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 05-18-16, 12:16 PM
  #76  
jefnvk
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,214

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3639 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by KD5NRH
That one actually makes sense in a lot of places, though; drive through lanes are usually narrow with one or more tight turns. Easy to do some damage navigating twice as much vehicle as they're designed for through there.
That, and I actually got rear ended while pulling an empty snowmobile trailer by someone taking a quick glance and thinking there was a bigger gap than there was between us

At the end of the day, drive thrus are set up for people in passenger vehicles, I'm really not too concerned if an establishment limits their business strictly to that type of vehicle.
jefnvk is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 12:31 PM
  #77  
kevindsingleton 
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
Cyclist assaulting someone through a drive thru window specifically? No. People being assaulted through a drive thru window? All the time. People out of cars can get much better access to the inside than people in vehicles. Simply type "drive thru window assault" into YouTube if you don't believe me.
Oh, I believe that people have assaulted fast food workers through the drive-thru window. I'm also willing to bet a small sum that, far and away, the vast majority of those who have done so are not "cyclists" by any definition on which we would both agree, and nearly every one of them started out in the drive-thru in their car.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
If your LBS operated a business built on serving customers in cars in a forced line, I'd agree there would be a similarity. Until McDonalds bans your bike from being in the parking lot, your analogy is faulty.
Not as faulty as the assertion that McD's would be allowed by the court to be named as a defendant in a lawsuit involving a drunk driver rear-ending me on my bike in the drive-thru lane.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
The goal is to eliminate foreseeable risk to injury on the premises. There is little danger of serious injury when two cars hit one another. There is much danger of serious injury when the person behind your bike's foot slips off the brake, and runs you into the back of the van in front of you.

And, as mentioned, there are plenty of good options besides what many of us can see as a potential safety issue. Unless you are deliberately being argumentative, there have been many good solutions listed that are perfectly acceptable to anyone being reasonable.
If the goal is to "eliminate foreseeable risk to injury on the premises", then banning bicycles in the drive-thru is a boondoggle. Far more injury and damage is done by motor vehicles. In fact, there is considerable danger of serious injury when two cars hit one another. I'm pretty sure you meant something else, when you said that. I have no idea what you mean by "your bike's foot". I'll keep trying to piece that together.

I haven't seen a single reason that bicycles should be banned from drive-thru service. There is much speculation, and ample conjecture, but precious little in the way of facts. I can't even find a single serious injury as a result of a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle in a drive-thru in my .06 seconds of searching on Google. I did find one article indicating that Salt Lake City passed an ordinance permitting bicycles in drive-thrus, and one involving a woman who dropped something out of her car window, opened the door to retrieve it, and subsequently released the brake, pinning herself between her car and the building, resulting in her death. That's just one car, no bicycles, and far worse than any car-bicycle accidents I was able to discover.

Just because someone disagrees with your position does not mean they are not being reasonable. Go ban something that needs to be banned. This ain't it.
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 01:03 PM
  #78  
BlazingPedals
Senior Member
 
BlazingPedals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle of da Mitten
Posts: 12,370

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: 1474 Post(s)
Liked 686 Times in 425 Posts
I could take several guesses as to why McDonalds would have a policy against bicycles in the drive-thru; but most likely it's "safety concerns" which of course is a catch-all that can't be proven either way. Bottom line: It's their property and they're allowed to set their own rules. Most banks have a no-bicycles-in-the-drive-thru policy, too.
BlazingPedals is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 01:31 PM
  #79  
jefnvk
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,214

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3639 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
Oh, I believe that people have assaulted fast food workers through the drive-thru window. I'm also willing to bet a small sum that, far and away, the vast majority of those who have done so are not "cyclists" by any definition on which we would both agree, and nearly every one of them started out in the drive-thru in their car.

Not as faulty as the assertion that McD's would be allowed by the court to be named as a defendant in a lawsuit involving a drunk driver rear-ending me on my bike in the drive-thru lane.

If the goal is to "eliminate foreseeable risk to injury on the premises", then banning bicycles in the drive-thru is a boondoggle. Far more injury and damage is done by motor vehicles. In fact, there is considerable danger of serious injury when two cars hit one another. I'm pretty sure you meant something else, when you said that. I have no idea what you mean by "your bike's foot". I'll keep trying to piece that together.

I haven't seen a single reason that bicycles should be banned from drive-thru service. There is much speculation, and ample conjecture, but precious little in the way of facts. I can't even find a single serious injury as a result of a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle in a drive-thru in my .06 seconds of searching on Google. I did find one article indicating that Salt Lake City passed an ordinance permitting bicycles in drive-thrus, and one involving a woman who dropped something out of her car window, opened the door to retrieve it, and subsequently released the brake, pinning herself between her car and the building, resulting in her death. That's just one car, no bicycles, and far worse than any car-bicycle accidents I was able to discover.

Just because someone disagrees with your position does not mean they are not being reasonable. Go ban something that needs to be banned. This ain't it.
Do you support people being able to walk through a drive thru? 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? 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?

Anyone can name anyone in any lawsuit. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Last edited by jefnvk; 05-18-16 at 01:38 PM.
jefnvk is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 02:09 PM
  #80  
indyfabz
Senior Member
 
indyfabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 36,696
Mentioned: 206 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16968 Post(s)
Liked 12,507 Times in 5,924 Posts
I change my mind. It's all part of a larger conspiracy on the part of bike-haters everywhere. They are taking away our freedoms! Grow your beards! Don your Birkenstocks! Organize protests! Start boycotts!

#bicyclefastfooddrivethrurightsmatter
indyfabz is online now  
Old 05-18-16, 02:11 PM
  #81  
italktocats
Senior Member
 
italktocats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
What happened to the idea that a bike is a legal vehicle?
"no"
italktocats is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 02:14 PM
  #82  
italktocats
Senior Member
 
italktocats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jefnvk
There is little danger of serious injury when two cars hit one another. There is much danger of serious injury when the person behind your bike's foot slips off the brake, and runs you into the back of the van in front of you..
so then ban cars, problem solved
italktocats is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 02:17 PM
  #83  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,616

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,279 Times in 869 Posts
Whiny Bicyclists Matter!
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 02:29 PM
  #84  
indyfabz
Senior Member
 
indyfabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 36,696
Mentioned: 206 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16968 Post(s)
Liked 12,507 Times in 5,924 Posts
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.

I admire your perseverance in the face of someone who will not (or cannot) logically comprehend and evaluate the issues involved and the decisions that are made. Just from a basic business premise, it would be counter-productive to enact arbitrary rules that might drive away a certain segment of business. Only a poor business person would do that. What drives the decision here is there are increased risks associated with allowing pedestrians and bicyclist to use drive-thru lanes. You cannot have a logical discussion with someone who will not (or cannot) accept that. Once you do accept it, it's easy to understand that the prohibition is not arbitrary but rather one based on a cost-benefit analysis. Avoiding the additional risk is worth more than the loss of what is certainly a small segment of business. Yes. They won't earn his $0.49 worth of business, but they won't have to spend substantially more defending a personal injury law suit should something happen.

I work in an industry that, because if its nature, presents appreciable safety risks. Every now and again we get requests by outsiders to film things like movies and music videos on our property. Our blanket response is "No." Even though we would get paid a license fee and have our costs reimbursed, we don't allow it because the reward is not worth the added risk of allowing third-parties on our property, no matter how tightly the release of liability is worded.
indyfabz is online now  
Old 05-18-16, 02:39 PM
  #85  
indyfabz
Senior Member
 
indyfabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 36,696
Mentioned: 206 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16968 Post(s)
Liked 12,507 Times in 5,924 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
What happened to the idea that a bike is a legal vehicle?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The business is located on private property. No one operating any "legal vehicle" has the right, legal or otherwise, to drive wherever he or she pleases on someone else's private property.

Some of you need to take off your "Any restrictions related to bikes are put in place because of hostility to cyclists!" hats and think through the issues with at least some depth.
indyfabz is online now  
Old 05-18-16, 02:41 PM
  #86  
jefnvk
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,214

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3639 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by italktocats
so then ban cars, problem solved
Except then the drive thru window becomes pointless, disappear, and the OP is still stuck either walking his bike in or carrying a lock
jefnvk is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 02:42 PM
  #87  
American Euchre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 569
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 242 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Maybelater
I was out riding tonight on my single speed and didn't plan on any stops so I left my lock at home. I rode by a McDonalds and thought a ice cream would be nice. I couldn't risk leaving my bike unattended so I tried to order at the drive up speaker. I was refused service because my bike is not considered a motor vehicle. I explained that I couldn't leave my bike outside without a lock. They didn't care so I spoke to their manager and got the same answer. Apparently they don't like ride up customers or grumpy old men on bikes. I suggested they don't want my business and was told they don't want my business. So much for that relaxing ride. Am I being hypersensitive or is their corporate policy a few fries short of a happy meal?
American Euchre is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 02:44 PM
  #88  
jefnvk
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,214

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3639 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by indyfabz
I admire your perseverance in the face of someone who will not (or cannot) logically comprehend and evaluate the issues involved and the decisions that are made.
I leave on vacation Friday, most of my work on my desk is finished up, I'm just sitting around biding my time and rather bored

Everything you said is spot on, though, and spoken more articulately than I could have stated it.
jefnvk is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 02:53 PM
  #89  
kevindsingleton 
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
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?
kevindsingleton is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 03:10 PM
  #90  
jefnvk
Senior Member
 
jefnvk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,214

Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama

Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3639 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by kevindsingleton
Yes. Well, "through a drive-thru lane".

I didn't say I am (although, I am).

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.

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.

As you wish.

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?

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.

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?
You admitted pedestrians and others have caused incidents at drive thru windows, and then went on to say they were not cyclists. The implication I read out of that is that cyclists are better than others, and therefore should be allowed special privileges.

It doesn't have to be "mass carnage". It only has to be a single incident. I have no idea where you get the idea that if someone is injured on your property, the courts will not hold you liable. I've had to hold $100k in personal liability on the past three apartments I've lived in, specifically in case someone injures themselves in the property I control. Here is one case in which a jury awarded $27M against McDonalds for a beating that happened on their property: Jury Awards $27 Million In McDonald?s Lawsuit Over Teens? Deaths

I've worked retail. As much as customers think they are right, and there is no argument otherwise, generally they are not. Most times, it is just easier to let them think they are right and bow to them, but that is not an absolute mandate to give them free reign of rules. As to why it is easier to lie and just say it is insurance, simply look at the effort you are putting forth to argue a rule that the majority of people can understand and follow, and imagine someone doing that at the restaurant.

If you're not arguing the rules need changed, I don't really understand the point of any of what you said.
jefnvk is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 03:33 PM
  #91  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 8,050

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 291 Times in 254 Posts
Originally Posted by blue192
Hmmm don't think a single drive thru in my area allows bicyclists not just a Macdonald's thing. Even horseback riders cannot go through drive thru.
That does lend itself to unsavory metaphors that wouldn't be covered here...
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 03:36 PM
  #92  
scott967
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Oahu, HI
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 89 Paramount OS 84 Fuji Touring Series III New! 2013 Focus Izalco Ergoride

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 279 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 63 Times in 47 Posts
I liked the days when you just walked up to the window and got your 15 cent burger. I used to pull my front wheel and carry inside to an ice cream joint in Annapolis when I lived there.

scott s.
.
scott967 is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 03:39 PM
  #93  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 8,050

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 291 Times in 254 Posts
PS The reason is that you could hold the drive-thru up, rob them and get away with a lot less identification than a car with LICENSE PLATES and makes that are readily recognizable.

It's a security issue as well as safety.

If you cannot see your bike while ordering, get a lock.

Source: a friend that worked for Jack In The Box and let me because it was past 10 pm and nobody was coming through.

And please, no comments about McD's food, you make the same stuff just as badly or unhealthily as you suspect they do, and nobody survives World 1-1.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 03:51 PM
  #94  
KD5NRH
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697

Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Rollfast
PS The reason is that you could hold the drive-thru up, rob them and get away with a lot less identification than a car with LICENSE PLATES and makes that are readily recognizable.
I used to sit and listen to the dispatch every work night, and while I heard a lot of calls coming from drive-thrus about driveoffs, counterfeit bills and DUI drivers, not one of them was ever able to provide a license plate. If the car doesn't cooperatively pull up and stop in one of the pull-up-and-wait spots, they won't be able to read the plate. They were doing well to get a color half the time.
KD5NRH is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 04:13 PM
  #95  
mccorpsman
Junior Member
 
mccorpsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gear64
I think taking the bike inside is a bad idea. It's a restaurant, not a bike park.
Restaurant? McDonalds? I would have shouldered. One bike farkle I love are frame locks. Saw them for the first time on a trip to Amsterdam in 1981. They won't keep thieves away for more than a couple minutes, but they will help the honest stay that way and you'll never be without a lock.
mccorpsman is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 04:31 PM
  #96  
Wittyname
Some Guy on the Road
 
Wittyname's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: 614
Posts: 423

Bikes: Foundry Chilkoot, Trek Domane

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
I've taken my bike inside with me (and a friend with his!) to eat/pit stop and McDonalds before, no biggie. They don't want a bike in the drivethru, no worries, don't go through the drivethru. They can set their own rules if they want
Wittyname is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 04:45 PM
  #97  
Juan Foote
LBKA (formerly punkncat)
 
Juan Foote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jawja
Posts: 4,255

Bikes: Spec Roubaix SL4, GT Traffic 1.0

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2137 Post(s)
Liked 910 Times in 649 Posts
They did you a favor. Don't eat that ****.
Juan Foote is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 04:55 PM
  #98  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,531
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17526 Post(s)
Liked 4,142 Times in 3,079 Posts
On a recent bike tour, I stopped at a convenience store. One of the customers held the door open... so I thought that was a good idea so I rolled in

But, as far as drive-through windows. As long as they are willing to serve the cyclist... somewhere... I'm not too concerned, although it can be annoying, and I'm not sure what I would do with a refusal of service.

I was in Portland a while ago... quite some time ago... working on my house. Then decided to walk down to the local Wendy's for a hamburger. The lobby closed early, and they only had drive-up service. No choice to go inside. So I walked up to the drive-up window, and they refused to serve me without a car. I wasn't going to walk home to get the car to drive back down to the Wendy's drive-through.

That was the last time I went to that restaurant, day or evening, until it went out of business. I would hate to think a policy that would specifically exclude their local customers would be good for business.
CliffordK is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 05:03 PM
  #99  
smarkinson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,003
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 7 Posts
Are bicycle's allowed through Drive Thru's?
McDonald's didn't serve me because I was on a bicycle ! You say it's because of health and safety issues but the drive through was empty and I served when me and a few friends pretended to be a transformer. So why then was I not served when I was on a bicycle ? The person didn't even give me a good reason just just said she can't serve me!

McDonald’s supports the health and environmental benefits of cycling, however it is our practice not to serve cyclists using the drive-thru lane or drive-thru service windows. The drive-thru facility is designed for motor vehicles and, on balance, we are concerned that use by cyclists could compromise their safety through: • the necessarily close proximity with motor vehicles; • the limited visibility of cycles (particularly given the sharp corners of the drive thru lane); and • the difficulties of carrying food and drinks and retaining full control of a bicycle. In reaching this view we have consulted with our own Hygiene and Safety Department, the Highway Code, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA).

From: Are bicycle's allowed through Drive Thru's? :: McDonalds.co.uk
smarkinson is offline  
Old 05-18-16, 05:05 PM
  #100  
1989Pre
Standard Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brunswick, Maine
Posts: 3,666

Bikes: 1948 P. Barnard & Son, 1962 Rudge Sports, 1963 Freddie Grubb Routier, 1980 Manufrance Hirondelle, 1983 F. Moser Sprint, 1989 Raleigh Technium Pre, 2001 Raleigh M80

Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1070 Post(s)
Liked 491 Times in 263 Posts
Some people are nice. Some aren't. It is worth going through the weeds to get to the flowers. In a world where we treat eachother like human beings, you get your sundae. Just take it in perspective and appreciate the nice folks that you meet.
1989Pre is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.