While penalties for cyclists riding through pedestrianised areas in the town centres have become more and more common in the last couple of years, with councils using the infamous Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) to fine cyclists, delivery riders have urged their fellow workers to follow the rules, after it was reported that 37 Just Eat and Deliveroo cyclists have been fined £100 in Canterbury this year.
While other councils such Grimsby and Colchester have made the most headlines for issuing fines to cyclists, the Canterbury City Council had previously announced its intentions of using the PSPO rule to clamp down on “reckless” food delivery cyclists because of the risk they are perceived to pose to pedestrians in parts of the city.
Cyclists haven’t been allowed to ride through pedestrianised parts of the city such as St George’s Street and St Peter’s Street between 10:30am and 4pm every day for several years now.
However in January Canterbury City Council issued a new Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) in a bid to crack down on aggressive driving, cycling through pedestrianised areas and excessive noise. The current PSPO is scheduled to be in effect until at least January 7, 2027.
And now, 37 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) have been issued to cyclists by enforcement officers working with Kent Police since the beginning of the year, with Daily Mail reporting that tourists and shoppers were complaining of having to dive and dodge couriers on the high street.
However some delivery drivers who have been hit with the fines were unaware they weren’t allowed to ride through the city centre, with a few even in their first days of the job.
Tariqul Islam, a Deliveroo rider was handed a £100 fine barely a week into his job after riding through pedestrian areas outside the permitted hours. “One day I was on the high street at the wrong time and a city council officer called me over and talked to me about the rules,” the 36-year-old said.
“I told them it was unknown to me but they said it’s my responsibility to know and gave me a fine. I respect the rules and I agree it was my fault. So after four days, I earned the money to pay the fine and since then I have been following all the rules.
“It’s a good job delivering food, but when it puts other people at risk of harm it’s not good, so I call on all delivery persons to follow the law and be respectful.”
Another Deliveroo rider, 29-year-old Shagor Shafi, also found himself in a similar predicament when he didn’t know the city centre rules. He said: “I was new, I didn’t know the rules. The council guy stopped me and said, ‘You can’t ride on a bike here’. I’m very careful now and just walk my bike through the high street.’”
Just Eat worker Zia Zia has managed to avoid being slapped with a fine so far, but urged other delivery riders to know and follow the rules.

The response from the public towards this move from the council has been positive, reports Daily Mail. 63-year-old Sarah Lockyer, said: “I think the important thing is that pedestrians are protected, given the rights that they should have – to walk in what is mainly a pedestrianised area and to feel safe doing so.
“We get a lot of visitors to the city and they assume that they’re not going to bump into traffic, or traffic’s not going to bump into them.”
> “Why pick on a lone female cyclist?” Cyclist slapped with £100 fine – for riding on a cycle path
A Deliveroo spokesperson said: “We regularly engage with riders and local authorities to help keep riders and other road users safe, including working with Canterbury City Council.
“We will issue targeted communications to riders in the Canterbury area to help drive awareness of these rules.’
A JustEat spokesperson said: “At Just Eat, we expect all couriers delivering on our behalf to act respectfully and responsibly at all times. We provide guidance to our independent restaurant partners and self employed contractors to ensure they follow the rules of the road.
“If we are ever made aware that a courier delivering on our behalf has acted in a way that does not uphold the standards we hope to deliver, we will of course take action as appropriate.”
> Canterbury City Council to clamp down on “reckless” food delivery riders
Just yesterday, it was reported that another cyclist found themselves on the receiving end of a hefty bill of £500 for riding through the town centre, with the North East Lincolnshire Council continuing to enforce a controversial cycling ban in Grimsby and warning that cyclists will be “rightly punished” and face “repercussions” if they “have not followed the rules”.
The council has been particularly notorious for the many fines it has levied on cyclists, perhaps the most famous, or infamous coming all the way back in 2022 when there was backlash from locals after a Grimsby pensioner was fined £100 for cycling through the town centre, with some accusing the council officers of targeting “old and slow” riders while ignoring youths “racing up and down”.
Barry Enderby, the 82-year-old cyclist, became somewhat of a cult hero amongst cyclists and road.cc readers after he told North East Lincolnshire Council he would “rather go to prison than give them £100” and they could “stick it up your a*se” after he was fined for breaching a PSPO.
Since then, the Colchester City Council has also come under scrutiny for its utilising of “rogue” wardens who were accused of “lying in wait” to catch cyclists riding on the pavement, after two riders were fined £100 for briefly mounting a footpath to avoid navigating a notoriously busy roundabout and its “thick and fast motor traffic” — a penalty described by one of the cyclists involved as “unjustified” and “a bit farcical”.
Since the start of this year, 62 cyclists have been fined £100 each in Colchester by wardens employed by the Waste Investigations Support and Enforcement (WISE) agency, an external organisation subcontracted by Colchester City Council and at least 20 other local authorities across the UK where PSPOs are in place.




-1024x680.jpg)


















48 thoughts on ““I was new, I didn’t know the rules”: Delivery cyclists urge colleagues to follow rules as 37 riders issued £100 fines for cycling in city centre”
Dear road.cc,
Dear road.cc,
It’s not the case that “another cyclist found themselves on the receiving end of a hefty bill of £500 for riding through the town centre”. That hefty bill was for failing to the initial £100 fixed penalty. If they carry on like this they might end up in jail – but it won’t be for riding through the town centre.
Agreed, but if only it worked
Agreed, but if only it worked the same for the 30mph signs at both ends of my road, or the zigzags for the pedestrian crossing by the local school or the double yellows on my way to town. I can’t think of the last time I saw any of them actively enforced.
LeadenSkies wrote:
But what chance do the police stand to catch registered licenced and insured motorists? Also look at the masses of statistics showing thousands killed and hundreds of thousands injured by cyclists!
Yep. The number of times I am
Yep. The number of times I am about to walk onto a zebra crossing and a driver blows through it because they are paying zero attention. Our road is a 20 and people fly into it doing 30 and accellerate to 40 in some cases. Its a single lane due to parked cars and 100% an unsafe place to be doing anything more than 20. At all times of the day at the moment you can hear the boy racers flying around here breaking the speed limit. There is almost no enforcement against cars breaking the law despite what drivers would like to think.
This was yesterday
I stopped.
This was yesterday
I stopped.
As I understand it, they were
As I understand it, they were still fined for the original offence (of [violating the order by] riding through the town centre). They just failed to avail of the ‘discount’ for paying it before it went to court.
It’s like if you pay £200 for a train ticket on the day of travel when it would have been £100 if you booked in advance. You’ve still paid £200 for a ticket – not £100 for a ticket and £100 for not buying it earlier.
Isn’t part of the issue that
Isn’t part of the issue that they were riding an illegal electric motorbike? When are we getting a crack down on then?
Bottom line, if the sign says
Bottom line, if the sign says No Cycling it’s no cycling. There are No Cycling signs at either end of our city centre which are blatently ignored, mostly by speeding delivery riders.
Road rules are constantly
Road rules are constantly ignored. I don’t see the daily mail getting up in arms about drivers getting away with breaking the rules.
We’re talking pavement and
We’re talking pavement and pedestrian area rules. Cars misbehaving on road have less immediate effect on pedestrians on pavements and precincts, especially elderly, pregnant, pushchair, wheelchair people
E6toSE3 wrote:
Drivers kill a pedestrian on the pavement once every ten days. That’s a pretty immediate effect.
IanGlasgow wrote:
you’re comparing nationwide figures for the one issue to a local area for the other issue.
Cars are always driving
Cars are always driving through the pedestrian area here in Southampton, as well as on pavements. It happens far more than pavement cycling, but nobody even seems to notice.
bensynnock wrote:
Ahh … right.
So because *they* do it, we should.
Great way to speed the spiral to the bottom.
I don’t cycle on pavements. I
I don’t cycle on pavements. I generally prefer the road over shared cycle/pedestrian paths.
My point is that there is over zealous enforcement of rules that limit cyclist behaviour, while any suggestion that rules that apply to motorists are actually enforced brings accusations of a war on motorists. Most people don’t even know what the rules are, let alone obey them.
I think his point is more
I think his point is more that cyclists are constantly in the media for our “lawlessness” when cyclists fundamentally do fuck all damage vs cars and yet we never see articles about the menace of drivers and cars. All we hear from that side is “the war on motorists” and how hard done by the poor law abiding driver is.
biking59boomer wrote:
If I drove my car through there would I be prosecuted under no-cycling regulations? Bonkers!
The machines being driven by most of these delivery people are not bicycles within the meaning of the law, so why are they being prosecuted as cyclists? They should be prosecuted as motorists driving uninsured and unlicensed.
The no-cycling thing is a red herring, but it peddles the narrative that cyclists are the problem.
Well – no.
Well – no.
The country is full of fly-posted “No Cycling” signs, often put up by bodies with no authority to do so such as Town Councils.
And huge numbers with no supporting Traffic Regulation Order that makes them enforcible.
The problem then becomes that Nimby idiots or Enforcement Officer idiots then start harrassing people riding cycles who have broken no rules. It is especially a problem for disabled peole using a cycle as their mobility aid.
The Canterbury one is
The Canterbury one is confused reporting, I think.
It seems only to relate to “reckless delivery riders” not ‘cyclists’, and seems to be across the town not in pedestrian areas.
But PSPOs in Canterbury have always been a mess.
Obviously there is enormous complaining on FB groups, but it’s also a day with D in it.
Meanwhile virtually every
Meanwhile virtually every food delivery rider I see in my my city and most other cities for that matter is riding an illegal e-bike. Yet nothing seems to be getting done about that particular problem.
Grumpy17 wrote:
Is it actually a problem, though, really? I mean, every day I see e-bikes, mostly under food delivery riders, that are blatantly illegal by the letter of the law through being throttle controlled up to speeds well above 28kph. The riders aren’t great at respecting red lights either. On the other hand, as a cyclist I can’t say I’ve ever personally had an incident with one or felt threatened by one in the way one does by all those lawful car drivers in their large, fast and heavy vehicles. Who get home and order in some food to be delivered by a rider on an illegal e-bike.
I think that legislation will eventually have to move and adjust to the new realities of two wheeled road travel.
The legislation is fine
The legislation is fine already? They’re riding mopeds, they need registration plates fitting and making sure they have MOTs and insurance.
Also they need to stop riding on the pavement and in cycle lanes.
They sure as hell ARE a
They sure as hell ARE a problem when angry motorists tar every other (legal) cyclist like you and me with the same brush and associate us with this cycling underclass. They are also more likely to cause injury to another person and they should have insurance but don’t. Just because they don’t cause YOU a problem doesn’t mean what they are doing is ok.I mean,drink drivers,disqualified drivers ,uninsured drivers don’t cause ME a direct problem if they are in a different city to where I am.But that doesn’t mean what they are doing is ok. Your response is a bit puzzling.What you are effectively saying is that breaking the law is ok so long as it doesn’t directly affect you.
52 year old veteran,
52 year old veteran, currently doing Deliveroo on a bike to make a wage, whilst doing an Msc as part of retraining, would you regard me as “cycling underclass” – not only is your description discriminatory it also paints you as an elitist – not a good look in my honest opinion.
Again wrong. Riders working
Again wrong. Riders working for delivery companies have insurance as they are automatically covered by the companies whilst engaged in activities on behalf of the company. Further to that, several I work with, and like myself, are also members of Cycling UK & British Cycling. Your levels of ignorance are astounding to be frank.
Cycletime wrote:
But I thought that they were all independent contractors and most definitely not employees, so it’s up to them?
Massive problem. Now I’m 69,
Massive problem. Now I’m 69, a lot of my friends and relatives are less sprightly of legs, eyes, and ears. The huge, wide, heavy ebikes are terrifying whether on pavements, bike paths not wide enough for them, and roads as they ignore Highway Code
E6toSE3 wrote:
I don’t think you can really blame them for ignoring the Highway Code – they’re inanimate objects – they’d have difficulty reading it.
Grumpy17 wrote:
People keep saying this. Well – I can’t tell for sure, not having testing facilities …
In Edinburgh I do see a few I would have no problem pointing out as illegal. However I don’t see them commonly used by the food delivery guys. Those guys rarely overtake me (I’m not speedy) and while “but no pedalling” I believe there are some subtleties to rules around throttle.
I’d suggest that most of the food delivery guys are likely not being paid enough to get the wilder electric motorbikes. In Edinburgh I believe they tend to rent their ride (most bikes are have a particular company logo) – sometimes folks will share a rental to maximise usage.
Now – are those definitely *only* fully legal EAPCs, well-maintained machines, always carefully ridden? No. Is it a great idea to allow companies to pretend they don’t have employees and farm out support for those and risk to the public – while making legal coin off a “grey economy”? Definitely no.
So back to the (much rarer) guys passing me without pedalling, uphill, at 20mph and (well) above? If they’re delivering things I suspect it’s far more valuable cargo than a lukewarm curry…
The police don’t seem to care about either, but while questioning how we’ve let the food delivery market blow up I’d suggest the police might start with the … non-food delivery end.
Seriously, come to Manchester
Seriously, come to Manchester,Birmingham or London. They are everywhere. 20 to 30 miles an hour everywhere and barely a turn of the pedals.
Well I would but I’m stuck
Well I would but I’m stuck behind some ones going 13mph in Edinburgh.
I am not in favour of the general policy of “we don’t care about what people sell / ride” which I suspect is “…because anything smaller than a car isn’t a priority / of interest”. (I think that’s the issue)
Nor the shady way we’ve let the food delivery business develop.
However I think we should discuss / argue from something more than just “I see em and don’t like em”. I don’t have numbers myself (speeds / counts) – I can only go on “if they’re not going much faster than me it’s not 20mph+”. There are still few of them in Edinburgh (if be very happy if those were removed, pronto – suspect they’re sometimes involved with the more criminal biz). And AFAIK despite the notable growth of the takeaway businesses there hasn’t been a slaughter on the streets.
I’d prefer it if the government did sort its act out here but since the new lot seem a bit limited (the last lot were actively going in the wrong direction for several years) classifying rules on throttles may not be the biggest issue.
If they’re delivering things
If they’re delivering things I suspect it’s far more valuable cargo than a lukewarm curry…The police don’t seem to care about either
The nearest large town to me is Preston. I was recently waiting for a bus for 45 minutes following a train trip. I saw numerous illegal electric bikes zooming up and down near the city centre, and about 1/3 were identifiable as food delivery. I didn’t have the GoPro, but I had the phone ready to catch the police ignoring the illegals, and the police didn’t come past. It is obvious to all that the police could easily catch and confiscate these bikes, as well as prosecute the drug dealers, but they have no intention of doing so
The profit isn’t in doing the
The profit isn’t in doing the food delivery. It’s a job for somebody who isn’t legally allowed to work who prefers to earn something than nothing, with the profit being made by the person who is renting out the illegal bike and account to the illegal worker. The person doing the deliveries is working for well under the minimum wage and it’s being exploited for profit by criminals.
bensynnock wrote:
This. I suspect this is a lot of it. Grey industry altogether – some illegal workers, some folks scrabbling cash together (perhaps not declaring it all).
Online dealers selling whatever Chinese factories can produce.
And at the top a couple of companies of tech bros saying “we just made an app, we don’t have employees”.
Pretty sure at multiple points their profits are at the expense of the taxpayer. But hey, all our governments are “open to business”.
Not in my experience. I know
Not in my experience. I know all the lads working in my area. All are legally here and entitled to work. I don’t doubt there are criminal activities but in my direct experience they are few and far between.
You can tell for sure when
You can tell for sure when you see somebody riding up a hill at 30mph without moving his legs.
bensynnock wrote:
You don’t even have to see them moving, 99 times out of 100 if the hub motor is bigger than a disc rotor then it is illegal.
Indeed. I was just trying to
Indeed. I was just trying to tease out levels of danger. Haven’t seen numbers but I’d suggest that is a) dodgy ebike batteries that explode b) > 15.5mph (and they tend to be more 25-30) electric motorbikes. The others I think also could be dealt with but they would appear much less dangerous.
Guys wearing face coverings, no food rucksack, full on electric motorbikes with no plates and rarely motorbike helmets? They’re certainly in Edinburgh – though a tiny minority compared to the liveried food guys.
It seems to me there’s an excess of outrage from some cyclists probably for the same reason cyclists seem to be a trigger for some drivers / pedestrians – they’re “cheating ” – plus maybe a “they’re giving us *good cyclists* a bad name”. The latter – given hopeless reporting – I guess I can understand a little.
Again – I have issues with the whole area but getting things in proportion is a good idea. For example in Edinburgh I’ve been passed at speed on the paths more times by non- electric motorbikes, and I bet there’s still a lot more dealing done using cars. Of course than can change…
Tariqul Islam didn’t know the
Tariqul Islam didn’t know the rules? Feeble excuse: he just needs to look at the bl**dy signs!
Rcartes wrote:
That’s obviously harder than you’d imagine, round my way there are 20 mph limit signs on lampposts and enormous 20 mph limit roundels painted on the roads and yet 85% of motorists apparently haven’t seen them.
Not so long ago I would have
Not so long ago I would have argued against targeting cyclists in this way but recently I was knocked off my own bike by a Just Eat bike courier who was riding an illegal ebike recklessly. So I’m glad to see some enforcement in this area but wish it was the companies being held accountable rather than the individual couriers. Just Eat and Deliveroo are taking the profit but not the accountability
I found a rad rhino parked on
I found a rad rhino parked on private land (without permission). On finding the spec it was around 35kg with a 750w motor.
No way do you want that hitting you even at low speed.
Currys (high street store
Currys (high street store folks) will happily sell you one of these:
https://www.currys.co.uk/products/8tev-b10-roam-electric-scooter-red-and-black-10250654.html
Does 21mph – it’s an electric scooter… luckily they’ve added (at bottom) the tagline:
… so that’s alright then. (They don’t seem to be selling any ebikes rated for more than 15.5mph for what that’s worth).
Government couldn’t give a toss.
Again though – I think there are separate (albeit somewhat related) issues here:
– Food delivery companies taking the michael in several ways (no “employees” so dodge responsibility and tax, I’d bet they know they’re facilitating a grey economy, don’t care much about other impacts to public)
– (which leads to people working who legally shouldn’t / no interest in safe and considerate riding / driving)
– Road policing run down over the years (and especially recent – not just last year – focus on “avoiding accusations of war on the motorist”)
– Can’t be bothered to properly regulate all the new e-things (particularly sale) – I think Trading Standards was also run down…
– Not building adequate infra to make non-fully-motorised travel safer and more convenient while also continuing to build more infra to make motorised travel safer and more convenient.
oneillcp wrote:
If it’s an illegal e-bike, then that’s effectively an unregistered motorbike. What possible reason would there be for targetting cyclists if the problem isn’t cyclists?
“reports Daily Mail”
“reports Daily Mail”
Please don’t do this.
Quoting the Daily Mail is
Quoting the Daily Mail is poor journalism quoting terrible journalism.
Quoting the Mail is terrible
Quoting the Mail is terrible journalism quoting division-stirring hate-wank fantasy. Only acceptable as parody or to mock it.
.
.
Loving your intelligent, well-judged, beautifully expressed comment.
.
Truly, you are a great educator.
.
More, many more, please.
.