Quote :

"First it was a proposed ban on plastic bags. Now, a member of the influential Madison Plan Commission wants to ban the restaurant drive-through -- or at least restrict the ubiquitous symbol of America's auto-centric lifestyle. "Given the concern about all the carbon going into the atmosphere, I'm not sure we should be building more places for people to sit idling in their cars," says Eric Sundquist, who was appointed to the citizen panel by Mayor Dave Cieslewicz this spring. A former newspaper reporter in Atlanta now working as a researcher at the UW-Madison's Center on Wisconsin Strategy, Sundquist notes that several cities in Canada have recently moved to ban the drive-through coffee shop or stand-alone fast food restaurant (http://www.ecospace.cc/culture/drive-thru-ban.htm). "Bans haven't gotten as far in the U.S., although I know San Luis Obispo, Calif., has one," he says. "I know a ban might be difficult so a better approach might be to restrict them," he says, noting an ordinance in Davis, Calif., puts a number of restrictions on drive-throughs, including one relating to air pollution."

Ahh more socialist shenanigans from my beloved home-town.

Before we start using global warming as an excuse for more gov't take-over, why not invite Gore and his pals into a court-case where they would have to prove their theory- with actual cross-examination.

I try to avoid drive-throughs because it wastes precious petrol. But, like helmet and seat-belt laws, this is just another example of the nanny-state going crazy.

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/293046

6/26/2008 9:53:24 AM

how is this socialist again?

6/26/2008 9:57:35 AM

They're going to tax us 85% and use the money to bring Big Macs directly to our homes

6/26/2008 9:58:32 AM

^^
My mistake...I meant fascism.

^
You know...we should check to see if McDonalds is making obcene wind-fall profits from drive-throughs. We could take those profits and invest them in research into solar-powered drive throughs that would only accept electric cars.

6/26/2008 10:25:22 AM

with a name like Earthdog i thought you would be all about the environment.

6/26/2008 10:46:35 AM

I would park my car with the engine on while i'm eating to protest this.

6/26/2008 11:28:02 AM

Quote :

"Before we start using global warming as an excuse for more gov't take-over, why not invite Gore and his pals into a court-case where they would have to prove their theory- with actual cross-examination."

The Supreme Court actually required the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to the environment, but when they sent a report to the White House saying that they did and that they should be regulated a la the Clean Air Act, the White House refused to open the email with the report until they removed any conclusions they didn't like.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html?_r=3

6/26/2008 12:13:57 PM

Banning drive-thru service is stupid, but so is sitting in a long line with your engine running. How hard is it to waddle your fat ass 30 feet from your car into the restaurant? I don't do drive-thru anymore unless there is one or zero cars ahead of me, it wastes too much expensive gas.

6/26/2008 12:14:10 PM

the truth is America is just a culture of fat lazy people.

6/26/2008 12:33:44 PM

Quote :

"How hard is it to waddle your fat ass 30 feet from your car into the restaurant?"

not hard at all, but when i go to pick up some food from a restaurant that has a drive through, whether or not i walk inside or go through the drive through often depends on how long the lines are inside versus how long the lines are in the drive through...drive throughs allow more customers to be served at once...seems like getting rid of them would just make the inside of those restaurants a lot more crowded...if i want a sandwich and a drink and i fully plan on getting it to go, why should i have to wait in line behind 10 people who are all planning on sitting down and eating inside

6/26/2008 12:33:53 PM

sometimes when i am in a hurry or if i say just got done at the pool (no shirt) it is convenient to use the drive through.

6/26/2008 12:38:21 PM

I wonder whether the drive through wastes more or less gas on average than starting and stopping your car in the parking lot. Never mind that elimination of drive through would necessitate more parking spaces as well as more people idling in the lot waiting for a parking space to open (see Bojangles on a sunday). I also predict that we would see an increase in folks who will let their car idle at the curb or in a parking space so that they can run in and out. So is there any data to suggest these bans would be a net positive or is this just another example of "We must do something about X, this is something, let's do this."

6/26/2008 12:42:43 PM

I'm sure it varies from car to car, but I've always heard that if you're going to leave the car running for more than 15 seconds turning it off will save gas.

6/26/2008 1:19:46 PM

I never use drive thru windows. I prefer to go inside, see what's going on, talk to the people behind the counter, etc. Of course, things might be different if I was a fatass.

6/26/2008 1:49:14 PM

Quote :

"Before we start using global warming as an excuse for more gov't take-over, why not invite Gore and his pals into a court-case where they would have to prove their theory- with actual cross-examination."

Al Gore would do that. And his side would win.

Quote :

"not hard at all, but when i go to pick up some food from a restaurant that has a drive through, whether or not i walk inside or go through the drive through often depends on how long the lines are inside versus how long the lines are in the drive through...drive throughs allow more customers to be served at once...seems like getting rid of them would just make the inside of those restaurants a lot more crowded...if i want a sandwich and a drink and i fully plan on getting it to go, why should i have to wait in line behind 10 people who are all planning on sitting down and eating inside"

Because by doing the drive through you are effectively cutting in line in front of those people. Discounting the parking needs, I don't see anything that would make a drive through order less resource intensive than people inside (in terms of employee's time and such).

Grocery stores have express lines for a small number of items, to some degree because it's 'fair', but really to attract and retain quick, light shoppers. That's the same thing a drive through does and the same effect could be done by having a 'for here' and a 'to go' line.


--
I would propose that instead of this, they pass an anti 'car discrimination' bill, saying that you can get drive through on foot, on a bike, or whatever. Have you ever tried to go through the drive through not in a car? It doesn't work.

6/26/2008 2:08:30 PM

Quote :

"Al Gore would do that. And his side would win."

Really? In a court of law he could demonstrate damages and prove causation for those damages?

Damaging weather has always existed and the most likely scenarios of global warming have only marginal impacts (sea level rise less than 1 foot). Al Gore would be prepared to show that a 1' bonus on top of a 50' storm surge was substantially more destructive? How is failure to locate your property 1' higher not a legal failure to mitigate your damages? As global warming and its resultant effects are now accepted fact, anyone falling victim to them had warning and accepted the risks.

6/26/2008 2:48:36 PM

the "climate change causes more extreme weather" was one of the weaker points gore was trying to make.

6/26/2008 2:59:21 PM

No way in hell Al Gore would win his case in court, not a chance.

In regards to this thread, this is ridiculous. Of course its also not a surprise at all, given the left side loonies.

6/26/2008 3:14:53 PM

has anybody defended this proposed ban?

i mean, i honestly can't believe this is garnering much attention. it's a proposal (that i would guess probably won't get anywhere) by a planning commission member in wisconsin. i mean really: who cares?

6/26/2008 3:21:50 PM

Quote :

"Really? In a court of law he could demonstrate damages and prove causation for those damages? Damaging weather has always existed and the most likely scenarios of global warming have only marginal impacts (sea level rise less than 1 foot). Al Gore would be prepared to show that a 1' bonus on top of a 50' storm surge was substantially more destructive? How is failure to locate your property 1' higher not a legal failure to mitigate your damages? As global warming and its resultant effects are now accepted fact, anyone falling victim to them had warning and accepted the risks."

Woah woah woah there killer. Little changing of the rules here.

Quote :

"Before we start using global warming as an excuse for more gov't take-over, why not invite Gore and his pals into a court-case where they would have to prove their theory- with actual cross-examination."

'They' as in the IPCC and their political backers (colloquially 'Al Gore') can prove their theory. Alluding to proving direct causation or escalation of a storm surge is not in the same ballpark. While it is difficult for many out there to wrap their tiny brains around, there are effects of some industrial actions that only have a statistical effect over a large scale (when emitting over a certain amount) to worsen events that were already occurring.

Though there are mountains of examples I could give, take rates of cancer near a coal plant. There is NO CASE, ever where you can say 100% the cancer was caused from the coal plant. However, you can beyond a reasonable doubt show that instances of xxxx kind of cancer skyrocketed when operations started, consistent with prior experience with such plants and scientific consensus.

Courts are used to these things and judges aren't stupid like those who outright reject global warming. Judges often even rule against their personal beliefs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

after carefully considering the evidence - which you can count on them doing. In terms of legal mechanisms, there are class-action suits and all sorts of things. Courts have dealt with complicated causation issues, irrelevant of your own acceptance of the issue.

Judges would accept the validity of global warming and that at a minimum there will in the future be damaging consequences. What they do with that is another issue, but the idea itself is sound.

6/26/2008 3:33:21 PM

Quote :

"the IPCC and their political backers"

the IPCC are political backers...you didn't think the IPCC actually did any scientific research did you?

also there is reasonable doubt that there are other causes for the recent warming trend, ie solar lags, other natural cycles, unreliable data, etc...the only way Gore could win in court is if he filed a suit and forced the other side to prove that human emissions WERE NOT the cause...neither side could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their side is correct

6/26/2008 4:02:04 PM

In the same way that the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and all associated publications is not scientific, yes, the IPCC is not scientific. But if the ASME tells me that my pressure vessel is not up to standards, I don't ignore them and try to discredit them.

6/26/2008 4:08:47 PM

understood

i still dont think they'd be able to prove anything in a court of law for the reasons stated

6/26/2008 4:09:55 PM

It depends on what you're saying they have to prove. If you say that they have to prove that last year was 0.5 degrees C warmer than it would have otherwise been without industrial carbon emissions, then you're begging the question regarding the research. If any scientist does say this, they should be ostracized. You obviously can't say this and natural variations are obviously as much or greater than that change (the change that models say we should be expecting now).

However, the case for effects in 2100 is an easy win by a long shot. Considering that planning for Yucca Mountain has had to face legal environmental challenges for 1,000s of years in the future, it's also a no-brainier that a court would entertain such long-term arguments.

6/26/2008 4:19:49 PM

they'd still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt something that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...they can prove correlation but they can't prove causation...they can't use IF THEN arguments because theres no way to prove the IF part

6/26/2008 4:24:51 PM

if we're talking about a criminal trial, there's not the same burden for civil

6/26/2008 4:26:24 PM

true i guess i was thinking strictly criminal

6/26/2008 4:34:08 PM

Quote :

"Al Gore would do that. And his side would win."

Given that everything Gore based "An Inconvenient Lie" on was proven false, beyond a shadow of a doubt, I fail to see how "his side would win." Unless, of course, the argument of "but, all scientists agree with us! and those guys are just paid off by oil companies" is allowed to trump common sense.

6/28/2008 12:35:01 AM

this is instituted at the local level so most of you can quit your bitching

city councils are hardly "big government"

^ yes everything was PROVEN false beyond a shadow of a doubt

[Edited on June 28, 2008 at 2:41 AM. Reason : you assholes and your vindictions ]

6/28/2008 2:39:56 AM

Quote :

"Banning drive-thru service is stupid, but so is sitting in a long line with your engine running. How hard is it to waddle your fat ass 30 feet from your car into the restaurant?"

I know I use drive-throughs a lot...I'm not allowed to go anywhere off-base in my flight suit or in cammies, so if you want to get something to eat on the way to work or on the way home, or if you want to eat off base in the middle of the day, you're stuck with a drive through (unless you want to change, but nobody's gonna do that, at least not routinely).

6/28/2008 2:41:06 AM

Quote :

"How hard is it to waddle your fat ass 30 feet from your car into the restaurant?"

Fast food places are full of loud, annoying people. My car is not. Difficulty doesn't factor in.

6/28/2008 9:12:03 AM

Quote :

"the 'climate change causes more extreme weather' was one of the weaker points gore was trying to make."

sarijoul

Yeah, Gore didn't try to emphasize that "weaker point" either.

6/29/2008 6:54:35 AM

Quote :

"I would propose that instead of this, they pass an anti 'car discrimination' bill, saying that you can get drive through on foot, on a bike, or whatever. Have you ever tried to go through the drive through not in a car? It doesn't work."

Hell yes.

I used to work for a place with a drive thru. My boss got pissed when a girl took the order of a person on a bicycle. We asked her what the big deal was and she simply said, "They're not driving and it's a drive thru!!"

6/29/2008 8:29:20 AM

Quote :

"I would propose that instead of this, they pass an anti 'car discrimination' bill, saying that you can get drive through on foot, on a bike, or whatever. Have you ever tried to go through the drive through not in a car? It doesn't work."

Actually, I have walked through a drive-thru once. I was walking my dog, had a hankering for a drink, and stood in line with my german shepherd between two cars. I didn't have much choice since the restaurant banned dogs from entering the building, and I wasn't about to tie up a German Shepherd up outside in the middle of the summer right by the door with the crappy leash I had.

6/29/2008 2:59:33 PM

most places don't let you do this.

6/29/2008 7:15:31 PM

The Burger King near me is open 24 hrs a day, but most of the late night hours its Drive-Thru only. I don't always have a car in NYC so I've walked through it. They didn't give me any shit though.

6/30/2008 12:48:25 AM

STOP EATING FAST FOOD????

I have eaten at a drive-through about 6 times in the past 3 years. Stop. It's horrible for you and ... it wastes gas?

6/30/2008 3:18:48 PM

^ya know a lot of people have very busy lives and sometimes there's no time to prepare a meal. Also a lot of people drive 500-700 miles a day if on a long road trip and want something quick so as not to extend the drive longer than it has to be.

please come back to reality.

6/30/2008 3:42:16 PM

^ I often have days where I don't have "time" to prepare breakfast. You know what I do? I pop two waffles in the toaster and go about the rest of my morning routine while I wait for the waffles. Fast food is more expensive than waffles, trust me, and it takes longer to get, even at the drive through. Didn't take me long to figure that out, man.

also, the way I have heard the "no-car, no drive-thru service" thing explained is that, allegedly, many drive-thrus are held up by people on foot, because there is no way to track the license plate of a guy on foot. at least that's the excuse I heard

6/30/2008 5:31:01 PM

"Busy life", "no time to cook" is a sorry excuse. There are plenty of ways to save time. Like make ahead and freeze. Many food preparations freeze well, and typically I would make several tupperware of these and stick em in the freezer.

6/30/2008 7:27:40 PM

If you have "time" to sit in the drive thru, then you have "time" to prepare food. Probably takes about the same amount of time to prepare simple foods for "the go".

6/30/2008 7:29:32 PM

maybe we should ban fast food too since there are healthier alternatives...

not having to go through a drive through is a weak excuse for not banning drive throughs

6/30/2008 7:38:21 PM

Poor politicians- So much to ban...so little time.

7/1/2008 12:41:04 AM

Quote :

""Busy life", "no time to cook" is a sorry excuse. There are plenty of ways to save time. Like make ahead and freeze. Many food preparations freeze well, and typically I would make several tupperware of these and stick em in the freezer."

You haven't truly lived a busy life if you think there's ALWAYS time to prepare food in advance or even to plan 4-6 days in advance.

Quote :

"If you have "time" to sit in the drive thru, then you have "time" to prepare food. Probably takes about the same amount of time to prepare simple foods for "the go"."

Really? If I have time to wait 2 minutes in drive thru while going from one point to another then I have time to drive home out of way to make food? What kind of non-busy life to do you lead?

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 12:08 PM. Reason : for the record I don't even use drive-thru much, maybe once a month at most]

7/1/2008 12:07:02 PM

Quote :

"You haven't truly lived a busy life if you think there's ALWAYS time to prepare food in advance or even to plan 4-6 days in advance. "

yeah, i was so busy last week that I didn't even have a chance to eat the food i'd prepared and put in the fridge.

shit, i was so busy that I didn't even have time to hit the drive through. From Monday morning until Thursday afternoon, I only had one hot meal, and that was drive-through Taco Bell at 1am when I was leaving work one night after about a 14 hour day. (Friday was finally a reasonable schedule, and I got to actually eat well and get back in the gym). The rest of the time, I was subsisting out of convenience store food and vending machines.

(I normally try to eat pretty well, and hit the gym almost every day, but sometimes that's simply not an option).

7/1/2008 1:07:04 PM