Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

I was Refused Service at McDonalds

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

I was Refused Service at McDonalds

Old 06-06-16, 03:34 PM
  #301  
Senior Member
 
Murray Missile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: 700 Ft. above sea level.
Posts: 3,234

Bikes: More than there were awhile ago.

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 629 Post(s)
Liked 1,255 Times in 600 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Maybe Amazon or Uber can offer a new service to purchase and deliver ice cream and fast food to whiny cry babies who don't want to carry a bike lock or get late night munchies and don't have access to their own car.
They could use one of those old 3 wheel bike ice cream carts Good Humor used to have.
__________________
".....distasteful and easily triggered."
Murray Missile is offline  
Old 06-06-16, 07:07 PM
  #302  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,820

Bikes: 1996 Trek 970 ZX Single Track 2x11

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 614 Post(s)
Liked 564 Times in 428 Posts
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
We're not talking about people who are not in the drive-thru lane on bicycles. We're talking about people who are in the drive-thru lane on bicycles. The policy doesn't prevent someone riding their bike in the lane. It only prevents them being served.
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.

More people have been injured, or killed, while in, or getting in (or out) of motor vehicles in drive-thru lanes than people on bicycles (according to my limited research). The facts indicate that drivers and passengers of motor vehicles are being injured, or killed, but cyclists are not. If risk were the motivating factor, then the policy should prohibit motor vehicles, not cyclists.
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.)
Clyde1820 is offline  
Old 06-06-16, 09:44 PM
  #303  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Miele Man
1st of all those service stations with trucks only lanes are not ficticious!

2nd McDonald's does have bcyclist/pedestrian service and you get to it by going inside. If you're a bicyclist you lock your bike up outside.

3rd if you can't realize that McDonald's and other fast food places have a right to refuse service to non-motorized customers or motorcyclists at the stores drive-thru for anty reson then it's you that has a problem not the store.

Gads! there are 12 pages and 281 posts at this time about this. Many of you sound like a bunch of whiny kids when they don't get their way. Bicyclist not being served in drive-thru lanes is common fastfood company policy. Get over it. I'm done with this thread.

Cheers

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?
Attached Images

Last edited by ModeratedUser; 06-06-16 at 10:24 PM.
ModeratedUser is offline  
Old 06-06-16, 09:49 PM
  #304  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bakes1
I am sure they understood that over the course of many years a handful of outraged bike weenies that don't understand the concept of a lock would get their spandex superhero costumes in a bunch over it and they just don't care...
I feel sorry for anyone that cannot understand that.
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 is offline  
Old 06-06-16, 10:06 PM
  #305  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
Go ahead and post the company policy. I haven't found it. From the evidence, it's far more likely left to the stores to determine.
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 is offline  
Old 06-06-16, 10:22 PM
  #306  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Clyde1820
(Not all that different from keeping non-motorized vehicles off highways, for all the obvious reasons.)
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
ModeratedUser is offline  
Old 06-06-16, 10:45 PM
  #307  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Clyde1820
(Not all that different from keeping non-motorized vehicles off highways, for all the obvious reasons.)

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.
prathmann is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 06:49 AM
  #308  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.)
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 is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 06:52 AM
  #309  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by User1
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.
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.
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 07:12 AM
  #310  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by User1
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?
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!)
mrchaotica is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 07:22 AM
  #311  
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,207

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3640 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
jefnvk is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 07:24 AM
  #312  
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
Originally Posted by User1
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! ....
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.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 11:34 AM
  #313  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
In the years I've been doing it, zero! Not sure how many medicated seniors I was in front of either.
ModeratedUser is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 11:41 AM
  #314  
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
Originally Posted by User1
In the years I've been doing it, zero! Not sure how many medicated seniors I was in front of either.
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.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 11:51 AM
  #315  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
ModeratedUser is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 12:23 PM
  #316  
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,207

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3640 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
So, how many drive-thru cycling injuries and deaths have you experienced while getting your prescriptions? Just for the record.
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.

Last edited by jefnvk; 06-07-16 at 12:31 PM.
jefnvk is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 12:52 PM
  #317  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jefnvk
How many injuries and deaths have been prevented by requiring me to wear a shirt and shoes in McDonald's lobby?
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

Last edited by kevindsingleton; 06-07-16 at 12:55 PM. Reason: Forum software doesn't like Latin
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 12:54 PM
  #318  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jefnvk
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.
That wasn't me. You shouldn't be having trouble keeping up. Didn't you just return from vacation?
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 12:56 PM
  #319  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by User1
In the years I've been doing it, zero! Not sure how many medicated seniors I was in front of either.
You must be wrong. You had to have died, at least a few times. There is no policy to protect you!
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 01:02 PM
  #320  
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,207

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3640 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
That wasn't me. You shouldn't be having trouble keeping up. Didn't you just return from vacation?
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?
jefnvk is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 01:24 PM
  #321  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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?
You quoted me, and only me, dood.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
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.
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.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
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?
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?
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 01:42 PM
  #322  
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,207

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3640 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
jefnvk is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 02:01 PM
  #323  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jefnvk
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.
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.
mrchaotica is offline  
Old 06-07-16, 02:16 PM
  #324  
Senior Member
 
BlazingPedals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle of da Mitten
Posts: 12,482

Bikes: Trek 7500, RANS V-Rex, Optima Baron, Velokraft NoCom, M-5 Carbon Highracer, Catrike Speed

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1513 Post(s)
Liked 734 Times in 455 Posts
Originally Posted by mrchaotica
Cyclists are perfectly capable of (physically) using a drive-thru, so there's no reason why they shouldn't.
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.
BlazingPedals is online now  
Old 06-07-16, 02:28 PM
  #325  
Don't make me sing!
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,022

Bikes: 2013 Specialized Crosstrail Elite, 1986 Centurion Elite RS, Diamondback hardtail MTB, '70s Fuji Special Road Racer, 2012 Raleigh Revenio 2.0, 1992 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 308 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
You quoted me, but the comment was directed to someone else? Is that really how you think conversations work?

Originally Posted by jefnvk
As to why one would lie (not necessarily even lie, just give rationale that you refuse to accept),
No, it was a lie. We've already covered this, back on page one.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
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 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.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
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.
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.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
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.
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.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
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.
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.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
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.
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.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
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.
Thanks! Best of luck, to you, as well!
kevindsingleton is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.