Originally Posted by bakes1

It is painfully obvious that bicycles do not belong in drive thrus.

Originally Posted by Gweedo1

I don't know that it's fair to say that policy does absolutely nothing to help keep workers safe. My guess is it was a response to incidents that happened, and like so many if not all safety polices, it's as much about harm reduction as harm elimination.

I can see where a drive through worker could be kept safer, say for example at all night drive through, when a crack head or some other wasted low life walks up to a window at 3 in the morning demanding service and who's intentions may not have been robbery or assault, but then at some point into the transaction, things change for the worse, due to the effects of the drugs/alcohol, what have you. "What do you mean i can't get fries with that!!!...F you!!!" etc and so on, all the BS of stoned/wasted people who can turn into animals at the drop of a hat plus the lack of respect so many, too many, people have for front line workers at fast food joints, thinking they can be treated with disrespect.

So what if a few disgruntled customers don't get served and then vent their indignation on the internet because that policy is extended to all who walk up to a drive through window, including, heaven forbid, cyclists...as though we are somehow superior?

Better to have a safety policy in place to help keep workers safer than make an extra 10.00 a week. And customers shouldn't be dicks about it IMO because we all live in a world where we don't always get what we want. So really, what's the big deal?

Originally Posted by oldnslow2

The manager should of offered to bring one to you at the front door.

Originally Posted by kevindsingleton

Based on what actual facts?

Originally Posted by PepeM

They did you a favor. Go to a better place.

Originally Posted by kevindsingleton

The policy doesn't prevent any of this happening. It only prevents actual customers transacting with the business.

Criminals don't obey rules. See Chapter 1, "Crime for Dummies".

Originally Posted by Hypno Toad

I can see this point at the McDonalds drive thru, but what about banks? Many have the same policy and there is no threat of robbery at the drive up windows. Also, there are a number of fast food places that are the opposite, they encourage walk up orders (Dairy Queen, Sonic, ...). I don't do any fast food*, so it's all speculation for me.

* Truth be told, I do get one egg mcmuffin every year. The crew I ride the "Royal" Benjamin with, they like to stop at McDonalds right before the start of the Westside Dirty Benjamin. We leave our bikes outside a suburban McDonalds while we get our fast food to fuel 100 miles of gravel grinding.

Originally Posted by bakes1

Other than the signs at every drive through that state motor vehicles(generally meaning cars)only?
How about the fact that almost all drive thru lanes are very tight and bumper to bumper when busy.
Do you have any idea how many insurance claims involve rear end accidents in drive thrus?
Is that where you want to be on a bike?
Do you choose to take the lane on a road or highway in bumper to bumper traffic when it can be avoided?
I wonder...
Thanks for proving the second point in my post that you quoted cowboy

Originally Posted by Gweedo1

No, that statement is wrong. The policy does not stop people in cars from conducting business, and does work as a deterrent to help keep workers safe, simply by not serving anybody who is more likely to reach in an grab a worker, or climb through the window, as opposed to being behind a door of a car. You can argue all you want with that reality, if you like, but it's true: the policy does not do nothing to keep workers safer.

Originally Posted by Gweedo1

And, criminals are not the only ones who don't follow both written and unwritten rules/laws. They got caught at some point, and that's what makes them different from most others. Most rule/law breakers don't or haven't yet been caught and convicted and can't be called criminals in an official way, but criminality is a potential in all of us. I slipped through a red light on my bicycle the other day. Broke the rules...oh my!

Originally Posted by kevindsingleton

If you operate on the facts, instead of the emotions, you are completely correct.

Originally Posted by jefnvk

The very simplest of which is that if someone is injured on your property, you can and very often are held liable, and even without getting into more security concerns, that alone is enough to put forth a rather reasonable restriction.

Originally Posted by kevindsingleton

The facts do not support this position.

Regardless, why lie? And, for those of you who are defending McDonald's (!), why condone lying?

Originally Posted by BlazingPedals

Their property, their right to set their policy. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere, don't preach to us here about what they SHOULD do or why their policy should be different.

Originally Posted by kevindsingleton

That's entirely wrong. Google "public accommodation".

Nobody's preaching. Just asking the question: why lie? The facts don't bear out the devastating risks that are being proffered as the reason for the policy, which might be perfectly reasonable, if there were even a few examples to support the position.

Regardless, though, why lie?

Originally Posted by jefnvk

Other than that link I gave you yesterday that supports me, and an entire insurance industry built around offering protection in the case someone injures themselves on your property that exists for a reason.

Originally Posted by jefnvk

Why lie, indeed?

Originally Posted by jefnvk

Did you google it?

Originally Posted by jefnvk

Last I checked, cyclists were not a protected group with the full right to use the drive thru on their bicycle.

Originally Posted by jefnvk

Why do you refuse to consider that maybe there aren't the devastating results because the policy is in place?

Originally Posted by kevindsingleton

Yeah, I can't think of a reason, either.

Originally Posted by mconlonx

It's a convenient cop-out excuse foisted on worker-bees by a franchise owner who might be mistaken in their beliefs or intentionally spreading a lie for completely unrelated reasons.

Arguing with either the person at the window or even the manager on site is probably a waste of breath and a doosh move -- they are not the decision makers, they are probably only relaying what they have been told, and are completely unable to form or communicate a counter argument other than asserting that it is policy. They are merely telling you what they have been told to say, regarding the matter.

Could be that it's less about the safety of cyclists than it is about some rowdy crews of BMX miscreants who made life miserable for some outlet or other. And rather than something billed as a family restaurant coming out and saying, no bikes in the takeout lane because your kids suck, they turn it around and make it about cyclists safety. Could be any number of other reasons than safety, but that's their marketing line for their rule.

It doesn't matter why, there's no forum where anyone will care (other than here) about the issue, so you get a rote line and are moved along.

Arguing with the window attendant or the manager at hand will not give you the satisfaction you are looking for, and only make their day a bit more miserable than working for peanuts at McDs already is.

Originally Posted by kevindsingleton

The link about the lawsuit against McDonald's that had nothing to do with lawful activity in the drive-thru lane? That doesn't support the position that bicycles in the drive-thru lane are in any more danger than any other location where you might ride a bike. It does support the position that property owners can be named in a lawsuit, and that juries can find for the plaintiff. That's happened, before, and it wasn't relevant, then, either. Have you read anything about the appeal? Probably shouldn't.

Originally Posted by kevindsingleton

I didn't say they are. I said that the statement, "Their property, their right to set their policy." is wrong.

Originally Posted by jefnvk

Did you google it?

" (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. "

Last I checked, cyclists were not a protected group with the full right to use the drive thru on their bicycle.

Why do you refuse to consider that maybe there aren't the devastating results because the policy is in place?

Originally Posted by canklecat

Choose another restaurant. McDonald's sucks anyway, and in every way. Worst major chain fast food joint and they don't deserve anyone's business because they don't even try to give half a damn.

Originally Posted by BlazingPedals

Their property, their right to set their policy. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere, don't preach to us here about what they SHOULD do or why their policy should be different.

Originally Posted by jefnvk

The link that something McDonalds had nothing to do with resulted in them still being ruled against, because it happened on their property when they had reasonable suspicion that an action they were taking (or in this case, not taking) resulted in a dangerous situation? I read that it went through at least one round of appeals, and was upheld. If you care to provide a link that it was thrown out at a later point, I'm all ears. Even if it were (which, I have not found any proof that it was), it was still years and likely hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation.

Originally Posted by jefnvk

In any case, I'm glad to see you have changed your belief that one cannot be held liable for something that happens on their property.

Originally Posted by jefnvk

And completely irrelevant to the argument, because when it is not a protected class or illegal reason, "Their property, their rights" is correct.