North East Lincolnshire Council today said enforcement officers would “have the correct figures to hand” in future, that after a cyclist was wrongly told by an officer enforcing Grimsby’s controversial town centre cycling ban that a death had been caused by another rider. The local authority also admitted that a sign banning cycling has been placed in the wrong part of the town centre and will be moved “as soon as possible”.
It’s the latest update to the seemingly never-ending Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) saga in Grimsby, the council having banned cycling in certain sections of the town centre, with enforcement officers stopping and fining riders who breach the order.
The policy was introduced in the name of clamping down on anti-social behaviour, however locals have accused the enforcement officers of targeting “old and slow” cyclists using their bikes to get into town and visit the shops, while ignoring youths “racing up and down”.
Those who refuse to pay have ended up in court, some being ordered to pay eye-watering sums in excess of £1,200, hundreds of cyclists having been fined and the council insisting its punishments aren’t too harsh and have made Grimsby “a safer place”.
Well, this week we were contacted by a reader who cycled into the town centre yesterday morning and “stumbled upon some confusing signage” relating to the ban. As shown in the video below, one of the PSPO signs banning cycling was spotted right next to a paving marking indicating that cycling was allowed on the route, at St. James’ Square.
North East Lincolnshire Council has today confirmed to us that the sign is “placed in the wrong position and will be moved as soon as possible”. The local authority also confirmed that, as per the PSPO zone, the cycling ban is “not currently enforced in St. James’ Square.
Despite this, when our reader Rick yesterday asked the enforcement officers for clarification, he was told “the sign on the lamp post takes priority over the sign on the floor”.
“We went round in circles achieving nothing and I collected my bike to head off home,” he explained. “As I was walking down the shared path I met the same guys again who in fairness had come to check the signs out for themselves and now told me it is a shared path and the signs on the floor take priority over the sign on the post. I pointed out it’s confusing and don’t know which sign to follow. They insisted it isn’t confusing and we went round in circles again.
“They are clearly trained to speak at you until you concede to their point of view. Definitely no common sense used here. I saw another chap walking his bike through the same area, he wasn’t sure whether he was allowed to ride either so like me chose to walk.
“Incidentally they also mentioned the 70 odd injuries and one death caused by cycling in the town centre. I sincerely hope nobody has been killed by a cyclist but I can’t find any information relating to it online, so I’m not convinced it’s true. At least I certainly hope it isn’t.”
Like Rick, we did some digging and could not find any report of a cyclist having killed someone in Grimsby, so we asked the council.
A North East Lincolnshire Council spokesperson did not find any incident either and confirmed that, “We are now working closely with our colleagues to ensure they have the correct figures to hand when asked by members of the public.”
In full, the spokesperson said: “The metal PSPO sign in question has been placed in the wrong position and will be moved as soon as possible to accurately reflect the restrictions, we apologise for any inconvenience. The PSPO zone concerning cycling begins at the start of Victoria Street and is not currently enforced in St. James’ Square, where the sign in question is currently fixed.
“We would therefore ask residents and visitors to follow the shared pathway graphic etched into the paving stones when visiting St. James Square.”
They added: “These PSPO measures were brought into place following continuing reports of nuisance cycling in Grimsby town centre. Since the introduction, numerous fines have been issued to help tackle the issue.
“Sadly, this nuisance cycling has also led to people being injured. In May 2024, Grimsby resident Susan Godfrey was left with a large scar across her forearm after a cyclist blatantly ignored the rules that are in place in the town centre.
“We are now working closely with our colleagues to ensure they have the correct figures to hand when asked by members of the public and thank you for bringing this to our attention.”
The obvious question concerning the signage error is whether — and if so, how many — cyclists have been stopped and fined for cycling in a part of Grimsby where it is in fact allowed. At the time of writing a council spokesperson said they would look into that for us and report back.
It all comes just two weeks after a local politician behind a controversial cycling ban claimed the punishments aren’t too harsh and are “making Grimsby a safer place”, that after two more riders had been ordered to pay £1,000 for breaching the PSPO, having failed to pay the initial fixed-penalty notice.
In May, another cyclist was ordered to pay over £1,200 in fines and costs for riding his bike on four occasions through Grimsby’s pedestrianised town centre.
In 2019, Grimsby became one of a number of towns to impose a cycling ban in pedestrianised zones, using a PSPO which the council claims was introduced to deal with nuisance, anti-social, and dangerous behaviour in the town centre and along Cleethorpes seafront.
The PSPO and eye-watering fines have attracted headlines ever since, most famously, in October 2022, when a pensioner told the council to stick its £100 fine “up your arse”.
Local cycling campaigners have long criticised the ban, arguing that it simply discourages people cycling into town, while also failing to deter the sort of anti-social behaviour it ostensibly sets out to combat.
Active travel charity Cycling UK has also been a prominent critic of PSPOs, which it claims have the effect of “criminalising” cycling. During a debate on the issue last year, the charity’s head of campaigns Duncan Dollimore argued that “banning a whole class” of transport “is not how you address a problem”.
However, according to councillor Ron Shepherd, the local authority’s portfolio holder for communities, Grimsby’s decision to ban cyclists from riding through its main shopping street has “rejuvenated” the town centre with “café and street culture”.
Ironically, when he made those comments, the council used the photo below to illustrate the press release, Shepherd stood in front of boarded-up shops on a deserted street.
Shepherd was also responsible for introducing a ‘no cycling’ loudspeaker message on Victoria Street, which was played every 15 minutes before being quickly cut down to two messages an hour, after drawing comparisons to George Orwell’s dystopian classic 1984.
Last year, we reported that, according to North East Lincolnshire Council’s official figures, 1,472 FPNs were issued for breaching the PSPO during the six months between April and September 2024, handed out entirely by Waste Investigations Support and Enforcement (WISE) officers.
These externally contracted wardens have been heavily criticised for their interpretation of cycling PSPOs in other parts of the UK, and were accused last year of “running amok”, “lying in wait” for rule breakers, and even mistakenly fining cyclists riding legally in Colchester. Whether officers have been fining cyclists in Grimsby riding perfectly legally remains to be seen, the worry about incorrect fines as a result of the dodgy signage in St James Sq. something else that we’ve put to North East Lincolnshire Council this afternoon.
14 thoughts on “Warden tries to justify controversial bike ban by falsely claiming pedestrian was killed in cyclist collision — as council admits cycle ban sign is in wrong part of town centre”
Cycling enforcement and
Cycling enforcement and carpark operators thrive on confusion and misinformation. They use this to trap and fine people, thereby boosting their revenue streams.
We are now working closely
Why do cyclists who’ve been
Why do cyclists who’ve been stopped willingly hand over their personal details to the third party enforcement agency? Why don’t they just say no? Why do they even stop in the first place?
This has been answered a
This has been answered a number of times before.
Depending on the level of authority thay have, it may be an offence not to give details. They will have cameras and they could catch up with you later or the police might if it’s part of a crackdown.
The picture of Councillor
The picture of Councillor Shepherd standing sideways in the “bustling” shopping arcade, could force the UCI to rethink the 40 cm min handlebar width, if cycling is ever allowed there.
Just for clarity cycles aren
Just for clarity cycles aren’t fined thousands of pounds. Anyone who ignores the initial ~£100 FPN, and several reminders and a court summons are. These aren’t cyclists – they are either stupid, wilful, vulnerable or very occasionally the victims of address errors.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Because they generally go after the riders instead.
How do you know none of them have a pro contract?
Yes, but the concept of
Yes, but the concept of rapidly escalating fines is designed to deter people from challenging or appealing when they have been unfairly penalised.
They will often pay up because it is the easier option.
It is perhaps a recognition from the enforcement contractors that their system is often flawed, but they need to maximise returns and avoid awkward appeal precedents.
Exactly this, over the last
Exactly this, over the last couple of decades I think I must have shelled out in the region of £500 for unfair parking fines, motorcycle in bus lane fines (twice, both times when pulling over to allow emergency vehicles through), wrongly applied congestion charges etc. Every time I start out thinking I’ll challenge it and then you think of how many hours you’re going to spend filling in forms, collating evidence, going to court et cetera and it works out that you’ll probably be spending ten hours to save £50, it makes simple economic sense to pay the fine and use those hours for work. I’ve long thought that it would be fairer if when a company issues a fine it would be on the understanding that if they are challenged and found to be in error they have to pay the complainant the amount they were trying to fine them, that might make them think twice about their scattergun let’s fine everybody and see what sticks approach. The rapidly escalating fines mechanism should also be reined in; imagine if you had a £100 gas bill and forgot to pay for three weeks so they upped the charge to £1000, that would be a scandal, but apparently it’s okay for fines.
Motorcycles are allowed in
Motorcycles are allowed in bus lanes (in London at least) aren’t they?
Steve K wrote:
As I said, over the last couple of decades – the motorcycle fines were in the noughties, both on City Road, around 2007. I think trials of motorcycles in bus lanes didn’t start until 2009 and were made permanent a couple of years later? I believe there are still some non-TfL roads (TfL only controls about 5% of the network) with bus lanes where the local council has decided not to allow motorcycles.
So if the cycling ban/fines
So if the cycling ban/fines was justified because a cyclist killed someone, which didn’t happen. Then surely they should ban cars from places where drivers kill people. Which very definitely does happen around 5 times a day along with another 80 seriously injured.
I don’t think there is any
I don’t think there is any suggestion that the PSPO was introduced because the council falsely believed there had been a fatality. It was just rubbish made up by the private contractor on the spot (as far as I can tell).
Not defending the PSPO in general, to be clear.
Grimsby was not on my list of
Grimsby was not on my list of places to visit in the UK, and this thuggish attitude from Ron Shepherd and his minions means it never will be on my list. I’d rather visit and spend my money in a welcoming place.