Originally posted by: SearchMaster
I can't believe nobody has commented on her interview:
I'm madder'n' fish grease!
You can try and butter me all you want to...
I was reading through the comments and someone nailed it on the head. If the lady was in the drive-thru and got hit by a car, you can bet she's going to be running to a lawyer to sue for fast food restaurants lack of safety in the drive-thru.Originally posted by: SearchMaster
I can't believe nobody has commented on her interview:
I'm madder'n' fish grease!
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Originally posted by: SearchMaster
I can't believe nobody has commented on her interview:
I'm madder'n' fish grease!
You can try and butter me all you want to...
*shudder*
DO NOT WANT
Originally posted by: trmiv
What I don't get about the safety argument of why people and bike's can't be in the drive-through is that I've seen many many drive-throughs where the only walkway that leads to the entrance to the restaurant cuts right through the drive-through lane. That alone puts pedestrians straight in the path of the cars, yet the restaurants don't have any issues with that. There are about three places near my work like this.
Originally posted by: sactoking
That's because the "safety argument" as it appears here is completely fallacious. Policies of refusing to serve pedestrians and bicyclists at drive-up windows do NOT exist to protect customers. They exist to protect EMPLOYEES from robbery, and thus protect the businesses themselves from the resultant employee-filed lawsuits for hazardous working conditions.
Businesses would only institute these policies to protect customers if they were also liable should the customer get injured. Since any sort of accident like those described here is between two private parties (the striker and the struck) there would need to be some sort of way to tie the business in jointly and severally, which to my knowledge does not exist generally.
Originally posted by: alevasseur14
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
That is because cyclists and people in mobility scooters always have right of way and are always right!
Naturally, it depends on where you live but in Minnesota, bicycles (pretty sure mobility scooters are not allowed on the street) are allowed a full lane and other vehicles are required by law to give three feet of space when passing. Statute 222.21. Obviously, bikes are supposed to obey other traffic laws as well but that's not always how it goes - then again, show me a car driver that doesn't speed and always signals...
So yeah, when I yell "three feet!" at you. I AM right.
Minn. Stat. §169.18 Driving rules.
(3) the operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle or individual proceeding in the same direction on the roadway shall leave a safe distance, but in no case less than three feet clearance, when passing the bicycle or individual and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or individual.
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Originally posted by: lxskllr
It's a bunch of fuckin' semantics. The scooter's an automobile in every sense of the word. The safety argument's specious also. They might as well have a policy of "No colored served between dusk and dawn" since their dark skin's harder to see, and they could get hit in the parking lot :^S
Their dark skins make their cars harder to see? What is this magic?
Unless you are just being racist and suggesting that coloured people are too stupid to turn on their vehicles lights :|
Oh so when you go to a walk in restaurant you just teleport from your car to the order counter? That's a cool trick, and I'd appreciate you telling me how to do that.
Oh, sure, I tell you, you tell somebody else, and next thing you know, the economy is in shambles, and it's not safe to disrobe anywhere!
Originally posted by: CZroe
Originally posted by: SearchMaster
I can't believe nobody has commented on her interview:
I'm madder'n' fish grease!
What? I use fish grease as a benchmark for comparing levels of anger all the time! You can't really argue... fish grease is some pretty angry grease.
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Originally posted by: alevasseur14
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
That is because cyclists and people in mobility scooters always have right of way and are always right!
Naturally, it depends on where you live but in Minnesota, bicycles (pretty sure mobility scooters are not allowed on the street) are allowed a full lane and other vehicles are required by law to give three feet of space when passing. Statute 222.21. Obviously, bikes are supposed to obey other traffic laws as well but that's not always how it goes - then again, show me a car driver that doesn't speed and always signals...
So yeah, when I yell "three feet!" at you. I AM right.
The means something.
The reply references a douche in a youtube video
Minn. Stat. §169.18 Driving rules.
(3) the operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle or individual proceeding in the same direction on the roadway shall leave a safe distance, but in no case less than three feet clearance, when passing the bicycle or individual and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or individual.
Is it not statute 169.18? 222.21 is the Agrement on control of property...
I tend to be courteous where possible and give the cyclist a whole lane when overtaking.
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Originally posted by: lxskllr
It's a bunch of fuckin' semantics. The scooter's an automobile in every sense of the word. The safety argument's specious also. They might as well have a policy of "No colored served between dusk and dawn" since their dark skin's harder to see, and they could get hit in the parking lot :^S
Their dark skins make their cars harder to see? What is this magic?
Unless you are just being racist and suggesting that coloured people are too stupid to turn on their vehicles lights :|
Oh so when you go to a walk in restaurant you just teleport from your car to the order counter? That's a cool trick, and I'd appreciate you telling me how to do that.
Read the thread at all?
Well... when I drive into a drive through I don't need to walk into the restaurant, and I certainly don't walk into restaurants which are closed...
So now you are saying black people walk into closed restaurants in the middle of the night eh?
Racist :|
I'm starting to think you're retarded.
*PEDESTRIANS* have to *GET OUT OF THE CAR TO GO IN THE RESTAURANT*.
Restaurants are open after dark.
If you haven't connected the dots yet, I'll help you out. Somebody getting out of their car to go in the restaurant after dark is less likely to be seen *ESPECIALLY SOMEONE WITH DARK SKIN*.
If it's a safety concern, they won't serve people with dark skin at dark O'clock.
Originally posted by: alevasseur14
Heh, I guess my joke detector is broken today!
For some reason I have 222.21 stuck in my head. Maybe that's a city ordinance? I can't remember. I should have looked it up!
And thanks for the lane, we appreciate it!
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Nice straw man.
Originally posted by: her209
I was reading through the comments and someone nailed it on the head. If the lady was in the drive-thru and got hit by a car, you can bet she's going to be running to a lawyer to sue for fast food restaurants lack of safety in the drive-thru.Originally posted by: SearchMaster
I can't believe nobody has commented on her interview:
I'm madder'n' fish grease!
EDIT: Also, when did it become a right to get a burger at midnight?
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Originally posted by: Caecus Veritas
i got served in rollerblades once at mcdonalds drive-thru... twas pretty cool.
Haha that is cool.
Personally I don't really see the big deal. It's like walking up to a chip stand and ordering poutine. But guess it's the whole safety / lawsuit thing. It's stupid. Lawsuits seriously need to be put to sleep. Companies go to extremes because if they don't something can happen and they can get sued. For example if someone was with their bike at the drive thru and the car ahead accidentally hit the gas, then they could sue the restaurant. It's stupid. How is it the restaurant's fault that someone else did a mistake on their properly.
One of my coworkers said he once went in a drive thru in reverse. That must of been hilarious for the people serving. not something you see every day.
as much as you say this, I am sure if you or someone you knew was on a bike and got hit in a drive through....a lawyer would be contacted.
Originally posted by: her209
When did it become a right to get a burger at midnight?
Originally posted by: gwlam12
Do you guys really want people and cars in the drive thru lane? What is to stop a hoard of people cutting in front of you? It'd be a mess. I hope nobody chooses to represent this lady.
Originally posted by: Xanis
Originally posted by: gwlam12
Do you guys really want people and cars in the drive thru lane? What is to stop a hoard of people cutting in front of you? It'd be a mess. I hope nobody chooses to represent this lady.
Why did you feel the need to bump this thread? It's almost 3 months old.
Originally posted by: JDawg1536
Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Well I know in Illinois, a electric wheelchair is not considered a vehicle but a tool. The drive through is used for vehicles. She should have found a way to get inside if she wanted the food.
Yeah, but is it really that hard to just serve the lady?
Originally posted by: JS80
"Only in America" :roll:
at least it's not eastern europe where they show up in a donkey