Cyclists from Congleton have objected to McDonald’s ‘discrimination’ against people who choose to avoid the car for unnecessary journeys. The fast food restaurant said its decision not to serve people on bikes at its drive-throughs was taken, “for the health and safety of our people and our customers.”
Jill Dooney and her husband cycled to Congleton’s drive-through McDonald’s after getting a first shot of a Covid vaccine at the town hall earlier this week.
She told Nub News that they were told they would not be served because they were on bicycles.
The drive-through is open to motorists, but Dooney was told it was against McDonald’s insurance policy to allow people to cycle through.
A spokesperson later explained: “For the health and safety of our people and our customers, we are unfortunately unable to serve customers not in road-going motor vehicles in our drive-through.
“With takeaway temporarily closed we know this is disappointing for some customers, and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.”
Dooney said: “I object to the fact that they discriminate against people who choose to avoid the car for unnecessary journeys.
“I feel that this policy encourages more car journeys, particularly where children/teenagers want a McDonald’s and have to ask their parents to give them a lift.
“Should McDonald’s not be encouraged to upgrade their insurance policy or find another way to serve walking and cycling customers in a COVID-compliant way?”
In July last year, a warehouse worker in Stoke complained that he had been left “shocked and embarrassed” after queuing at a McDonald’s drive-through on his bike only to be turned away when it was his turn to be served.
“I believe this is highly discriminatory against young people or anybody trying to do their bit for the environment by riding a bike,” said James Owens. “If cyclists are not welcome, why is this not made clear at the entrance to the drive-through?
“Cyclists and motorists manage to share every other part of the highway so why does McDonald’s think they cannot negotiate a drive-through together?”
On that occasion McDonald’s went into greater detail about why it won’t serve cyclists.
A spokesperson said: “By the very nature of a drive-through layout, vehicles need to pull up close to the service points and as there are no specific pavements or safe areas for pedestrians to use at the same time, safety becomes a concern.
“We are unable to permit pedestrians, bicycles and class-one mobility scooters to use our drive-throughs for these reasons. We are able to serve customers on motorcycles or those using a class-two or class-three mobility scooter.”
The policy is presumably not one that applies worldwide however as the firm has previously trialled drive-through packaging specifically designed for cyclists.
119 thoughts on “Congleton cyclists say McDonald’s is discriminating against people who avoid using their car for unnecessary journeys”
“You must not leave, or be
“You must not leave, or be outside of your home except where necessary. You may leave the home to shop for basic necessities” (UKGOV National Lockdown guidance).
Struggling to see how going to McD’s in a car, on a bike or on foot falls into shopping for basic necessities?
How about key workers popping
How about key workers popping in to grab some breakfast/lunch/dinner? If they’re allowed to be open and serve people, then it seems reasonable that people can go there to buy food (or an approximation thereof).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yep if they’re allowed to open I guess that implies it’s permissible to travel there – just wondering how a takeaway hamburger comes under the aegis of a “basic necessity”, which is, according to the regs, all one’s allowed to go out for, keyworker or not?
You’re also allowed outside
You’re also allowed outside to travel to work, so grabbing a burger on the way to or from work should be fine.
Just because they are allowed
Just because they are allowed to be open doesn’t mean that some of their customers are not breaching the regs by driving there.
IanMK wrote:
It’s all in the legislation. You can pre-order takeaway food, or use a drive through. So I am not sure what regulation you think people using a drive through to obtain food are breaking?
See here…
See here…
And here…
And here…
Are these the latest regs
Is this the latest guidance your quoting? We don’t have tiers any more in England at least.
We do, we are all in tier 4
We do, we are all in tier 4
“Every area of England, apart from the territorial waters adjacent to England and the airspace above England and those territorial waters, is within the Tier 4 area.”
We are all under tier 4 now.
We are all under tier 4 now.
The one that says you should
The one that says you should stay local and only go out if you need to. The one that says that you should walk or cycle if possible. I’m not saying that nobody ever needs McDs I’m suggesting there’s a difference between want an need.
But which one says you should
But which one says you should stay local? It’s NOT the law. That is government guidance. It has NO legal standing, therefore you cannot commit an offence by not following it. The moral argument is a separate issue.
And once again, there is no definition, nor restriction on ‘want and need’ when it comes to buying food under tier 4 restrictions. I think you are trying to put your values out there as some sort of restriction on what other people can do.
The basic necessity comment
The basic necessity comment is in the guidance, not the legislation, which is here.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/schedule/3A#commentary-key-b7c9a6d833cd1a4792e89c28bc48763d
Takes a bit of fathoming, but it’s all in there what you can and can’t travel for. Getting takeaway or drive thru food is perfectly acceptable under the legislation for Tier 4 restrictions.
PP
Sorry I was quoting the
Sorry you’re right I was quoting the guidance not the law. I do get it. I know there’s no law being broken. I should have checked my wording.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I am a key worker. I’m an Uber Eats food courier and I pick up from Mc Donalds on my bike. I ride my bike through the car park to the door, where I leave my bike, then back through the car park when I set off to deliver. I can’t buy their food at the service counter because it’s closed. I can’t buy their food at the drive through, because I’m on a bicycle (or foot)
BUT THERE IS A WAY! (this only works for Mc Donalds that do delivery)
I can order myself some food via the Uber Eats phone app and get it delivered to outside the front door of the Mc Donalds. I don’t know how much extra that might cost. Delivery will be as cheap as it can get because it’s a very short distance! So you can get a Mc Donalds even if you’re on foot or bicycle, so long as they do delivery.
But for me, as a delivery courier, it could get even better. If I switch on my Uber Eats courier app before I order my delivery from the delivery app, I might be the courier that gets offered the delivery. Some of the delivery fee is paid by the restauarant. All that means is that I could end up making a sall profit by delivering food to myself to the Mc Donalds that I pick the order up from. I’ve seen a courier actually do this with KFC and IIRC, that delivery meant he made a bonus target, so he ended up making about £30 for delivering some KFC to himself to the restaurant he picked up from so that he could take it home for his tea!
That’s superb!
That’s superb!
Then they probably shouldn’t
Then they probably shouldn’t be open, should they?
Quote:
Getting your Covid jab seems about as necessary as anything at the moment.
mdavidford wrote:
Getting your Covid jab seems about as necessary as anything at the moment.
Well absolutely but I’m not sure being out for a necessary journey then allows for a few unecessary add-ons, does it?
Your interpretation of the
Your interpretation of the legislation is wrong. Picking up food from an authorised food retailer, no matter what your opinion is of the food quality (basic necessity or ‘luxury’ hamburger) is permitted under the legislation.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/schedule/3A#commentary-key-b7c9a6d833cd1a4792e89c28bc48763d
In the words of the good book
In the words of the good book “All things are permitted, but not all things are of benefit.”
Just because you can, does not mean you should and also you have to show that
” it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (“P”) to leave or be outside the place where P is living”
Since when was food not a
Since when was food not a basic necessity?
Me_ wrote:
Oh come now, a McDonald’s hamburger comes under the heading of an “essential basic necessity”?
Yes. It’s food, you might not
Yes. It’s food, you might not consider it good food, but it is food and will keep you alive. What should we be eating? Rice and beans for 10 months?
Me_ wrote:
Food from a supermarket, preferably garnered in as few trips as possible? I believe they sell more than just rice and beans? A McD’s clearly is a luxury, not an essential basic necessity.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You had my vote right up to this point.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Food from a supermarket, preferably garnered in as few trips as possible? I believe they sell more than just rice and beans? A McD’s clearly is a luxury, not an essential basic necessity.— Me_
I don’t believe the regulations stipulate where you should purchase your food from, merely that you should stay reasonably local. As other posters have noted, services like that allow people travelling to and from work to get food, especially those (like members of the NHS) who may work long shifts and sometimes have trouble getting to the supermarket during opening hours. That does not constitute a luxury. The regulations are clearly designed to facilitate that, and using a McDonalds or similar in the way described above (on your way to and from home, or travelling straight there and back if local) is not in breach of them. More to the point, you are very obviously at far more risk of catching/spreading Covid in a supermarket than at McDonalds or similar.
Recoveryride wrote:
What nonsense, NHS staff have cafeterias open at work and are just as capable as anyone else of planning their shopping and meals not to have to rely on fast food outlets. Keeping unhealthy junkfood outlets open on the grounds that you’re helping out NHS staff is real grasping at straws stuff.
Just out of curiosity looked up the McD’s in question, it’s open 6am-11pm. Approximately 80 metres away there’s a Tesco superstore open 6am – 12pm, so anyone who can make it to the Macdonald’s can make it to the supermarket, therefore your argument is totally invalid. Keeping unnecessary food outlets like Macdonalds open is encouraging unnecessary journeys and increasing the risks of viral spread.
Unfortunately for you, you
Unfortunately for you, you don’t have ANY argument. Read the damn legislation and stop trying to tell everyone what you THINK they should and shouldn’t be allowed to do, or what food they should or shouldn’t be allowed to purchase because of your opinion of what constitutes ‘necessary’.
You are flogging a dead horse
You are flogging a dead horse.
People can buy food from any food supplier that is permitted to remain open under the legislation. It is not just supermarkets.
There is nothing in the legislation saying ‘in as few trips as possible’.
There is nothing in the legislation that says you cannot buy ‘luxury’ food items, nor a definition of ‘luxury’ when it comes to food items.
There is no definition of ‘basic necessities’ in the legislation, nor mention that these are the only things you are permitted to purchase.
Your interpretation (well, I doubt it’s an interpretation as I do not believe you have read the legislation) is simply an opinion based around one sentence in the guidance, which has no legal basis whatsoever.
What makes it pretty obviously wrong regarding ‘basic necessities’ is the fact there is no restriction on any of the foodstuffs that you can purchase in any of the supermarkets. I assume you wouldn’t consider Nando’s piri piri sauce to be a basic necessity? Nor ANY alcoholic drink? Or even bottled water? You see, no restrictions nor definition of what the supermarkets may sell as being ‘basic necessities’….
PP
The basic requirement is to
The basic requirement is to stay at home, so apart from the odd supermarket shop or ride, that’s what we need to do.
In most cases, a fast food trip is not really a reasonable excuse to leave home.
hirsute wrote:
That’s your interpretation of the rules. If the government allows a business to open then we are allowed to utilise their service. For example not many would view click and collect at a toyshp as a necessity but the government has deemed somewhat arbitrarily that some businesses can operate and other’s can’t. I don’t agree with this fuckup but it’s up to business groups to fight for more balanced rules.
bikeman01 wrote:
That’s not the case though is it, if I happen to like a particular takeaway fifty miles from my house and drive there to pick up a curry the police aren’t going to say, if they stop me, oh well you’re going to a business that’s allowed to stay open so it’s OK.
Not sure about about
Not sure about about interpretation
1.—(1) No person who lives in the Tier 4 area may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
I don’t think the idea is to look for ways to not be at home.
No, but going to get food is
No, but going to get food is defined as one of the permitted reasons! The same as exercise etc etc. It’s not about trying to find reasons to leave home, it about people on here saying that people shouldn’t be going to McDonald’s for food, which is poppycock – they are perfectly permitted to.
It appears to be because of some sort of food snobbery on the part of those claiming that McDonald’s constitutes some kind of extravagant, luxury, rule breaking, irresponsible thing to do! It clearly isn’t.
PP
I agree you can’t try and say
I agree you can’t try and say you can go to this shop but not that shop or you can buy X but not Y.
However the basic requirement is to stay at home, so when you asked earlier about
“‘in most cases’. Based on what?”
Let’s say Police were patrolling all day around mcdonalds and saw you get breakfast, then lunch, then turn up for dinner. Do you think they will accept your excuse of ” it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (“P”) to leave or be outside the place where P is living”? Or will they say , ‘do you really need to keep coming out for food 3 times a day?’ Because all these things are exceptions to the requirement to stay at home and they do need a justification each time.
hirsute wrote:
Like I said, I’m merely stating facts, not mak8ng moral judgements. The police can give you advice regarding the guidance, they can issue you a fine if they want, but if you challenge it the chances are you will get it rescinded. It’s not for the police to enforce the guidance – as they have no actual powers to, they can only enforce the legislation. They are in a difficult position, not of their making. Blame the government for the legislation.
PP
Why are you introducing
Why are you introducing talking about the guidance when Im quoting the regs?
The basic requirement and objective is to stay at home not find reasons to go various places simply because there is a clause in the regs that covers it.
But it is perfectly
But it is perfectly permissible, whether you think it reasonable or not. And you are going into another dubious area by saying ‘in most cases’. Based on what?
The legislation specifically permits individuals to leave home to pick up pre-ordered take-away food, or to use a drive thru service to pick up food. I don’t understand why people are trying to add in their interpretation to say that those things are somehow not reasonable? The law clearly states that they are.
Here is the specific paragraph in the legislation that says offering and using a drive thru service is permitted.
You’ve heard about Brexit,
You’ve heard about Brexit, then.
Once again, it is permitted
Once again, it is permitted under the legislation. A lot of people seem to only read the government guidance and take their lead from that. It is an ‘interpretation’ and generalisation about what is permitted.
The legislation is the law, not the guidance. You cannot be charged with any crime for not following the guidance if you comply with the legislation.
Picking up take-away food, or using a drive thru food service is perfectly acceptable under the legislation. So is leaving home to get your Covid jab. Combining the two into one journey is eminently sensible.
It is exactly the same argument that everyone was having regarding the two ladies in Derbyshire who drove 5 miles to take a socially distanced walk for their daily exercise – the legislation puts no limit on driving somewhere to exercise, nor a distance or time limit.
The women were issued FPNs which were rescinded a day or two later when the story broke across the national press and it became apparent that the police had issued the FPNs incorrectly – they were fining the women for not following the guidance, when they had not breached the legislation therefore had not committed an offence.
I suspect there have been an awful lot of fines issued for breaches of the guidance and people have just paid up. I’m not condoning stupid, irresponsible actions, but people need to read the legislation and understand what they can and can’t actually do under the tier restrictions for their area.
Many seem happy to point fingers and castigate people who are using good judgement and following the legislation, due to some ill-informed, holier than thou judgemental finger wagging when they have no idea that something is actually allowed. Worse than that is when they then say ‘well it shouldn’t be’…
PP
To precis all your
To precis all your unnecessarily rude and aggressive posts, it’s OK to act like a selfish entitled irresponsible prick if you want to go and get junk food because if you nitpick over the regulations enough it’s allowed. Well done. Exactly the sort of attitude which has led to this hellish situation carrying on far longer than it needed to and countless unnecessary deaths.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You have consistently incorrectly told people what they can and can’t do, including claiming that people who have a cafeteria at work shouldn’t use a takeaway on their way home. Wind your neck in. You just don’t like being wrong. Completely wrong, and called out for it.
So you do you, but stop making out that you have some superior position to judge other people who aren’t ‘nit picking’, merely reading the legislation (which is obviously more than you did before passing your judgements) and following the law.
And the attitude of driving to get food from a drive thru is probably safer from a Covid spreading point of view that walking around Tesco with everyone else, but you carry on with your skewed judgemental attitude…
Pilot Pete wrote:
Anyone with any sense of responsibility knows that the thing to do to protect others and society as a whole is to stay at home as much as possible and follow government guidelines, even if they’re not the law. Yes, I will judge pricks who say “Ah, but under the law I can do X, Y and Z”, even if it’s totally unnecessary and they’re only doing it to satisfy their own selfish desires and who in doing so put others in danger.
Oh, do the people who go to the MacDonald’s takeaway only eat from there? Or do they go to the supermarket as well, thereby increasing their time outside and the risk of contracting/passing on the virus? You know damned well they do.
Rendel Harris wrote:
To be fair, with the governments track record on tackling this pandemic, I’m not sure they’re best placed to be offering advice!
HoarseMann wrote:
Nobody has more contempt for this shitshow of a government than I, but in terms of the stay at home advice that’s pretty much universally agreed upon by scientists and other more competent governments than our own.
I think what you’ve got to do
I think what you’ve got to do is take a step back and look at the broad picture. Cases are dropping sharply, it’s clear that the current restrictions are working – and those restrictions do allow certain activities outside the home (including a cheeky maccy d’s).
Obviously the safest option is to not leave home at all. That sort of lockdown was called ‘brutal’ by our media when China did it early in the pandemic. It’s also not sustainable for long and it’s not the approach the UK has taken (wrongly in my view!).
It’s worth calling out flagrant rule breakers, such as organisers of mass gatherings etc. but in the grand scheme of things, the additional risk posed by getting a burger on a bike is well down in the noise.
Lots of assumptions there,
Lots of assumptions there, but you’ve proved yourself quite good at that, as well as your lack of knowledge of the law. So now you are shifting the goalposts to claiming anyone reading the legislation as ‘nit picking’, now to the moral argument trying to save face as you’ve been proved wrong regarding the law.
We all know about staying at home, but you know f’all about anybody else and their reasoning, motives, situation or anything else whilst you cast your vile judgements on them going to get food. So what they get a take away from a drive through? If the authorities felt is was just too great a risk of spreading Covid they would outlaw it. They haven’t. Take your ire out on the government rather than judging people whom you have no idea about…
Its exactly the same as all those moaning about cyclists taking exercise. What’s local, what’s too far, how they are breathing Covid over everyone, how they are risking the NHS if they have a crash. It’s all ill-informed, ill thought out tripe. The reason the government are allowing exercise, including cycling is for physical and mental well being. The risk is minimal of spreading Covid whilst out cycling, whilst the benefits to public health are significant.
It makes no difference if I end up in A&E from falling off my bike or tripping and falling down the stairs, and the risk of accidents at home with lockdown has gone through the roof.
Most people are following the rules and using good judgement to minimise risk. Sure there are fools out there who deserve penalties, but your blanket assumptions are simply immature, bigoted and some pathetic attempt at elitism.
Pilot Pete wrote:
No it isn’t. But you’re so determined to signal your virtue and shout and scream about elitism and God knows what else that I really don’t think it’s worth continuing any discussion with you. Enjoy your Macdonalds.
Just saw a good ad at half time in the rugby, showing patients on ventilators and the NHS staff caring for them. “Look them in the eyes and tell them you’re doing all you can to stop the spread of Covid 19. Stay home. Save lives.” Not “Look them in the eyes and tell them you’re sticking to the letter of the law and that’s all that matters”, oddly.
Me_ wrote:
Since when was McDonald’s the only place you could buy food?
I don’t understand why is this outlet seen as so “essential”, the food they sell is shit.
Your opinion of the
Your opinion of the establishment or the quality of food is sadly irrelevant to this argument. The government have listed take away outlets as being permitted to open to provide pre-ordered take away or delivery/ drive thru services as long as they comply with the restrictions placed upon them (such as the takeaway restrictions on people being on the premises).
Any other interpretation of ‘essential’ is meaningless…
PP
Pilot Pete wrote:
Relax Pete. It’s a forum, not a classroom.
Simon E wrote:
Since when was McDonald’s the only place you could buy food?
I don’t understand why is this outlet seen as so “essential”, the food they sell is shit.— Me_
…and supermarkets sell Findus Crispy Pancakes. Are they essential?
hawkinspeter wrote:
These comments, lol. Mcd’s is
These comments, lol. Mcd’s is open to help morale, simple as that. Yes, they probably don’t need to be open, but the government has (correctly) calculated that having a small chance of catching covid from a takeaway is preferable to people getting more pussed off and breaking the rules in a more dangerous manner. Same reason as why pro sport is ongoing.
You should stay local so
You should stay local so travelling from another town or village that has other takeaways available especially if that includes an alternative burger is against the regs. To confuse matters further, you should walk or cycle if possible. A McDs near me has Lidl. M&S. Subway & Starbucks next to it. So if I can walk or cycle then they are all open for walk in service. I shouldn’t be in a car. Preference is not need. I’m not saying their aren’t cases where there might be need but perhaps the Derbyshire Police should have shown up a McDs rather than local beauty spots to see why people are traveling.
IanMK wrote:
Can you provide a link to the law that states how far you can travel and to what constitutes ‘local’, as you have stated ‘is against the regs’. What regulations are you talking about? The government guidance? The legislation? What? As the ONLY thing that is law, and therefore you can commit an offence by not following, is the legislation.
It’s all in here;
It’s all in here;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/schedule/3A#commentary-key-b7c9a6d833cd1a4792e89c28bc48763d
I have replied elsewhere showing the specific paragraphs that include using a drive through food service. What is important is the legislation, rather than the guidance. The legislation is what tells which retailers can be open and the service(s) they can supply and the conditions by which they may provide them, and it tells individuals what they legally can and can’t do.
Leaving home is permitted for way more than the very vague ‘basic necessities’ referred to in the guidance. You can only commit an offence if you do not comply with the legislation, not the guidance.
PP
Well said Pete, I got bored
Well said Pete, I got bored of arguing with the people that clearly don’t understand the actual legislation and are just judging because of the establishment in question
Me_ wrote:
I couldn’t give a bollocks whether people are driving to get a McDs in Congleton or foie gras on Park Lane, nor whether you can parse the legislation to prove it’s allowed, you’re not going to starve without it, stop going out just because you fancy a takeaway and risking other people’s lives and putting more strain on the NHS.
“The drive-through is open to
“The drive-through is open to motorists, but Dooney was told it was against McDonald’s insurance policy to allow people to cycle through.”
They should check with the insurers and get it from the horse’s mouth, not some jumped up manager. I’ve been told the same thing many times by ride organisers about their helmet rules, and every time I checked, it was a lie; the insurers demanded no such thing.
I always thought the drive
I always thought the drive though was take away. Bottom line there much better places that will happily take your money even if you have a bike.
Remember it is safe to share
Remember it is safe to share national speed limit roads with cars, but not the drive through. Allegedly
Bikes are road going vehicles.
The lack of a pavement is irrelevant, as bikes can’t use pavements anyway.
wycombewheeler wrote:
No, no, no! This is about the safety of their people. It’s clearly much worse to inhale sweaty lycra aroma than diesel fumes…..
Whereas I’m not a customer of
Whereas I’m not a customer of MaccyDee’s, this same thing winds me up about the local tip. You can’t ride or walk on. Why not? See plenty of cars turning up with only one bag of rubbish, causing a queue behind down the street cos there’s not enough parking spaces inside. Give bikes priority, they take a fraction of the space
Captain Badger wrote:
Same here – even if you live very close by and don’t have a car!
In Barcelona they didn’t want
In Barcelona they didn’t want to serve me when I walked up to the drive through counter. When I returned with my bicycle it was fine.
In Germany they were experimenting with a service for cyclists. I’m not sure how successful that was.
https://www.food-service.de/international/int-news/mcdonalds-germany-testing-a-mcdrive-for-bycicles-46070
At this McDonald’s in Wuxi,
At this McDonald’s in Wuxi, China, they had an outside service window for pedestrians. Every time I walked past there was a car up on the pavement using it.
https://goo.gl/maps/fm6nGGR9xp2XKp1B9
They do a ‘click & serve’ now
They do a ‘click & serve’ now where you order on the app and park in the car park in a numbered bay, then the food is brought out to you – no drive thru required. I wonder if that would work on a bike? They probably wouldn’t realise you were on a bike until they brought the food out!
They do a ‘click & serve’ now
I would say this will work, and for pedestrians too.
Reason being that I actually tried to do this by car but couldn’t find the numbered bays to park in, so ended up parking elsewhere and walking around to find the bays before completing my order. Then I just waited next to the chosen bay because someone else parked in it before I could go back to my car. The food runner was fine with it but I would double check the food you receive.
and if they complain, you
and if they complain, you could just ask them to wait a minute whilst you get your car, then whip this out of a pannier bag and slowly inflate it…
HoarseMann wrote:
I would be tempted to have that fully inflated already and somehow fitted on my bike while I’m riding 🙂
maybe they’ll let me through the drive through!
s1ng wrote:
Yes the App works. I took my son for a ride last week and we stopped at the local MaccyDs for lunch. Ordered from outside with the App and they bought it out to us. Simples!!
Being refused service at
Being refused service at McDonalds will increase your life expectency.
So if the visit was made by e
So if the visit was made by e-scooter which is considered a motor vehicle and requires a driving licence, would that be acceptable to McD’s? It is probably easier for McD’s just to state that as the drive through is on private land they may liable for any injuries that occur through vehicle shunts and therefore require all vehicles to have registration plates visible for the cameras incase one should shunt and leave before handing over payment details. Cyclists don’t have registration details visible. Pre-ordering with Just Eat/Uber eat seems sensible, but not as sensible as getting something at home instead.
No. Because, although private
No. Because, although private land, it is open to the public and so the regulations still apply to the operation of an e-scooter and an offence is stil committed.
Same thing happened to my
Same thing happened to my father in law last year but at a drive thru Costa Coffee. He and a friend both in their 70’s were out for a ride and the weather took a turn for the worse. The Costa at the time was only serving through the drive thru hatch and refused these two old boys a Coffee.
Costa cited a health and safety issue ( n.b there were no other vehicles in the queue). Utter bo**ocks.
My father in law is much more laid back about these things than I am but I’ll never use them again for this reason. Shop local, avoid these faceless, moralless chains.
half_wheel79 wrote:
Also their coffee always tastes a bit weak and watery.
the problem with that is not
the problem with that is not everywhere has a proper “local coffee” shop, there are very few on the majority of routes I ride and Costa is often or not the only choice versus some horrendously overpriced or less than satisfactory alternative.
Im sure when this topic has come up before though theres rarely any real insurance or health & safety case to be made, but as the drive-thru is always on private land, the landowner can set any condition they like.
Mate, I’d rather do without a
Mate, I’d rather do without a brew than give those turds my money. Theres always another option even if it means riding a few more miles.
half_wheel79 wrote:
Health and safety my arse. Only if it appears in a risk assessment that a risk has been identified which needs to be mitigated.
Curry’s did something similar. I was shopping for a TV for my mum, who was getting on in years. As old folk do she needed to use the bath room. When I finally found a member of staff and explained the situation,
“there are no customer toilets”
“Can she use the staff loo?”
“No it’s against our policy”
“Surely in this case you can make an exception”
“No, it’s health and safety”
This last line delivered with one of those conspiratorial smiles that says “health and safety will be the death of us, isn’t it stoopid that your mum can’t use our perfectly safe toilets BY LAW.”
Aaaarrrgggh!!!!!! As if the law is going to stop old folk using a f*cking toilet!?!??! She got treated to a particularly hard stare.
Maybe Currys staff receive
Maybe Currys staff receive special training on how to use the toilet?
Otherwise, I’d love to know how it is dangerous for the general public to use their toilet under any circumstances but not dangerous for their staff to use the same toilet?
brooksby wrote:
I know, that was exactly my thought at the time
“I’m shocked – your management have provided you with toilets that are dangerous to use” I didn’t quip….
It drives me nuts that people defend decisions they know to be ridiculous with “Elf n sayfety, innit”, thus perpetuating the myth. This in turn allows corporations to falsely claim that H&S is just red tape which needs to be got rid of.
They only do it while they
They only do it while they think they can get away with it. If you just sat there blocking anyone else from using the drive through I’ll bet they’d make an exception to their policy.
I won’t be using Mcdonalds
I won’t be using Mcdonalds from now on.
I wouldn’t use a Mc D if you
I wouldn’t use a Mc D if you paid me but it’s the principle. Surely this discrimination is illegal. What if they refused to serve me because I’m black? I’m pretty sure they would be told to change their policy before you can say thirteenspeedhydrauliconebygroupset!
It’s become a loaded word
It’s become a loaded word “discrimination”, but it is perfectly normal and legal as a thing, unless the law says it isn’t. Your example is correct – discrimination on grounds of race is illegal. Not that there’s a government agency who will take action on your behalf to sort it out.* With the railway companies, some people have taken the bike as disabled adaption route, but I haven’t heard of any major breakthroughs from them.
If I ran any sort of business, my sign would say “no SUVs”; my staff would say “I see you arrived in your Freelander, Sir, very sorry but I’m going to have to ask you to leave.”, or plain “sorry I can’t serve you”. Can you imagine??
The McDonalds drive-thru chestnut is surely academic for people on here, but you do wonder, there must be shunts as drivers get impatient in the queue – if a cyclist was in the queue and got hurt would either incident, legally speaking be anything to do with McDonalds?
“And will Sir be chucking that coffee container out of the window at speed on a country lane, or parking up at a beauty spot and dropping the whole lot out of the windows?” “Beauty spot? Excellent choice. Have a nice day.”
* when the pre-paid funeral company refused to lay on a wheelchair taxi for my mother to go to my father’s funeral, I complained to them afterwards, got nowhere, we didn’t feel it was a media case (a pretty potent story, you would think) contacted whatever equalities agency it is nowadays and basically you’re on your own. (Her local taxi firm rescued the situation.).
You may recall the Scottish
You may recall the Scottish pizza place from last year:
“Customers parking in the cycle lane will not be served”.
David9694 wrote:
Seems unlikely since an accident on an Asda car park doesn’t involve Asda/Walmart usually. McDonald’s just needs a sign to say they’re not liable for the driving of others on the premises.
Christopher TR1 wrote:
Nope, it’s perfectly legal discrimination as being ‘cyclist’ is not one of the protected characteristics.
In fact, the only thing stopping a cafe refusing to serve a cyclist because their lycra might upset Susannah Constantine, is loss of business and possibly the bad publicity they might get!
HoarseMann wrote:
Is age not a protected characteristic?
Drivers only will indirectly discrimate against those unde the age of 17, although it seems it is legal to do this, based on the policies of some shops to children.
It is, but you can
It is, but you can discriminate based on a protected characteristic if there’s a good reason for it – and as you can’t legally hold a driving license below a certain age, then that would cover them.
I once worked at a company that only recruited people with bad eyesight – because they were required to test opticians!
This is strange as the
This is strange as the McDonalds near me once served me on my bike…Admittedly this was a couple years ago.
Big John’s does not have this stipulation. I’ve been served by them about 10 times on bike, and no one has said anything about it. They even have a cycle lane running past the restaurant. The only downside is that their food is terrible.
Why on earth eat food that
Why on earth eat food that you think is terrible?
DoctorFish wrote:
I cycle past there on the way back from work, and sometimes the smell and hunger gets the best of me. I can usually resist by remembering how bad their chips are (they’re like cardboard if you’ve never had them).
Without wishing to enter the
Without wishing to enter the debate about whether or not things are illegal or just ill-advised, or somewhere in between, we also need to bear in mind that the government is attempting to do what it can to enable businesses to stay afloat … hence my wife and I don’t NEED to order takeout food from our favourite Greek restaurant around the corner from our house, but if doing that can help even a little bit to make sure it still exists when we finally get back to some kind of normality then we will do so.
In that context, it is important to remember that while McDonalds itself is a huge international company, each individual restaurant (with some flagship exceptions) is actually a franchise, and is owned and operated by local small businesspeople who are as concerned about their ongoing business as the owners of that local Greek restaurant mentioned earlier.
It is also important to consider that people are much more likely to obey the lockdown rules overall if within those rules there is still the possibility of doing some of the things that they enjoy in normal circumstances, even if that is eating a drive-through burger from a fast food joint.
And I suspect that McDs’ main
And I suspect that McDs’ main office are still expecting franchisees to pay up, even in these trying times…
As to the point of the
As to the point of the article … I have seen this said a number of times (both before the pandemic and during lockdown #1), and still don’t get it.
No one has been able to adequately explain to me what the issue is with having cyclists in the drive-through, particularly when the outlets are not open for any other kind of takeaway service.
Perhaps it comes back to the fact that pedestrians are also not allowed to use the drive-through and McDonalds simply considers cyclists to be pedestrians on wheels rather than actual vehicles.
I’m not sure this is the case
I’m not sure this is the case now, but they used to use induction loops buried in the road to detect when a car was at the order point – these don’t work well for an aluminium bike!
I did once get served at a drive thru, but it took them a while to notice me as I didn’t trigger their system. The second time I tried they refused to serve me unless I came into the store.
HoarseMann wrote:
It’s about time someone invented the doorbell…..
HoarseMann wrote:
That might well be true … but not sure how that would constitute a Health and Safety issue.
🙂
So, lets get this straight.
So, lets get this straight. You can order a McDonalds to be delivered to your house via an online app by a bicycle courier but you cannot cycle there yourself?
Says it all
Smoggysteve wrote:
The side benefit to this is it might be delivered by long-distance legend Steve Abraham!
Does this apply to
Does this apply to motorcycles/Pedalecs/Ebikes? Where is the line?
Prosper0 wrote:
I think this is it:
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/miniature-postman-pat-van-delivers-a-smile/328600575078227/
Horse riders have also been
Horse riders have also been refused service at McD’s, in UK, anyway.
Meanwhile in America…
These are the rules in
These are the rules in Victoria, Australia where I live.. horses are legally vehicles when ridden on public accessible roadways.
Riding animals
If you are riding an animal on the road (e.g. a horse), the animal is considered to be a vehicle.
A rider of an animal must obey the same road rules as other drivers. But, there are also some road rules that apply to riders of animals.
If you are under the age of 18, you must wear a helmet when riding on a horse on a road, footpath or any road-related area.
You can ride an animal on footpaths and nature strips, unless it is specifically prohibited. But, you must give way to pedestrians.
If you are riding beside another rider, you can’t ride more than 1.5 metres apart.
If you are using a vehicle that is being pulled by an animal (e.g. a horse carriage) at night, you must have:
two white lights visible for 200m on the front (one on each side)
two red lights visible for 200m on the back (one on each side)
red reflectors on each side of the vehicle towards the back.
“For the health and safety of
“For the health and safety of our people and our customers, we are unfortunately unable to serve customers not in road-going motor vehicles in our drive-through.”
Interesting that, if they have a liability under H&S for customers at the hatch, then either the risk they are avoiding is only at the hatch, or it occurs all the way from the entrance to the property to the exit.
What hellish activity makes it unsafe for a cyclist to take food at a hatch? If none, then the risk they are hoping to avoid is not being avoided if they don’t prevent cyclists from joining the queue in the first place.
Remember that it’s a company
Remember that it’s a company at corporate level who has had real experience of people suing them for not providing adequate warnings their product they were about to consume might be hot…so I dont imagine its anything more than a pre-emptive attempt to mitigate against someone failing to negotiate a drive-thru lane on a bicycle and claiming they werent warned properly to take care. Literally like if you handed a bag of McD’s to a cyclist and they had no basket to put it in, you are forcing them to ride one handed to leave the drive thru lane.
So it’s just simpler to ban it,removes all the doubt,than come up with a setup that might satisfy lawyers and staff can remember to apply.
Drive throughs are public
Drive throughs are public accessible roadways and as such fall under the state jurisdiction for road legal vehicles, which includes bicycles.. I’d like to see qualified legal opinion as to the legality of McDonalds discriminating in this way.
I dont believe this Elf and
I dont believe this Elf and Safety at all. AFAIK nearly everything on their approved list requires insurance. I reckon this is arse covering over collisions or similar in the queue.
Thats the only thing to my mind that explains why bikes are banned but motor scooters are not.
Lucky escape really, my local
Lucky escape really, my local drive through lane is divided into 2 tyre lanes and a central oil covered lane.
They are being petty and officious, one could use the old ‘Mr, can you get me a Big Mac meal please?’ How old are you sunshine? 48 Mr.
Time to give up patronising The Arches me thinks.
So get yourself an e-bike
So get yourself an e-bike that is above the legal power limit and hence is registered as a road vehicle. Force them to face the issue.
A bicycle doesn’t have to be
A bicycle doesn’t have to be registered to be a road vehicle.. any bicycle is a road legal vehicle; I don’t know if McDonalds has this policy in Australia, so I’m going to do a ride through to test them – if they refuse me, I’ll get a mate that is a police cyclist to ride through and see if they refuse him.. shoiuld be fun.
The article quoted the
The article quoted the McDonalds spokesman:- “For the health and safety of our people and our customers, we are unfortunately unable to serve customers not in road-going motor vehicles in our drive-through.”
So turn up with a road-going motorised bicycle and see what happens as a test. Of course the spokesman did say “in” the vehicle, so maybe a motorised recumbant.
I hope he tells you that you
I hope he tells you that you both have better things to do with your time.
What is it with giving McDonald’s a hard time. They have policies to follow and that is what they are doing. If someone went to your place of work and started to be awkward what would you think. Was going to say behave like a twat but some people on here get upset with such great use of the English language.
Always thought eating
Always thought eating McDonald’s was a health a safety issue.