs of bike. Keeping the smashable one out of the way seems a small price to pay, even though technically it can be classed as a "vehicle." But if they waffled on such a policy, then they'd be having everything from bikes to skateboards. Pedestrians, more or less, from the perspective of survivability if bumped or worse.

Whatever one might think of such a policy, it's there due to simple physics and liability reasons. It's all that unreasonable for a liable organization to take some measures to reduce risk. Even if in some cases some don't agree with such a policy. (Not all that different from keeping non-motorized vehicles off highways, for all the obvious reasons.)

ModeratedUser

Having trouble grasping a truck service station that doesn't also cater to cars. You don't have a reference do you?

Here's mine;


Complete with disgruntled customer (in green car) that marched into the store, complaining that he should be allowed to go through the truck lan.

Gads! there are over 13 pages of posts at this time about this. Many of you sound like a bunch of whinny drivers that feel that only good place that someone in front you should be is home! Your biggest pain in the ass is the person in front you! Yea for self entitlement! The road is not yours, get over it! I'm done with this thread.

Cheers

say.............................you don't drive a green car do you?

ModeratedUser

So what do these big weenies do when they're in their favorite pjs and the walk-in is closed? Act like a car?


No car, no service!

ModeratedUser

From my experience this is something that isn't posted as their(drugstores) policy. This was one of things I was trying to get when I was dealing with my service window issue on finding a drug store to start going to. I did have Walgreens for years and was able to use their service window. Changed health plans and I had to choice between CVS and Rite-Aid. CVS was hell! I had 4 pages of notes on going back and forth. I could never get them to provide this policy in writing or provide a link stating their ban of bikes through the service window. Basically they dodged and changed meeting or whatever to get out of any commitment. I went to Rite-Aid thinking I was going to be in for another fight and they allowed it after 2 or 3 calls! Been going to Rite-Aid for about a year now. No problems and no one is surprised there of a bike coming up.

ModeratedUser

In California there are exceptions to this regulation. If there are no alternative for bicycle travel, the bicyclist can legally take the highway. This exists on hwy 5 for example.
https://www.cabobike.org/touring/freeway.htm

prathmann

Of course we don't actually do that since it would confine pedestrians (and bicyclists) to only the one town block on which they happen to reside. Going any farther requires that one set foot (or bike tire) onto the highway so as to get to the other side.
Black's Law Dictionary - "Definition of HIGHWAY: A free and public road, way, or street; one which every person has the right to use."

BTW, even if you intend 'highway' to refer only to limited access freeways, many of these are open to bicycle travel. I've legally ridden my bicycle on dozens of interstate highways in the US.

If sharing space between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorized vehicles were really such a grave danger then either the motor vehicles would need to be kept in their totally separated space (say with parking lots next to selected freeways and no motor vehicles allowed to exit those lots onto other streets) or all transportation functions would be restricted to motor vehicles only. AFAIK, no society anywhere on earth has chosen to adopt either alternative; instead, sharing of transportation facilities is accepted as the norm.

Almost every time I'm waiting at a traffic light I end up with motor vehicles right behind me that could potentially run me over (but never have). I see no reason to expect the guy waiting behind me at a drive-thru window to do me any greater harm.

kevindsingleton 

Awesome! We totally agree that the policy does not achieve the stated purpose of preventing bicycles entering the drive-thru. The only thing it does is deny service to those already in the drive-thru lane. As I said, probably on page 1: boondoggle.

kevindsingleton 

Cool. Not sure I'd go that far, unless I had no other choice, but I'm glad you got what you needed.

So, how many drive-thru cycling injuries and deaths have you experienced while getting your prescriptions? Just for the record.

mrchaotica

The green car looks like a Geo Metro, so it probably runs on gasoline, which isn't available from those pumps. In contrast, the BMW near the middle is probably diesel, so it can use them just fine. The driver of the green car wasn't "refused service," he just didn't want to buy the product that was available. That's the important difference, not whether the vehicle is big or small.

By analogy, cyclists should be prohibited from the drive-through if and only if they eat something other than food. (Or if McDonalds serves something other than food... which seems more likely!)

jefnvk

Sweet! I love arguing about semantics! Black's Law Dictionary doesn't rule my state, the Michigan Compiled Law does, and they say highway means " the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.". Then again, I'm smart enough to know the difference between the explicit legal definition of highway and the very common usage of the word without getting confused.

And the anecdotal arguments are effective too, I've been rear ended twice in drive thrus, and watched one truly horrifying road rage cars purposefully running into one another in the Taco Bell drive thru at 3am one morning, so I'd definitely be worrying about it.

wphamilton

Your thread was why I posted here at all; I don't care at all about McDonald's drive-through's. I wanted to mention that the CVS near work has given me no hassle whatsoever for riding up to the window. Perfectly courteous, and in fact they seemed surprised when I asked if they were OK with it the first time I rode through.

It takes all kinds. When I see a bad attitude I just take my business elsewhere and keep in mind Sun Tzu's advice about the river.

ModeratedUser

In the years I've been doing it, zero! Not sure how many medicated seniors I was in front of either.

wphamilton

As I'm sure you realize, those same drivers are the road with you getting there after all, and after you leave. The line in the parking lot may well be the safest place on your whole trip. As long as you keep an eye on them, as any cyclist with any sense will.

ModeratedUser

That's great to hear! Yeah I'm under the assumption that it's the overall attitude with management regarding service with the service window. They state "policy" but what they are really saying it's their impression that it's not allowed.

I did a VERY quick survey on your town on bike infrastructure there. This kinda gives a good idea on how much bike riding there is. There isn't really that much mapped on Goggle, but there is actually infrastructure there.

Be safe.

jefnvk

How many injuries and deaths have been prevented by requiring me to wear a shirt and shoes in McDonald's lobby?

As to the truck line comments, try taking your compact through a truck only toll line, and you'll see why you are prohibited from using it when you are trying to reach up five feet to pay the teller.

kevindsingleton 

Has someone suggested that the dining room attire policy is implemented for your safety? Or, even more to the point, because an insurer insisted upon the policy?

See:

• C*u*m Hoc Fallacy (Poorly assumed correlation of two things), also
• Apples and oranges

kevindsingleton 

That wasn't me. You shouldn't be having trouble keeping up. Didn't you just return from vacation?

kevindsingleton 

You must be wrong. You had to have died, at least a few times. There is no policy to protect you!

jefnvk

No, I combined two responses into one post. Did I say it was you, or do you just assume every criticism is directed to you?

The argument is that you find the bike policy to be arbitrary and unnecessary, and will argue any point you don't personally agree with as wrong and stupid. If you want to talk to fallacies present in argument, your arguments are nothing but anecdotal, and skewed to your often incorrect perception of the world. What I learned in retail is that often the "it is policy" line exists solely for customers like you, who will argue any point nonstop in an effort to make the world adhere to your views. It is far easier to just drop that line than justify your decision to someone who will never accept it.

I find the clothing requirements to be arbitrary and unnecessary and implemented for no good reason, but it exists and I follow it without being a whiny brat about having to do so if I wish to dine at McDonalds. Do you think it is unfair that a shirtless, shoeless pedestrian from the beach has no way to eat at McDonalds the way you feel it is unfair a late nite cyclist can't?

kevindsingleton 

You quoted me, and only me, dood.

That's never been my argument. That's something you've made up to argue against. I never said whether I agree with the policy. I've never said I find it unnecessary. I did say that the evidence doesn't indicate that the policy is necessary. I've, also, agreed with the earlier post that indicated that the insurers didn't deem the policy to be necessary. What I questioned, and have argued, is that the policy is not the result of an insurer demanding the policy, and that the manager was lying when he said that it is. Why lie? That's my question, and the point that has not been addressed. There is no evidence to indicate that hordes of cyclists die every time they approach a drive-thru lane. In fact, the evidence suggests that those who operate motor vehicles in drive-thru lanes are far more likely to be injured or killed. Is the policy arbitrary? If you base your evaluation on the facts, it certainly is. There is nothing to indicate that cyclists are in any more danger than anyone else in the drive-thru lane. I've never said anyone, or their argument, is wrong, or stupid, but that could be coming, soon. The evidence is anecdotal. It's all event-driven. Anecdotes are not fallacies. Besides, in post #312 , you were all for anecdotal arguments, even going so far as to praise the method, thusly, "And the anecdotal arguments are effective too ...", before sharing one of your own! And, now you've descended into ad hominem attacks.

I don't even care. I've never said that I care whether I, or you, or anyone, ever gets ice cream from McDonald's. What I care about is that the manager lied about the reason for the policy, when there is nothing to support the given reason. The policy is not in place to protect cyclists in drive-thru lanes. The policy does not mitigate liability. The policy does not protect employees. The only thing the policy does is deny service to potential paying customers. I've never said that the policy is unfair. Do you even read my posts?

jefnvk

I'm sorry that I didn't understand that your knowledge dictates that if you are quoted, the response can only be about you.

As to why one would lie (not necessarily even lie, just give rationale that you refuse to accept), I have explained a few time: it is pointless to justify any decision to someone that will argue it anyways. Nor is justification even necessary, it is their business, even if the insurer does not require it, and they want to do it as a general safety measure it is completely their decision. In any case, I doubt any of us truly knows the terms of their policy to say they are indeed lying (as you just did). It is entirely conceivable that the policy that a McDonalds in one state holds varies drastically from an insurance policy that CVS holds across the country.

The evidence you present, once again, is limited and anecdotal. Please, show me a peer reviewed study that indicates that those completely contained in vehicles are more likely to be injured or killed in a drive thru lane. I won't hold my breath waiting for a source. I am not arguing that evidence shows there will be mass carnage as you reductio ad absurdum argue must exist if it is not in place, rather that any safety measures that a private company wishes to implement is within their rights to implement, and a decision I must respect if I wish to use their facility. There does not even need to be mass carnage, even one serious injury or death may give them more problems than they wish to deal with to accommodate some late nite cyclists.

As to nothing existing to support the policy, I, and quite a few other reasonable people here, have absolutely no problem seeing where safety issues could arise with bikes or pedestrians in a drive thru lane. If you choose to believe that no issue will never happen, nor that lawyers will not look to the deep pockets in a lawsuit when it does, that is certainly your prerogative. It is unlikely to be the reality that will play out, though.

In any case, before my tone turns more sour and I am the one that gets this thread locked, I am removing myself from the conversation. Good luck with however this continues.

mrchaotica

So you're trying to make an analogy that cyclists should be banned from using the drive-through lane because they can't reach the service window? That's silly; cyclists can reach it just fine. In that case, it would make more sense to ban Miatas, not Miyatas!

More to the point, the analogy fails for the same reason the "truck fuel pump" analogy did: it is not necessary in either case to prohibit (i.e., make a rule against) use of the facility because the physical impossibility of success will simply cause people to voluntarily choose not to use it. Cyclists are perfectly capable of (physically) using a drive-thru, so there's no reason why they shouldn't.

BlazingPedals

Make your argument to McDonalds, not us. If they buy it, you're in. Otherwise, your choice is to hire a big $$$ lawyer and challenge their policy in court, or go somewhere else. In any case, your fellow forum-ites are not going to be able to change the policy.

kevindsingleton 

You quoted me, but the comment was directed to someone else? Is that really how you think conversations work?

No, it was a lie. We've already covered this, back on page one.

The insurers were asked, and they didn't demand the policy. We covered this, back on page one. It's never been me that denied the evidence. Not even once. Your entire argument is based on conjecture; what you think might be the reason for the policy.

Sure. I'll get right on it. How would you like to pay for this research project? I've got a couple billable hours, already.

Yeah, I found at least two "serious injury or death" episodes involving motorists, with no other vehicles, not even bicycles, involved in either event. I found one "minor injury" (no deaths) involving cyclists. So, not even one example to support the need for the policy, but many that indicate that the reason for the policy is not to prevent injury or death (which the policy cannot, and does not, do), or even to mitigate liability (which, again, the policy does not do). The only function that the policy provides is to deny service to cyclists in the drive-thru.

So, you (and a few other reasonable people) imagined a reason for the policy. You're actually presenting "no problem seeing" as evidence, even though there is nothing to "see". I have to admit that I am not, at all, surprised.

I'm not sure which negative is extra, so I won't pretend to know what you meant. It's not a matter of what I "believe". I'm not operating on what I've dreamed about. I'm operating on the facts that I've been able to find, or that have been presented. Can someone be injured in a drive-thru lane? Certainly. I've even posted the links to the articles that prove it happens ...mostly to motorists, and rarely to cyclists. The policy cannot prevent that happening. It can only prevent cyclists being served in the drive-thru lane, but, in order for the policy to be invoked, the cyclist has to be in the drive-thru lane. You want absurdum? There's some absurdum.

Thanks! Best of luck, to you, as well!