jefnvk

The streets are not the restaurant's property, nor their responsibility.

My stance on this still hasn't changed. I've seen enough rear endings in drive thrus that I am not going to fault any chain from blocking bikes or pedestrians from using them. Any potential lawsuit would far outweigh the literal tens of cyclists they may end up serving a year. A cyclist crushed between the pickup truck behind it and the minivan in front of it is far more serious than a 3mph fender bender.

Don't your DQs have a walk up counter on the outside anyhow?

indyfabz

Can't believe one would think a corporation like McDonald's would adopt a policy that turned away tens of millions of dollars if they didn't think it was cost-effective in the long run. Just sayin'.

And do you even realize what $20M in revenue is? It would take 2.5M cyclist spending $8 a pop to generate that much revenue. Anyone think that's even close to realistic?

jfoobar

The no pedestrian policy (and its extension to cyclists) in restaurant drive-thrus is a combination of two concerns:

1. Concerns about pedestrian safety from cars, as many others have mentioned.
2. To reduce the risk of robbery.

It is quite common for robbers to enter otherwise locked restaurants through the drive-thru window. By only serving people in cars, especially at night, this risk is substantially mitigated as it is difficult for someone to exit a vehicle to get through the window. When I managed a fast food restaurant, our employees were instructed to immediate close and bolt the window if they saw a pedestrian approaching the window at night. The one time our store got robbed while I worked there? The guys game in through the drive-thru window. Fortunately, I was not there last night. Like many places, our drive-thru was open for some time after the lobby closed and this is when the robbery happened.

Obviously, this second reason is not particularly applicable to cyclists during daylight hours (or when the lobby is still open), but reason #1 still does. It is easier for a restaurant to just adopt a blanket policy that says no pedestrians in the drive-thru. I would suspect that the vast majority do have this policy, even if it is sometimes not enforced. I honestly don't blame them. Carry a lock with you and complain about the lack of a bike rack at the restaurant (if there isn't one). I know my restaurant didn't have one even though we were in a college town and students in bikes were all over the place.

Cyclist0108

Saved me the typing.

rumrunn6

are those any good? I've been tempted, but never tried one. I guess on a hot day, any ice cream, is good ice cream

kevindsingleton 

Yea! Another reply to the same post, two years later! Paying attention is sooooo overrated!

ph0rk

I'd just carry my bike inside. It's McDonald's, not a steak house.

Milton Keynes

It depends on if their ice cream machine has been cleaned out since the Clinton administration.

OldTryGuy

DQ has a great Strawberry Cheese Cake Blizzard that is better than McD's M&M McFlurry

EXACTOMUNDO x ∞ I always have a lock.

Sal Bandini

Easily in the top 5, especially after a night out drinking!

CliffordK

I wouldn't be surprised if the nationwide revenue adds up.

2.5 Million cyclists would be less than 1 in 100 Americans. If you toss in pedestrians, then I wouldn't be surprised if one hits greater than 1% of the population.

I haven't run into the policy a lot, as I don't stop at fast food restaurants that frequently, but I was turned away from Wendy's in Portland when I walked 1/2 mile from where I was staying to Wendy's. The lobby was closed, and drive-through open (but not very busy).

So, they expected me to walk back home, get my car, and drive back to the restaurant. Now that I am car-free, that wouldn't even be an option.

So, the policy really discourages all of the restaurant's local customers which are the most likely to be repeat customers. Some will come back later, some won't.

Part of the issue may be the Franchise nature of many businesses, so a potential lawsuit could go against the owner of a single restaurant, not the corporate headquarters. So, they'd be struggling a lot more.

Still, traffic accidents are usually the responsibility of the drivers involved. The only time property owners are involved is if some kind of gross negligence on the part of the property owner is proven.

I can't imagine that is to frequent, or that the amount robbed is that much. There is some danger to the employees, but that is also minimal if they cooperate.

It would be a whole lot easier to rob a convenience store.

Do they turn away convertibles or vehicles with sunroofs? Dukes of Hazard General Lee cars?

Risks of robberies would have to be evaluated on a facility by facility basis, and would likely be dependent on time and locale.

Risk of robbery, what about the customers? It is not uncommon for cyclists to have bikes stolen, parts of bikes stolen, safety equipment stolen, etc. So far, i've had nothing stolen out of my trailer, but it is probably a matter of time. It is much easier to track my property when it is in my possession.

wphamilton

I don't believe that either of these concerns are the reasons for the no pedestrian policy. It may be what you hear from the person at the window, or even some in management, but I think the person at the window doesn't know the reason any more than a random drive-through customer, and if the manager does know he's probably lying.

The reason for the policy is that cars have license plates, which make it easier to identify you in case you do rob the place, or drive-off without paying.

jefnvk

Pedestrians don't have a need to walk through a drive thru, unless the lobby is closed. Most fast food restaurants aren't in high pedestrian areas at 11pm, and those that are often have service windows for pedestrians. Most cyclists are going to simply lock their bike up and walk inside. It is kind of hard for me to pedal away carrying my chicken nuggets and fries and large diet coke anyhow. I agree that you vastly overestimate the sales being lost over this.

As far as liability, I can easily see a lawyer framing a civil suit on the basis that had they not allowed walkups, their client would have never been there to begin with, and/or that the restaurant didn't provide adequate safety for pedestrians in allowing such access.

Eh, you pay before getting food at any fast food place I've ever been to. They allow pedestrians during the day, with no license plate to identify them.

CherylH

indyfabz

Absolutely. In general terms, the patron is a licensee who is being invited onto the premises for the purpose of bestowing economic gain on the property owner/licensor. While laws vary by state, the property owner generally owes a greater duty of care to business patrons than, say, a homeowner does to a dinner guest.

jefnvk

Yep.

Not a motor vehicle, however, and not when dealing with what a private business owner does with their own property. Many fast food joints prohibit trucks with trailers going through the drive thru, and nearly every one near me has a canopy low enough that other street legal vehicles such as pickups with bed campers are likewise prohibited access.

jfoobar

Well, I was in management and those were the reasons for the policy, which was set by the franchise company that owned the restaurant I worked at (and about 25 others), not by the restaurant corporation itself.

More importantly, it is easier for robbers on foot to gain entry into the restaurant and to make a getaway without getting caught. You're basically agreeing with me here, whether you realize it or not. As for driving off without paying, no. You do not generally get your food until you have tendered payment in fast food drive-thrus.

01 CAt Man Do

There is of course an easy out for McD's in this type of situation. Of course I completely agree with the OP that the policy is stupid and antiquated. Likely a policy developed in the early 60's when only kids would try to ride up to the drive through windows. Legally any business can deny service to a customer for a variety of situations. The stipulation though is that the rule or policy has to apply to everyone. The rule denying bikes through a drive through is stupid. If I get run over while walking through the parking lot what's the difference? Are motorcycles allowed? Wouldn't the same principle apply for them as well?

Anyway, MCD's could fix this real easy if the only worry was an insurance risk. Since McD's now has an app for people with smart phones perhaps they could include a place where a person could sign off on a waiver stating that they would not sue McD's if hit by a car while on their bike. They give the person a pinn code which he gives at the menu kiosk and then everything's good to go.

Of course I agree with the first person that said to just bring the bike inside. Reminds me of a incident I had once while on a tour ride where I stopped at a little country town Mom & Pop convenience store to pick up a quick bite and to get a cold drink. With no bike racks or anything around I leaned my bike right next to the steps that went into the front door. Not a soul in the store other than me. In less than a minute I had my drink and snack and was at the counter with money in hand. Soon as I walked up the guy at the register asked me, " Is that your bike out there near the steps"?..I sheepishly replied, Yes, it is. The guy tells me, "You have to move your bike". I paused for a second than said once I pay I'll be out of harms way in less time than it takes to tie your shoes. That wasn't good enough. Guy refused to serve me till I moved my bike completely off the property. Since I had no lock with me at the time that meant I have to leave my bike down at the road unattended. I had no choice but to leave the stuff I wanted at the register. Rather than leave my bike unattended I just went ahead and left. You know that's how some people and some places are sometimes. We live in a world full of stupid rules and snarky people with nothing better to do but to make up stupid rules. And of course we all know that there are people who just hate cyclists for no in particular reason ( other than the fact that perhaps they are just natural born As*wipes.)

mtb_addict

I wonder if McD in the Netherland accept bicyclists in drive thru?

mtb_addict

I think the real reason for refuse service...is Mcd fear that most customer would spill their drinks and drop the food and demand replacement...most people cannot ride no-hands with a combo meal.

fietsbob

You have to get off the bike and go to city council meetings ,
to see if you can get this changed, thru legislation..
but being lazy that probably won't happen for you..

I hear in a high population of customer cyclists that speak up in numbers,
that can happen..

Total numbers count.





..

jefnvk

Or, you could just use their app and park your bikes in the mobile ordering pickup spot, if you are really insisting on finding a way to get McDonalds without leaving the saddle of your bike. Beyond that, it is such a minute number of people, why would they bother? Even on this site, the trend seems to be more in understanding/not caring than disagreement with the policy.

Regarding pedestrians, every fast food parking lot I have been to has very visible painted crosswalks for pedestrians, and signage alerting drivers to it, especially coming out of the drive thru. Now, we all know that pedestrians readily ignore all of that, but again my guess would be it is there to help limit liability. In an industry where franchise owners will count cups to make sure employees aren't giving away free drinks to friends, I'm guessing they aren't painting lines for the fun of it.

And yes, every once in a while I see complainants from motorcycles too. The big difference there is the classification of the motorcycle as a licensed motor vehicle, although I still question what one is doing with the food after they get through the drive thru

wphamilton

As far as I've seen, they put it in the window and wait for you to hand over money, ring it up and hand it over. It's sitting there, potentially to be grabbed and drive-off. In any event, most of those places that ban pedestrians ban them at all hours.

wphamilton

I've been owner and operator of restaurants also. I'm not sure why you raise that franchise vs corp point though, because franchises set their own policies other than certain contractual requirements that keep operations and quality more uniform. I don't see how that supports your two reasons for the policy, unless it's contractual - and the fact that it is NOT contractual in any franchise agreement that I've ever heard of is one of the reasons I highly doubt it.

If you mean that a given manager might have any reason for a given policy, no matter how nonfactual that reason may be, then that's possible.

No, I disagree strongly, and I do realize my reasons for it

rgconner

Man, so many posts in this thread you would think it was the dead of winter, not prime riding season.