- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Costa Coffee Drive-Through sign (credit - Liam, Twitter)Cyclist says he was refused service at Costa Coffee drive-through – due to company policy “not to serve people on bikes”
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.”
Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Bmblbzzz 5 hours 26 min ago
First I've heard of that. Goes off to investigate...
- chrisonabike 5 hours 40 min ago
Yeah, they've got history there.
- chrisonabike 5 hours 43 min ago
I'm confident you won't regret it! Although I'm passing judgement in some ignorance (being rather a social media hermit barring this site)....
- David9694 6 hours 26 min ago
For real?
- mattw 6 hours 29 min ago
Nothing suitabel innthe range at my small local Halfords. Next stop JE James in Chesterfield, or a larger Halfords.
- mctrials23 6 hours 40 min ago
Extra shit points for doing it when there was zero traffic coming on the other side of the road.
- chrisonabike 7 hours 13 min ago
I always wondered why they had PSI ops units* ... clearly it's to exert pressure on the popular imagination....
- Rendel Harris 7 hours 53 min ago
I don't actually agree with de Vlaeminck's comments, let's wait until the end of a career to see where people are, Pogacar isn't that far off in...
- belugabob 8 hours 12 min ago
“Unfortunately budgetary constraints mean that the previously envisaged cycle lanes cannot be included within this initial phase of this Victoria...
Add new comment
76 comments
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.
Why is he cycling around with a coat rack, would be my first question 😉
'cos he was planning on hanging about?
Costa coffee should be renamed "Costa Over-Priced Brown Liquid"
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 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? 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 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.
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 bicycle stopped in front of them in a drive-through lane, they have no right driving a motor vehicle on a public road.
https://ridepdw.com/products/bar-ista
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 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.
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 not in a protected group. You can refuse to serve people as long as you don't break the law.
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 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.
"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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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".
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 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 ?
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?"
Pages