A cyclist has claimed that they were refused service at a Costa drive-through – when the shop itself was closed due to several staff being sick – as it is company policy “not to serve people on bikes”.
Liam, a cyclist from Aberdeen, says that an employee at the coffee chain told him that bikes were not permitted in the drive-through lane as they are ‘not road legal, taxed or insured’. In protest, the cyclist then blocked the drive-through, prompting Costa’s employees to call the police.
While many chain restaurants and coffee shops operate a no-bikes policy in their drive-throughs (usually on health and safety grounds), Costa’s refusal to serve Liam, which he has since shared on social media, has been described by some Twitter users as “absolutely shameful”, though others have described the cyclist as “self-righteous”.
Being refused service because I’m on a bike @costacoffee That’s fine, I’m just going to sit my ground and block your drive thru. pic.twitter.com/GNqauVL5sk
— Liam (@howsmydriving28) June 24, 2022
The incident occurred on Friday evening, on the corner of Wellington Road and Abbotswell Road in Aberdeen, as Liam visited Costa while shopping.
Leaving his bike in the racks provided – which, he says, can only be accessed by riding on part of the drive-through lane – Liam approached the shop to find that, due to staff shortages owing to sickness, Costa was operating a drive-through-only service, with the sign attached to the door reading: “You will only be served if in a vehicle”.
“I then hopped on the bike and rolled up to the order point where I was met with a cheery hello,” he tells road.cc.
After submitting his order, Liam approached the collection window, where he says he could see the employee’s “face drop”.
“She then approached the window and said they weren’t serving me as it was company policy not to serve people on bikes – exact words.”

According to Liam, another staff member arrived and politely apologised, before insisting that they were forced to adhere to Costa’s guidelines, “as a car could come up behind and hit you”.
The cyclist – wary of motorists who were being told to pass him – then moved his bike into the middle of the lane, effectively blocking traffic.
“This is when things got a bit absurd,” he says. “She told me that bikes aren’t allowed because they aren’t road legal vehicles and because they’re not taxed and insured”.
The staff member’s explanation for refusing to serve people on bikes echoes the excuse used by Costa’s social media admin in 2020 when questioned on the company’s policy.
The admin claimed that the chain “can only allow road worthy, taxed and insured vehicles through the lane”, and told a cyclist they couldn’t use the drive-through because “you’re not taxed or insured to be on the road”.
He then swiftly backtracked on the tax and insurance comment, but maintained that cyclists were not permitted on health and safety grounds.
Liam’s lengthy protest brought the drive-through system to a halt and resulted in a visit from the police, who he claims referred to him as “pathetic” and a “loser” with “nothing better to do on a Friday night”.
“The cops said ‘if we turned up by bike they’d refuse us too and that’s just how it is’”, Liam said.
Bet they would serve a police cyclist in uniform …? I can understand the health and safety implications of having pedestrians standing in the road with vehicles but as cycles and motor vehicles use the same roads all the time it seems a little bizzare, strange risk assessment.
— Mark Hodson (@markandcharlie) June 25, 2022
The cyclist also claimed that, in order to deal with the disruption and to continue serving customers, Costa staff were taking orders and receiving payment at motorists’ cars.
“Had they actually suggested this to me I would have done it,” he says.
“They flatly refused to serve me but yet they bent over backwards to facilitate those arriving by car.”
A Costa spokesperson told road.cc: “We can confirm that an incident took place at our Abbotswell Road store on Friday, which is temporarily operating for Drive-Thru and Click & Collect only. We are sorry for the inconvenience caused whilst our in-store area is closed.”
The spokesperson confirmed that “the store team followed our policy of not serving cyclists in the Drive-Thru as a safety precaution, and the customer was advised of this when visiting the store.
“The team offered to serve them via Click & Collect from the front of the store – which is the same service they offered other customers that were on foot whilst the in-store area is closed.
“Unfortunately, the customer chose not to do this and instead blocked the lane for around an hour during which the police attended the store.
“Our number one priority is the health and safety of our customers and team members. Like many retailers, Costa Coffee does not serve cyclists using the Drive-Thru lane or Drive-Thru window.
“Our Drive-Thru lanes are designed for motor vehicles only – they are not designed operationally or from a safety perspective for customers on bicycles or on foot.
“Notably, our order process is triggered upon a motor vehicle approaching the order point, and there may also be limited visibility of cyclists whilst in the lane or near other vehicles.”




















76 thoughts on “Cyclist says he was refused service at Costa Coffee drive-through – due to company policy “not to serve people on bikes””
All cyclists’ policy should
All cyclists’ policy should be to buy from a proper coffee shop, not some faceless chain.
And preferably drunk from a proper cup, mug or flask, not a shitty paper cup.
Should be something in ‘the
Should be something in ‘the rules’ about cyclists not drinking shit coffee right?
Bidon!
Bidon! And frankly if it’s not “vinasse” laced with strychnine and/or amphetamines it’s against the spirit of the original tour…
The other day I was wondering
The other day I was wondering how you would get caught driving a car without tax or insurance, turns out you just need to visit a Costa drive-thru and you’d be nabbed!
Really glad to see Costa keeping non-legal vehicles off our roads. No wonder the police are sticking up for them, they’re effectively doing their job for them!
They did him a favour. Costa
They did him a favour. Costa Coffee is rank! It’s always served piping hot and they recently swapped all of their milk alternatives to some crappy brand which tastes so unpleasant that it makes you feel ill.
Sorry there hmas but coffee
Sorry there hmas but coffee and milk (alternatives)? An oxymoron surely.
Reminds me of the Rolls-Royce
Reminds me of the Rolls-Royce car park in South Glos, which has prominent “No Cycling” signs.
I feel weve covered this kind
I feel weve covered this kind of issue before though, firstly the drive-thru is private land, therefore Costa,or the landowners, are free to set any limitations they like on your access to it even if it looks like part of normal public access roads,its not.
Secondly their company policy is all about mitigation of risk to them being sued if something goes wrong, its far cheaper and simpler for them to say no cyclists/pedestrians can access the drive thru, rather than provide a setup that mitigates the risks of cyclists/pedestrians accessing the drive thru,their public liability insurance probably demands it to keep the premium down, as much as possible.
and worst case if Costa is your must go to coffee place, and I do like a Costa myself though Id agree even their standard milk tastes a bit weird thesedays, just barter with one of the car drivers in the drive thru, to add your coffee to their order, and pick it up after theyve been through, I cant imagine anyone would really object to that.
there are plenty of situations where cyclists are disadvantaged in society, but I really dont feel getting served takeaway coffee via a drive thru, is the hill we need to particularly die on about it.
It may be private land but as
It may be private land but as a publicly accessible roadway the RTA applies. The risk is reduced because all users must abide by RTA which if the local police officers had been clued in they could have explained to the staff and modified their behaviour to the cyclist. Soundslike they have poor H&S advisors.
If it’s an insurance issue
If it’s an insurance issue though, no advice from the police is going to change that. Let’s say some sort of incident did occur. Costa call up their insurers…”But the police said it was fine”. Do you think the insurers will reply “Ohh the police said it was OK? Well then, let me reach for the chequebook”.
Boopop wrote:
Public Liability Insurance is the means covering of the land owners in the possibility of an incident where the victim seeks redress. The insurance company doesn’t stipulate what needs to be done to protect the public they come up with a premium based on the measures taken by the business to protect the public and the accessors decide on the payout based on the failure to maintain these measures.
The H&S dept establishes the systems to ensure that the public are kept safe. In the case of a drive through they have failed in providing a robust manner in order to protect cyclists who may wish to use it.
If a driver shunted a cyclist in the lane then the claim is against the driver not the landowner. If the cyclist slipped on spilt oil/fuel or signage fell on them then the claim goes against the business as they weren’t ensuring safe passage.
I would go as far as saying that the police could charge a motorist for careless driving if a cyclist was injured in the lane but that’s unlikely to happen.
I dont think its the RTA
I dont think its the RTA thats the problem here, as you cant walk through as a pedestrian and be served in drive-thrus either. It will be the public liability business insurance that covers anything that happens to customers entering their property, as the expectation is when you visit these places, they are safe for you, and if something bad happened to you, youd be soliciting up to demand recompense.
And some insurance assessor will have looked at the drive-thru setup and thought well someone could accidentally drive into a cyclist, happens all the time on public roads so its as much a possibility here, or the cyclist might drop their very hot coffee on themselves as its handed to them, after all the drive thru is car width, the cyclist might not stop near enough the window to be safe, and they dont have cup holders to place a coffee cup in so holding a cup or bag of items could be construed as forcing them to ride not fully under control, or they could fall over if they were trying to track stand or…etc etc
so whats easier mitigating all the possible risks you can think of dealing with cyclists and motorised vehicles mixing together in a drive thru,and paying the extra premium to cover the risk, or just stopping cyclists using the drive thru ?
Awavey wrote:
More likely it’s some risk averse person at head office’s spurious assumptions about the insurance:
“Oh – it doesn’t allow us to serve people on foot from the drive-thru, and someone on a bike’s just a weird kind of pedestrian, right?”
Happens far more on the
Happens far more on the public roads that drivers hit one another and drive into the back of another.
Can’t see anyone claiming off Costa for driver A hitting driver B.
They just don’t want to serve anyone other than drivers. They should simply state this and not introduce nonsense about insurance.
Tend to agree; if you allow
Tend to agree; if you allow cyclists in the drive thru, you’re saying it’s ok for them to be there and some responsibility (quite for what, I’m not sure) might then accrue to you.
Shows (again) how crappy and dangerous cars are. I guess switching to drive thru only mode is in effect saying take away only: our greatest Brexit benefit so far is short-staffed hospitality businesses.
What a waste of police time – did they move him on? It seems quite the hill for Costa to want to die on.
Drive-through lanes are for
Drive-through lanes are for people on or in a vehicle.. that includes bicycles.
Hamster wrote:
I had an incident while using a zebra crossing at a shopping centre. I I was half way across and a motorist shot across in front of me. I reported it to the police who have an office on site. They looked it up on CCTV and were able to hit them with a FPN. The constable told me that the RTA applied even with it being private land because the owners were allowing the use of motor vehicles on it.
Awavey wrote:
Being Scotland I wonder if the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 gives him rights to stay there?
As I remember there are no
As I remember there are no trespassing laws in Scotland other than HMG sites and railways. Long time since I lived there so may have changed by now.
Spangly Shiny wrote:
Still exists. Something that the ‘new’ landowners fail to understand.
There’s no law of criminal
There’s no law of criminal trespass, wouldn’t be beyond the bounds of possibility of the wrong copper reaching for the catchall of “Breach of the Peace”
‘the drive-thru is private
‘the drive-thru is private land’.. you some sort of lawyer? read this..
In Australia, you can get booked for traffic offences in drive-throughs..
Victoria Police revealed it was an offence to use your phone to pay in a drive-through and it carries a whopping $484 fine and four demerit points.
A Transport NSW spokesperson told news.com.au that mobile phone rules apply to drivers on all roads and road-related areas.
“A road-related area is an area that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking vehicles and therefore includes drive-throughs,” the spokesperson said.
I know someone who used to
I know someone who used to (thankfully) work at a McDonalds as a shift manager. The reason she gave for not being able to service cycles in the drive-through was because their insurance didn’t cover it.
If it’s the same for Costa, I’m of course not going to defend that decision, but the fact remains that it’s a decision made by Costa head office. I don’t really think it’s fair on staff to cause them hassle like this for something outside of their control. Think the best of people. Does anyone here really think staff at individual drive-throughs are going to decide themselves to not serve cycles? Of course they’re not. Serving cyclists is easier than having to go through this mess, and also it means more profit for Costa.
Take it up with Costa head office, not front line staff.
Boopop wrote:
That sounds very much like the excuse trotted out by ride organisers who mandate helmets, who have told me that their insurers insist on helmets. When I get them to give me the name of their insurer, I check with them to find out that they don’t mandate helmets, because they’ve looked at the data and therefore know how ineffective helmets are. I’ve never gone on a ride where the organisers lie to me, because you never know what else they’ve lied about.
Whatever the rights and
Whatever the rights and wrongs, “insurance says no” is right up there with “it’s company policy”. Suppose insurance didn’t cover serving hot beverages – they’d change their insurance. Insurance is there to cover your business risks, not to tell you your business. If they’ve chosen not to serve cyclists in the drive-thru that’s their call; don’t hide behind the insurers.
Let’s not forget we’re
Let’s not forget we’re talking about the same company that started printing ‘Contents may be hot’ (or something like that) on their coffee cups because someone didn’t realise that hot drinks are, in fact, hot and burned themselves. Multibillion empire they may be, but the insurance companies still make ’em tremble in their kitchen-safe steel-toe capped boots.
Pretty sure the staff will
Pretty sure the staff will still all get paid the whole shift regardless how many people got served or not. As long as he wasn’t aggressive to the staff and was simply standing his ground then it seems a perfectly reasonable and proportionate protest to the policy. The staff lose nothing, the company loses revenue and gets some bad press. Can’t think of a much better way to respond, personally, if you have the time then more power to you.
an employee at the coffee
“an employee at the coffee chain told him that bikes were not permitted in the drive-through lane as they are ‘not road legal, taxed or insured’.
Well I suspect that a percentage of the cars that go through are not “road legal, taxed or insured”. Do they use ANPR technology to check so that they don’t invalidate their insurance? And how exactly is a bike not “road legal”? I can only assume there were no working brakes?
Costa “Coffee” is also sh*te.
Good for him! And boo-hiss to
Good for him! And boo-hiss to the rozzers!
How is this blatant discrimination allowed?! If the customer was refused service because of skin colour there would (rightfully) be an uproar.
.
.
Loving your subtly ironic comment. Ta.
.
Takes a few moments to realise that nobody could seriously link the incident in the article with skin colour discrimination.
.
Love it.
.
Cyclists are in a protected
Cyclists are not in a protected group. You can refuse to serve people as long as you don’t break the law.
hirsute wrote:
However those with medical conditions are a protected group.
An awful lot of medical conditions render people unable to drive…
My issue isn’t that they refuse to let cyclists use drive throughs; It is that with a staff shortage the drive through is maintained with no facility for serving those who can’t drive; If you can’t run the store then why not close the drive through to cars and use it as a service hatch for pedestrian access only;
Discriminating against a
Discriminating against a protected class can get you in legal hot water. But refusing to serve a customer for perfectly legal reasons can also mean trouble for your business.
Just because you’re within your rights to refuse to serve someone, that doesn’t mean they won’t sue. Lawsuits can cost you time and money that you can’t afford to lose.
Even if you aren’t sued, a refusal of service can hurt your reputation. You could still be falsely accused of discriminatory behavior, and negative social media posts and online reviews can do real damage to your business.
That’s why you should think long and hard before you deny a customer service – and be sure you’re legally entitled to do so.
How do you safely carry a
How do you safely carry a coffee if to work around the no pedestrian rule you ride your bike?
I suspect that legally the cyclist was on thin ice in that as the drive through was on private property, the Costa people should have declared him a trespasser and required him to leave their land.
As for the Costa comments, do we expect minimum wage staff to be eloquent and clued up on law? Yes, they could have solved the problem by simply giving him a coffee, and the reality was that would have been safer than arguing the toss, but I can actually sympathise with them wanting to avoid pedestrians wandering around through cars.
To be honest, I’m slightly baffled by this modern fixation that it is impossible to walk from A to B without a takeaway coffee, or simply wait till you get home and make a decent cuppa for a 10th of the price. These days I even see people hiking clutching a coffee. The world’s gone mad!
I suppose its the convenience
I suppose its the convenience of it all.
I remember growing up in the late 80s/early 90s and the closest thing to a proper coffee shop was sandwich shop/cafe/diner or even a pub (if you really had to) – Now the high street is just littered with these things like betting shops.
A lot of it has to do with the trend that people spend a lot of their lives online these days so the free wifi thats on offer is also a massive draw for these people.
But i agree, Even when im out with friends we rarely go to a coffee shop.
Why pay £3 for one cup when you can get a bag of coffee that will last you a week or two.
“Small excursion” isn’t it?
“Small excursion” isn’t it? Behaviour might be changing now but it seems many people still value being able to “take themselves out” – even for such small reward as a Costa or fast food joint.
We’re statistically weird in that we’d probably take ourselves out on an effortful cycle trip, not necessarily in company, and make ourselves a coffee on return. Fulfils some of the same needs but maybe not all.
Or just have a coffee at home
Or just have a coffee at home before the ride – which is what I do.
In any case, if you’ve got a machine that uses a pod system then making a coffee should take next to no time at all.
There are better reasons to go for a ride other then to buy a coffee but each to their own i guess. If thats what it takes to get you out the door then you do you i guess.
Everyone has their own reasons and ways of doing things.
IanMSpencer wrote:
1) point would be valid, except they will serve customers on motorbikes.
2) they have a car park for customers who don’t want to drive through. How on earth do the drivers get to and from their cars without being around other moving cars?
The policy is insane. Even more so, “its not safe to use your bike you might get hit by a car” turns to next customer “can you just squeeze past him” increasing the risk of being hit by a car.
Maybe if he got into a strangers car to order his coffee this would be more safe?
If a motorist can’t see a
If a motorist can’t see a bicycle stopped in front of them in a drive-through lane, they have no right driving a motor vehicle on a public road.
IanMSpencer wrote:
https://ridepdw.com/products/bar-ista
One of my mates goes out for
One of my mates goes out for a drive every now and again, just to get her favourite drink from Costa, drink it in her vehicle (parked, hopefully!) with her favourite music on and then drive back home via some quiet country lanes.
And d’you know what? It sounds brilliant.
Why does anyone go to a cafe? Not because they know that a £4 bag of Taylor’s Italian roast will last for weeks and make as good a coffee as a takeaway, for the same price. It’s because it’s an experience. People like to be served, people like to have a treat. I see nothing wrong with it for a piddling small amount of money every now and again.
But of course this is the reason why we millenials can’t save up for a mortgage or afford houses/children/families/insert stereotype here, because we like to buy the occasional coffee and not because prices are skyrocketing disproportionate to income.
‘I suspect that legally the
‘I suspect that legally the cyclist was on thin ice in that as the drive through was on private property, the Costa people should have declared him a trespasser and required him to leave their land.’
Bottom line: when a business owner denies service to a customer simply because they belong to a specific group or category, it may violate the law.
Costa coffee should be
Costa coffee should be renamed “Costa Over-Priced Brown Liquid”
Why is he cycling around with
Why is he cycling around with a coat rack, would be my first question ?
‘cos he was planning on
‘cos he was planning on hanging about?
Why anyone would want to use
Why anyone would want to use these poncey overpriced god damn awful places in the first place is a complete mystery to me.
Are these hipsters lives so meaningless that they actually think it is a good use of their time and money frequenting these ridiculously ignominious emporiums?
There is one near me that has always has a long line of cars queing up for a cup of brown sludge wet fart.
Sorry but I just don’t see the attraction and I think they did the guy a favour by not serving him, he gets no sympathy from me.
Either you’ve not been to a
Either you’ve not been to a Costa, or you’ve misunderstood the “hipster” stereotype.
Exactly. No self-respecting
Exactly. No self-respecting hipster would go in a chain coffee store like that. Costa and Starbucks are the McDonalds of the coffee world.
brooksby wrote:
Actually, I find McDonald’s coffee rather OK. And not too expensive. And I like their coffee ads.
Commenting about an article
Commenting about an article about one kind of bias and discrimination, to then introduce another type of bias and discrimination.
Classy.
I’m 27 this year and, while I’d still rather go to the smaller local cafe on my cycle route, I don’t really have anything against Costa or any other ‘high street’ chain – it’s where I’d go if I wanted a coffee and it was the nearest one. If you think it’s somehow overpriced you’ve missed the point of eating out; it’s all more expensive, of course it is, than having that same meal at home because you go there to be served.
The problem I have with these
The problem I have with these sort of policies is it denies services to those who can’t afford, or don’t want, to own a car.
It also unfairly stigmatises cycling as being ‘dangerous’, as someone has made a ‘health & safety’ decision that cycling through a drive-thru is not safe. Of course it’s no worse than cycling on the road (I’d argue considerably safer), but if you asked the person who made that H&S decision, I’m sure they’d say they wouldn’t dream of cycling on the road as it’s too dangerous!
Is it a massive problem at the moment in comparison with everything else? Well no. But it’s just another small reason that your life will be better if you use a car.
“Health and Safety” seems to
“Health and Safety” seems to have legs of its own. All sorts of things are banned on the dubious conjecture that they might lead to some imagined harm. I’d love to know what actual H&S scenario is imagined that leads to cyclists being banned, and how many verified instances, or even near-instances, have been recorded which resulted in the ruling.
TBF, this was a staff
TBF, this was a staff shortage issue. I do wonder why they chose to keep the drive through open rather than counter service but presumably it allowed them to keep customers from using tables that they couldn’t clean.
I doubt that generally there is big demand for cycle-thru coffee – coffee is a destination!
Yes, this was just a
Yes, this was just a temporary situation, but they could have closed the drive-thru and allowed in person pick-ups only. Is it a big deal for drivers to park up and walk to the counter? Probably for some!
The biggest bugbear of this sort of treatment for me is the local refuse tip. You can’t take rubbish to the tip unless you have a car. This is due to ‘health & safety’, yet as soon as you drive in, you can get out of your car and walk around! It’s absolutely ridiculous that I can’t ride in there with a cycle trailer full of rubbish to recycle/dispose.
HoarseMann wrote:
Even worse is that the tips here in Bristol get so congested with cars that there’s a line of idling, polluting cars blocking the roads around them. They were so congested that they were doing odd/even number plates on alternate days, but there could still be an hour of queueing to get into the place. They’ve now had to switch to a pre-booking system instead. It’s ridiculous that the amount of time spent actually using the dump is a tiny fraction of the time spent waiting to use it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
— hawkinspeterAaaaaaah! Pre-booking; do you have to pre-plan that?

eburtthebike wrote:
Only if you want to be properly pre-prepared
hawkinspeter wrote:
Surely if I wanted to be improperly pre-prepared, I’d still have to pre-plan it?
Failure to pre-plan is pre
Failure to pre-plan is pre-planning to fail?
chrisonatrike wrote:
If you pre-plan or pre-prepare, you can still pre-fail.
did the cyclist also advocate
did the cyclist also advocate for the pedestrians who were not being served? I think there are far more important battles to activate than not getting a coffee due to staff shortage. Feels a little too self centered for my mind.
I don’t see why the cyclist
I don’t see why the cyclist can’t object. If you want to use the law (as presumably Costa thought they were doing) for something you it’s on you to ensure you’ve got it right. Just because this part of the law isn’t something you particularly agree with.
I wouldn’t have fought this one but I’m not a Costa fan. However under several legal definitions cycles are vehicles. And the employee’s rant about not road legal / taxed is entirely bogus. As long as the bike (and how it was being operated) complied with the law it was “road-legal”. I am certain the rider paid the legally required tax (VED – zero) and had the required insurance (e.g. none).
Costa might have been better just saying “we’re not serving you unless you’re inside a fully-enclosed vehicle”. Or – since I believe they’re not *bound* to serve anybody – just refusing and giving no reason. (Of course they might be open to challenge over discrimination after that). Bet they didn’t even think about anything but large motor vehicles though. Or if they did thought they’d get more complaints from motorists in golf buggies / open-topped sportsters.
Quite a lot missing the point
Quite a lot missing the point Liam was making I think. Of course it’s obvious that ‘drive-thru’ infers driving. Yes it’s understandable there is an H&S reasoning, and there has probably been many vehicle shunts in the drive through queue that because it’s private land Costa could be deemed negligent for allowing drivers to be stupid bastards and hit each other. However, the stated reasoning and the police dialogue is where it’s wrong. How similar is it to other forms of ‘isms? Their first responses are nothing more than an ‘ism’ against cyclists, then retract when it is called out. ‘Don’t pay road tax’ , ‘loser’ Good on you Liam, though don’t know why you are buying coffee from then anyway, it’s overpriced shit.
“the store team followed our
“the store team followed our policy of not serving cyclists in the Drive-Thru as a safety precaution…”
Where is the danger coming from? In other words, who is causing the danger?
The danger is imagined, that
The danger is imagined, that’s what’s so stupid about this whole storm in a coffee cup.
I’m sorry, but that bloke is
I’m sorry, but that bloke is a bit of a moron. With press like this, it’s no surprise cyclists get a bad name.
The shop is sut due to staff shortages. They have a policy of not serving cyclists at their drive thru’s. Just move on to the next cafe that is actually open and don’t be a dick would be my advice.
This kind of crap doesn’t help the real cause for cyclists as it just won’t get anyone on side, not even cyclists.
What about now?
What about now?
I tend to agree. Whilst the
I tend to agree. Whilst the sign about Click and Collect being available could have been clearer who they choose to serve and how is up to them.
If you dont like it take your business elsewhere. God knows there are plenty of other coffee shops willing to take your money.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Agree with that, but in that case why do they always fall back on the BS “Health and Safety” excuse. Just be honest and say that they have chosen to only serve motor vehicles at the drive through window.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
The basis of most discrimination but would have been easily fixed in this case by a big sign saying cyclists and pedestrians please use Click and collect at the front door. Experiencing discrimination is never nice, whether you happen to be in a protected group or not, and it opens up the possibility of discriminating against those in protected groups but claiming It’s ok because we discriminated against them for a different reason
McDonalds does the exact same
McDonalds does the exact same thing. The one near me has sensors where the cars stop to alert the staff to a customer – but bicycles can’t activate these, leaving you waiting and blocking a lane to no avail. You won’t get served or be able to speak to a person.
Does Costa serve
Does Costa serve motorcyclists? their argument about only serving people with vehicles is a nonsense, as bicycles are legally vehicles and as for road sensors not detecting bicycles, inductive loop detectors produce an electromagnetic field which, in turn, detects metallic objects.When a metallic object passes over and remains on the detector, a demand is placed for your movement; the more metal you have on your bike, the easier it is to be detected; even carbon fibre bikes usually have some metal in the pedals or wheels; the inductive loop detectors should be sensitive enough to detect even these small amounts of metal if your bike is positioned in the best place for detection.
“The admin claimed that the
“The admin claimed that the chain “can only allow road worthy, taxed and insured vehicles through the lane”, and told a cyclist they couldn’t use the drive-through because “you’re not taxed or insured to be on the road”.”
So they have ANPR linked to their CCTV to ALWAYS check that every motor vehicle is taxed and insured (ahem… wink wink) not to mention has a valid MOT…?
Repeat – but all cyclists are
Repeat – but all cyclists are taxed (pay their VED – 0) and insured (required amount – none) to be on the road. Bicycles are legally vehicles (possible odd exception or two) and I’d guess the majority of bikes are road-legal – but bet the coffee shop would have no idea how to check.
Strictly speaking VED only
Strictly speaking VED only applies to mechanically propelled vehicles and so bikes are entirely outwith the scope of it (i.e. not taxed) – this is slightly distinct to e.g. electric cars which are covered by the VED legislation and so keepers have to “tax” their vehicle even if the amount of tax is £0.
Fair point, I just checked on
Fair point, I just checked on mobility scooters (prior to “is an e-bike a mechanically propelled vehicle”) and almost fell down a rabbit hole…
None of which Costa staff or likely management have any idea about though!