Turned away at Walgreens Drive-thru Pharmacy

I stopped by the Walgreen's Pharmacy at Western, Milwaukee and Armitage on my way home from work today to pick up a prescription. I decided to go through the drive-thru, because the process of taking off and putting on my gloves, goggles, balaclavas, and helmet, then taking my lock out of my paniers, locking up my bike, followed by removing and carrying both of my panniers into Walgreens, for a quick pickup seemed asinine. I waited for about five minutes and the car in front of me stuck his head of the window to tell me that the cashier wanted asked him to let me know that they can not help bicyclists. So I went home. I called and spoke with the pharmacists who said that it is a safety issue, because another car can pull up, not see the cyclist and hit them. She apologized and stated that in this weather they should certainly make exceptions.

Regardless to the weather outside, I think its unfair that cyclists can not use the drive-thru. Anyone have similar experience or know of a place that has good drive-thru bicycle service?

Views: 9433

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Fiasco on January 8, 2014 at 4:30am

When you hear "insurance issue" the message is really "litigation issue".  Since the pharmacy or bank drive thru is on private property, the business can be liable for any injury that occurs there.  A slip and fall inside the store will result in a medical settlement.  A ped or biker being hit by a car in their parking lot will result in a medical settlement.

With all due respect to the cycling and PI attorneys, we're familiar with the default position that "the store didn't do enough to ensure the safety" of the public.   If a cyclist is hit in a drive thru, any number of the attorneys on this forum would get as much as they can for their client, and maybe use the "didn't do enough" position.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 8, 2014 at 5:04am

It's too bad that we live in such a car-centric culture where an automobile driver who strikes a pedestrian or bicyclist (whether on the public street or on private property) is not the one who is ultimately deemed responsible...

If you wanted to kill someone in our society and get away with it, just do it behind the wheel.  You'll almost always get off Scot Free or only get a slap on wrist for your actions/inaction.  If anything they will blame the car/car-maker and not the one supposedly "in control" of it. 

Mike Fiasco said:

When you hear "insurance issue" the message is really "litigation issue".  Since the pharmacy or bank drive thru is on private property, the business can be liable for any injury that occurs there.  A slip and fall inside the store will result in a medical settlement.  A ped or biker being hit by a car in their parking lot will result in a medical settlement.

With all due respect to the cycling and PI attorneys, we're familiar with the default position that "the store didn't do enough to ensure the safety" of the public.   If a cyclist is hit in a drive thru, any number of the attorneys on this forum would get as much as they can for their client, and maybe use the "didn't do enough" position.

Permalink Reply by ad on January 8, 2014 at 5:33am

This is exactly why places such as banks and pharmacies are scarred to allow bicycles or peds to use a drive thru.  Until the automobile insurance mandatory minimum is raised to a level that is not laughable for a person facing serious injury, this type of problem will always be present.   

Mike Fiasco said:

When you hear "insurance issue" the message is really "litigation issue".  Since the pharmacy or bank drive thru is on private property, the business can be liable for any injury that occurs there.  A slip and fall inside the store will result in a medical settlement.  A ped or biker being hit by a car in their parking lot will result in a medical settlement.

With all due respect to the cycling and PI attorneys, we're familiar with the default position that "the store didn't do enough to ensure the safety" of the public.   If a cyclist is hit in a drive thru, any number of the attorneys on this forum would get as much as they can for their client, and maybe use the "didn't do enough" position.

Permalink Reply by S on January 8, 2014 at 5:47am



James BlackHeron said:

It's too bad that we live in such a car-centric culture where an automobile driver who strikes a pedestrian or bicyclist (whether on the public street or on private property) is not the one who is ultimately deemed responsible...

The driver is deemed responsible but the company that owns the property can be blamed and probably has a lot more money that can be recovered in a settlement and that's the more important bit.  Winning a multi-million dollar judgement from the smuck driving the car is fine but if that person only has a few thousand in assets and his or her insurance will only provide 20k for liability and expenses, that judgement is essentially useless. 

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 8, 2014 at 6:08am

I agree.  The liability/litigation issue is just another symptom of today's class-warfare.  Those with the deepest pockets are the ones most likely targeted.  Litigation often costs a lot of money, and is exceedingly profitable to the litigators in some cases, so litigators are not a likely to aim for the low-yielding fruit of the common guy who's fault it was really for driving too fast/texting/not paying attention while operating his ton of murderous metal.  Instead they aim their money-making litigation machine at the deep pockets of anyone/anything nearby who can be blame-shifted to.

IMHO $50/gallon gas will solve a lot of these car-culture problems. 

S said:

The driver is deemed responsible but the company that owns the property can be blamed and probably has a lot more money that can be recovered in a settlement and that's the more important bit.  Winning a multi-million dollar judgement from the smuck driving the car is fine but if that person only has a few thousand in assets and his or her insurance will only provide 20k for liability and expenses, that judgement is essentially useless. 

Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on January 8, 2014 at 6:16am

Walgreens just called in response to this situation!

I missed the call but the voicemail included a detailed response and an assurance that this was all a miscommunication. They are happy to serve cyclists.

You may listen to the voicemail here:

This is a complete transcript of the voicemail:

Hi Mr. Dworzanski. It's Chris at Walgreen Pharmacy, the pharmacy manager. I'm calling in response to this communication. Just wanted to let you guys know, or let you know, that we will accept a bicyclist into our drive-thru. From what I heard from my staff, a person in a car told her we wouldn't help her. We would've gladly helped her. So, definitely not anti-cyclist. We actually make room to put bike things outside of our front door to park your bikes and lock them up. If you have any questions please call me 773-772-2370. Hit option 4 twice. We're really sorry that that happened. We would've helped her without any problem at all. So call me if you have any questions. Otherwise, have a great day and happy new year. See you later. Bye.

This is a copy of the (admittedly rather aggressive, though I feel justified) message I sent them, to which this man was responding:

Dear Walgreens,

I am writing to complain about Store #9000 (2001 N Milwaukee Ave in Chicago). I recently read on an online forum (You may see it here: http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/turned-away-at-walgreens-drive-thru-pharmacy ) that cyclists are turned away at the pharmacy drive-thru. While I may not be a user of the pharmacy drive-thru, I none-the-less shop at Walgreens almost daily for miscellaneous needs.

As an avid cyclist and someone who cares deeply about the sustainability of my city, I find it shocking that your pharmacy staff, the same staff that insists I “be well," would refuse to serve a customer on a bicycle. A person on a bicycle is just as capable of and just as entitled to transacting business with the pharmacy through the drive-thru window as any motorist. Perhaps cyclists are more rare in your drive-thrus as they are less likely to need the medications needed by those who travel in a sedentary state, however we nonetheless do get sick sometimes.

The most shocking part is the absurdity of the assumption made by your staff member that the ban should be based on the possibility that a cyclist will be hit by an apparently blind driver. Letting go of the fact that vision requirements are a prerequisite to obtaining a drivers license, I would like to ask: Why then does your company maintain parking lots through which people walk if they potentially just as unsafe? Isn’t there just as much, if not more, or a danger of a person being plowed over walking to or from your stores?

Please look into this matter, both by contacting those responsible at store #9000 and also by consulting with the other resources available to you to answer my question as stated in the subject. Is Walgreens Anti-cyclsit? I need to know because my continued business with your company, and perhaps that of others, rests on you successfully proving to me that you have real, sensible, and non-discriminatory reasons for refusing to serve a customer on a bicycle.

Thank you,

Tom Dworzanski

Frequent Customer

The most unfortunate part of all this is that it seems like yet another case of driver intimidation. Whether or not the pharmacy staff erred is uncertain as there seems to be a slight conflict in the details, however I think given their response, it shouldn't happen again.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on January 8, 2014 at 6:38am

+1 and good work Tom!

Tom Dworzanski said:

The most unfortunate part of all this is that it seems like yet another case of driver intimidation. Whether or not the pharmacy staff erred is uncertain as there seems to be a slight conflict in the details, however I think given their response, it shouldn't happen again.

Permalink Reply by Richard tencats on January 8, 2014 at 6:39am

PNC drive thru has been not a problem for me when on my bike. I've probably been thru the same PNC drive thu lane for near 15 transactions this year 2013 and last year 2012 about the same. Always felt welcomed when on my bike making deposits.

Anika said:

PNC doesn't allow you to bike thru the drive thru for service either. It's a pretty big ordeal to unload two kids and lock up a cargo bike just to make a business transaction but they cite insurance as the reason. There is a walk up window that can be used at the one on Fullerton but it is only open when the actual building is not.

You can walk your bike into the Walgreens at Armitage and Milwaukee.
Permalink Reply by David Barish on January 8, 2014 at 7:44am

I know some fast food franchises that are open late at night are only open via the drive up window and only open to people in cars. They seem to have a fear that somebody on foot or not in a car is more likely to do something criminal.  I have ridden my bike to the drive up window of my Walgreens with no problem. With ATMs being more pervasive its less of a problem of banks. an unmanned or unwomanned booth is not going to give you a hard time. 

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 8, 2014 at 7:47am

When I lived in Rogers Park and often rode my bike to a drive up ATM in Evanston, I sometimes said hi to a bike cop doing the same in the next lane. Never got hassled there.

Permalink Reply by dan brown on January 8, 2014 at 8:38am

Laura - sorry to read this. I fought this battle for a few years and finally quit fighting it. Now I just bring my bike in and if anyone tries to say something to me I pretend to not understand english or act like I am blasting music in my earphones (but I don't ride with them anymore) ... and just walk the bike around the store or place it next to the security guard, etc.

I was told once (maybe at a McDonalds or Burger King, can't remember) that the reason for the policy is to prevent people from grabbing the food (or in your case the Rx) and taking off. When it is a car they have a license plate number. In fact, IIRC; this was told me when I 'walked up' to a drive through to order (the lobby was closed but the drive - thru remained open till midnight, etc.)

Dan

Permalink Reply by dan brown on January 8, 2014 at 9:07am

nice post Sol !  esp. the "food" part. and the sarcasm

Sol said:

No bicycles or roller blades allowed at Charter One or White Castle, but motorcycles are allowed at both. They both cite insurance as the reason. I'm not sure there is any statistical evidence to show increased risk of harm from allowing bicycles, roller blades, or pedestrians for that matter. I suspect it was just someone's dumb idea and everyone simply followed like lemmings going over a cliff. None of these drive throughs are really what I would consider to be high speed traffic lanes, certainly not the White Castle. At least now that the White Castle counter is no longer 24 hours by my house (only the drive thru is 24 hours) I no longer eat White Castle "food" ever. My body thanks me especially the next day, but they are missing out on my money. That said, this really needs to change or they need to add a service window for non-motorized traffic complete with a real protected lane, think "separate but equal" (note my bitter sarcasm).

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service