Rant -- "Bank Drive-thru is for motorized vehicles only!"

[VeloVT]

So, on my way to run other errands this afternoon, I stopped by the bank to make a deposit. Of course, I went through the drivethrough. There was only one other car (there are two tellers), and no lines. They took forever to process my order, which I couldn't understand, given how few customers were there... until the teller said, through the PA, "Liza, next time you come, you're going to have to use the lobby." I said "what?" and she said, "you can't bring your bike in the drivethrough." Of course, I am terrible at coming up with a quick reply that is at all articulate or convincing when I'm flustered, so I said, "but that doesn't make any sense!". Another woman comes over and says, "i'll explain. you can't take your bike through the drivethrough." Thanks, that was a much better explanation, I didn't get that before!!! I said nothing but looked indignant, and she said, "the drivethrough is for motorized vehicles only." I didn't feel like arguing and also didn't think it was a battle that would be won talking over the speaker system, so I just said "OK" and left.

But seriously, I tried to think through the rationale for this policy and I really can't come up with a good argument why bikes shouldn't be permitted.
--I am no slower than a car would be in the drivethrough.
--I can hold a line and follow traffic rules just as well as a car can.
--I am just as visible to other cars as a car would be, in that setting.
--Like cars, I entered via traffic and will exit via traffic. They only offer this service to cars because it is more convenient not to have to find a parking spot and get out of the car -- but hey, if I'm on a bike, why don't I deserve the same convenience? Like cars, I was on my way to run other errands, so I wanted to be as efficient as possible.

Has this happened to anyone else? Has anyone heard a plausible argument for it? I am not denying that there could be a plausible argument, but they didn't give me one and I'm having a hard time coming up with one.

I am partly tempted to write the bank a letter explaining in a more articulate fashion why I think they should reconsider this policy, but I probably won't because I imagine it will be discounted as some crazy rant.

Arrghhh. It miffed me.

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

Next time, bring your bike into the bank with you and see what they say then.

Do they provide bike racks in a safe location at the bank?

[soprano]

I've used the drive-thru at my credit union many a time. The tellers seem to think that it's great. I will say, however, that I dislike standing in the fumes generated by the idling motorists.

Under the law, a cyclist has the same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle. One would think that would be good enough for the bank.

[dex]

Under the law, a cyclist has the same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle. One would think that would be good enough for the bank.

Keep in mind that a bank (or any business) is generally located on private property. And it's quite likely that their insurance policy only covers motorized vehicles in the drive-through.

[maillotpois]

I bet Dex is completely right. liability/insurance issue. you'd be surprised at the sort of claims that arise in drive throughs - we've seen some. crazy. a bike does "seem" more vulnerable than a car in that sort of setting, and I bet they've got an exclusion in their insurance policy.

[KBIKES]

I used the drivethrough on my bike at a bank numerous times before they said I couldn't do that. Just said I couldn't. This branch had a way of making it's own rules outside the parent corporate "rules". They said the Comptroller was in charge of liability. He basically said there was no insurance issue but couldn't understand the concept of riding a bike on a road of all places! Left that bank. The branch manager was fired and the bank no longer exists.

[alpinerabbit]

Next time, bring your bike into the bank with you and see what they say then.

+1, and if they won't let you, insist on talking to the manager.

Maybe they wouldn't want other drivers to complain about you - but since there were none - what the heck.

[dex]

I'm guessing they see it as a liability issue. If they allow mixed traffic in the drive-through lanes, and someone gets hit, they could be sued.

At least, this is the reason often cited by fast food restaurants who won't allow walk-ups or bicycles in their drive-throughs.