Home › Blogs › Toban B's blog ›

“Drive-Thru Truths”

Submitted by Toban B on July 19, 2008 - 1:38pm.
tags:


Did you know that...

  • Critics of drive-thrus don't have "any proof"; in fact, they don't "make sense"
  • Fast foods -- and drive-thru access to those fast foods -- are "vital" "for the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children"; access to these fast foods is not just a matter of convenience; "many people need drive-thrus"
  • All of "the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children" have cars -- as well as money for insurance and gas; and all of "the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children" don't have disabilities (e.g. blindness) which prevent car-driving; so all of these people have the option of using drive-thrus
  • Drive-thrus are the only way that we can improve accessibility for all of "the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children" -- even for disabled people whose mobility is not impaired in any way
  • Cars only make people safer; no one is ever endangered by car driving
  • It's fine to encourage people to eat and drink while they drive after leaving a drive-thru
  • The health of drive-thru window employees is not important; it's OK that they inhale fumes from nearby exhaust pipes throughout their shifts
  • It doesn't matter that all of the employees and customers in establishments with drive-thru windows are exposed to the exhaust fumes that come in through these windows
  • Drive-thrus are not an environmental problem in any way whatsoever; in fact, drive-thrus are an environmental asset
  • People don't travel to businesses by bicycle, by bus, or by foot; every customer who doesn't use a drive-thru either will leave their car in a parking lot, or they will leave it idling outside of the building; so without drive-thrus that is what's bound to happen
  • Tailpipe emissions are the only environmental issue that is relevant here; other environmental consequences (e.g. ongoing oil spills) associated with extracting, refining, and shipping the oil used to make gasoline are a separate matter; and the materials (e.g. rubber) needed to manufacture and maintain vehicles (e.g. their tires) are not relevant either; so the extraction, transport, processing, and disposal of these materials also has nothing to do with drive-thrus; and the ecological implications of industrial manufacturing of vehicles and vehicle parts is unrelated as well
  • Concerns about how oil profits often end up in the hands of authoritarian regimes (e.g. in Saudi Arabia) are irrelevant
  • Drive-thrus don't encourage additional car driving, so "banning drive-thrus won't reduce the number of overall car trips"; drive-thrus thus have nothing to do with ongoing automobile collisions, or with other problems (e.g. increased obesity) associated with car driving
  • Eat-in establishments are of no value; "quick service restaurants" are ideal; it's not important that we sit together as a community rather than eating and drinking more privately (e.g. inside vehicles); it doesn't matter that there are fewer jobs and less tips in "quick service restaurants" with drive-thrus
  • It doesn't matter that younger people who can't drive cars on their own have less access to drive-thrus, and to establishments that are more accessible by car; poorer people who can't afford their own cars -- and everyone else who can't drive on their own -- also don't deserve any consideration
  • "The public" supports drive-thrus; "the public" does not have any concerns about drive-thrus
  • Each name on the petition is actually from a separate person who has "read the facts"; there are no duplicate names on the petition, and no fake names were added to it
  • There is grassroots activism in the "Drive-Thru Truths" campaign -- as the protest signs show
  • "The experts" dismiss concerns about drive-thrus and tailpipe emissions; "the experts" all agree on this
  • Tim Hortons and the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association -- the people behind these messages -- just want to help us all, while contributing to environmental causes; profit-making strategies have nothing to do with their stance on these issues; unlike "special interest groups," Tim Horton's and the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association are concerned about the general interests -- of "the people," whose voices and whose empowerment are considered to be very important

Those are the messages that you'll find at drivethru truth .ca, a pro- drive-thru propaganda site. (Their banner image is at the top of this post; the original banner is a little larger, however.)
The above points are about what is said on that site, and about what is not said on that site.

There are additional problems with drive-thrus that I could mention, but I'm just responding to the lobbying on and around that particular drivethru truth web site. In other words, this post is just a response to a particular set of industry lobbyists (and without trying to come up with every possible point that could be raised against them).

Some of their propaganda also has been spread through pamphlets (which I've seen on Tim Hortons counter-tops), through mainstream media advertising, and through t-shirts worn at a public event the other day.

Here are a couple of photos of the t-shirts:

(Click to enlarge)

The mob wearing those shirts all seem to have been Tim Hortons employees. (In part, I say that because of how they collectively reacted to what was said during the forum on Tuesday.)

They might have been paid to come out to the forum wearing those shirts; or other pressures or incentives might have driven them there.
I'm not sure why exactly they were there, but I am certain that they didn't have to pay for the shirts; and I'm sure that they didn't have to create the t-shirt design and then produce the actual t-shirts.

The "Drive-Thru Truths" campaign is a 'top'-'down' form of lobbying. Executives, managers, and marketers have been leading the way.

---

As for the lobbyists' pamphlets, here's text from one that I picked up from a Tim Hortons counter -

"Banning Drive-thrus in London?

It's a bad idea all around.

Fact: A drive-thru ban would hurt the less mobile.

Drive-thrus are a vital access point for the disabled, seniors, and parents with small children.

Fact: ZERO Environmental Benefit.

Crowded parking lots create the same or more emissions"

Basically that pamphlet text is a condensed version of messages at drivethru truth .ca (which the pamphlet refers readers to).

On the pamphlet a hand is holding up a sign that says "4 KIDS IN A VAN. BLIZZARD. DRIVE-THRUS HELP."

How ridiculous is it to bring up that situation? Generally speaking, why would someone drive to a fast food outlet in that weather? -- when there actually are blizzards (which do happen now and then around here). A parent who does that would be endangering their children; yet, the lobbyists are encouraging that behaviour.

On the pamphlet there also are two other hand-held signs--the "DON'T BAN DRIVE-THRUS" sign, and the one about using a walker (which also are on the drivethru truth site).

How many people with walkers also drive cars though?

Messages like that are an insult to the intelligence of humanity.

---

Here's a web site which was set up in response to drivethrutruth.ca:
http://drivethrulies.wordpress.com

(Those campaigners don't have the help or resources needed to make a more eye-catching and easy to navigate site. That's 'democracy' for you.)

---

On a barely related note, here's a blog post (elsewhere) about Tim Hortons here in London, Ontario -
"You’ve (do not) always got time for Tim Hortons - lady previously sacked for giving away a timbit"

I'm only posting that here because I expect that, like me, others will enjoy reading this because they are frustrated with the industry propaganda (which Tim Hortons has had a huge hand in).

The case described in that blog post also symbolizes a lot of other issues I've been alluding to -- issues which come down to sheer inhumanity (e.g. in exposing employees to car exhaust fumes).

---

Updates -

The web site drivethrutruth.com now brings people to a Tim Hortons web site. (Drivethrutruth.ca doesn't bring visitors to the Tim Hortons site, however.)

 

Toban
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/?p=251)

5
Average: 5 (2 votes)

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.londoncommons.net/trackback/6156

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
M Hurley's picture

Stand Up for Corporatism, Consumption, and Convenience

Submitted by M Hurley on July 21, 2008 - 2:57pm.

To me, two lessons can be taken from this sad event:

1) If Tim Hortons or any other fast food company paid, coerced, or threatened their employees to attend this forum, their actions amount to an unforgiveable, deplorable, and fundamentally undemocratic PR stunt - NOT some defiant stand for democracy, as the above Free Press photos would have people believe.

2) If this was not the case, the idea that citizens will pack a forum to defend their right to consume, waste, and pollute with maximum convenience (and zero consequences) is nonetheless a) scary and b) ridiculous.

a) It is scary because it suggests that we are entering an era that has already forgotten many of the things that our parents and grandparents had to fight for - whereas these generations generally fought AGAINST corporations for public health care, the right to organize, consumer rights, health and safety standards, good-paying jobs with decent benefits, and basic environmental regulations, we are now amidst a generation that is willing to fight lock-in-step with corporations to maintain the status quo of convenient and dangerously wasteful consumption (and perhaps even tear away at the existing regulations that prevent the establishment of a full-blown corporatist state). This mindless, complacent, apathetic, and ultimately forgetful battle is not courageous or worthwhile in any way - rather, as the Cory Morningstar presentation points out, it will only lead to our own destruction.

b) The "pro-drive thru" lobby is ridiculous to the extent that many citizens are absent when it comes to ensuring that we have clean drinking water, when public resources are in danger of being privatized, and when a new development may seriously threaten the environmental, economic, and aesthetic integrity of a community.

But apparently, when it comes time to defend our right to shit on the earth and drink three coffees while we're doing it (all while driving a Hummer), we'll be out in full force with the T-shirts to prove it. What a sad state of affairs. This is not democracy - it is corporatism, with Tim Horton's and Wendy's running the show.

Corporatist states are characterized by an elite minority profiting from the economic and environmental pillaging of the many. Multinational fast food drive thrus achieve both of these ends since they are run by woefully underpaid servants and because of their disastrous effects on air quality, climate change, sprawl, and traffic congestion. It is understandable, then, why corporations have a vested interest in maintaining and expanding these highly profitable death tools. But the fact that citizens or even employees could turn out to defend drive thrus is beyond me. It is something that I will likely fail to grasp for some time.

Having said that, I was not able to attend the forum as I am currently working for a union in Chicago. I sincerely hope that the COC presentation went well and that various people spoke against drive thrus. Any other updates on how the forum went would be appreciated.

(I should also add that I myself am guilty of occassionally being dragged to a drive thru somewhere in the city, usually by my girlfriend. But I'm now committed to never visiting one again. The disgusting behaviour exhibited by the pro-drive thru lobby has made my decision that much easier.)

 

 

 

Mike McGregor's picture

stacking the deck

Submitted by Mike McGregor on July 19, 2008 - 4:27pm.

I believe the free press story mentioned that some of the Tim's employees may have 'feared for their jobs'...

 

Union breaking, firing employees for giving timbits to toddlers, non-recyclable/non-biodegradable cups, and shitty coffee: All reasons I started avoiding Tim Hortons except as a last resort... But now they're stacking public meetings... That's too much for me.

-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos

M Hurley's picture

Your point is a non-argument

Submitted by M Hurley on July 24, 2008 - 3:52pm.

For three reasons:

1) No one has inferred that Tim Hortons employees do not or should not have voices as citizens. In fact what will likely happen as a result of their presence at the meeting - but also because of complacency and a widespread lack of understanding about the urgency of climate change - is that Council will continue to allow drive thrus to be built around the city with only minor and probably useless modifications.

2) What is at issue is whether Tim Hortons paid, coerced, or threatened their employees to attend the event. If the company did do this, the employees' presence can be considered illegitimate since they were paid or encouraged to represent the private interests of Tim Hortons (i.e. the right to maintain and continue building profitable drive thrus, regardless of their disastrous impact on the environment, air quality, public health, traffic congestion, and noise pollution).

3) It can't be argued that the employees were out to protect their own jobs because a moratorium would not shut down existing drive thrus.

Conversely, the argument against drive thrus is nothing short of compelling. Drive thrus are undeniably a convenience of the past that, because of their aforementioned externalities, can no longer be afforded by the public in terms of social and environmental costs. If we seriously want to address climate change, which will likely be the defining challenge of our generation, eliminating needless idling (not just at drive thrus but elsewhere as well) will be a fundamental first step.

And unlike what the pro-drive thru fear mongerers argue, a moratorium would not necessarily require "larger" or "expanded parking lots" because its whole purpose is to encourage the kind of behavioural changes - walking, biking, transit - that will be needed to mitigate climate change.

In my opinion, the entire debate over whether we should ban drive thrus should center around this reality: London's air quality has declined by 6 percent since 2000 and is only slated to get worse (http://www.clear.london.ca/Air_Quality_AQI.html). The organization responsible for tracking London's air quality, the Community of London Environmental Awareness Reporting Network (CLEAR), blatantly states the following on its website:

Avoid idling - it wastes gas, creates pollution, and causes wear and tear on your engine. (As well) avoid the drive-thru window - in addition to excessive idling, during peak times with long line-ups, it is often faster to park your car and order your beverage or food over the counter. (Again, see the above link)

A moratorium would prevent dozens and maybe hundreds of drive thrus from being built and would thereby contribute to less idling and improved air quality. If this is not at least one effective strategy for addressing climate change and saving the air we breathe, then what is?

 

2008 LondonCommons.net / About / Terms & Policies