A local politician behind a controversial cycling ban, which has seen cyclists ordered to pay £1,000 for riding through a town centre, claims the punishments aren’t too harsh and are “making Grimsby a safer place”.
It’s the latest episode in the long-running Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) drama in the Lincolnshire town, the council having deployed “enforcement officers” to fine hundreds of cyclists — some being ordered to pay eye-watering sums in excess of £1,200 in court — and the local authority having been accused of targeting “old and slow” cyclists using their bikes to get into town and visit the shops, while ignoring youths “racing up and down”.

North East Lincolnshire Council has insisted the ban is not “simply [a] way to make money” and argued it is “making Grimsby town centre a safer place”.
In a communication today, stating that two men had collectively been ordered to pay £1,128 in fines and costs for their cycling through the town centre, the council cited the case of local resident Susan Godfrey, who the local authority claims was “scarred for life by a cyclist who was not abiding by the rules” and suffered undisclosed injuries.
“I’m the living proof of why these PSPOs are in place. If that happened to a child or someone older, they could’ve been killed,” she said. “I just hope people will think more about what they’re doing. My arm shows how important it is to not cycle down there, please, just do the right thing.”
Councillor Ron Shepherd said: “Whilst some suggest these measures are too harsh, there are clear examples of why these PSPOs are in place.”
The comments come as Adam Southwell, a 33-year-old man, was ordered to pay more than £800 in fines and costs for cycling through the town centre. Likewise, Colin Mussell was ordered to pay more than £300, the pair having faced a court prosecution after failing to pay their fine. In Southwell’s case, the initial fine was £440.
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 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.







-1024x680.jpg)
















22 thoughts on “Town where cyclists ordered to pay £1,000 for cycling on high street claims terrified locals are “scarred for life” by “anti-social” cycling”
Leaving aside Road.CC’s
Leaving aside Road.CC’s disinegnous use of fines where people are fined not for cycling but for NOT turning up in court, I wonder whether the local councillor has to hand or cares about the number of cylists injured on Grimby’s streets? 93 by this count.
No? Thought not.
ah but a few lycra clad lefty
ah but a few lycra clad lefty woke snowflakes riding childrens toys about the place being KSI’d won’t “scar him for life” – so all good, nothing to see here 😉
Perhaps the Grimsby
Perhaps the Grimsby councillors would like to tell us what they have done to make cycling safer and encourage more people to cycle.
And those are only the ones
And those are only the ones the Police have bothered to attend the scene, and then complete an MG/NSRF report.
If the Police do attend a PI RTC, there is no guarantee this will make it to the RRCGB stats. If they don’t attend then it is 100% certain the collision will never be recorded on the collision data.
However, you can make your own report via the GOV.UK website, but I know little more about this, nor whether this then becomes an RRCGB statistic.
For example: https://road.cc/content/news/police-criticised-after-family-catapulted-cargo-bike-298251 I could not find this collision in the crash statistics. And I commented on one of GCN’s videos, where Si Richardson was quoting the RRCGB stats showing a fall in numbers, because I thought he might be interested as he uses a cargo bike to transport his children.
You get what you vote for,
You get what you vote for, low turn out gets you a bell end fat Tory or bigoted Reform patsy. High turn out and you get somone who will likely reflect the local populations views. If a high turn out produces the same result as a low turn out, we’ve all got bigger problems than PSPOs to contend with.
“which has seen cyclists
“which has seen cyclists ordered to pay £1,000 for riding through a town centre” is bad journalism. Yes, they were fined, but the rest is because the cyclists chose to ignore the courts. I one hundred percent agree the size of the fine was a disportionate amount for the offence, but I also happy that those who chose to ignore the courts & judicial proceedures should face the full cost of doing so.
“making Grimsby safer” really
“making Grimsby safer” really rubs me the wrong way. Especially when at least 3 cyclists have died in the last year that I can think off of the top of my head and their hasn’t been any convictions
After looking at the photos,
After looking at the photos and getting a feel for the calibre of it’s councillors, I am 100% confident that I will never come to any harm in Grimsby.
Because you’ll never go there
Because you’ll never go there?
Correct.
Correct.
https://www.nelincs.gov.uk
https://www.nelincs.gov.uk/please-just-listen-to-the-rules-im-the-living-proof-of-what-happens-if-you-dont/
I remember when this was covered at the time.
And I said at the time, it seemed to me that the cyclist was speeding to escape two PSPO enforcers. So if there hadn’t been a PSPO then the two rentacops wouldn’t have been trying to meet their quota for tickets issued, and he may not have been speeding, and the collision may never have happened.
Maybe not, but to say that you are glad that the PSPO is in place when it could be argued that the collision only happened because the PSPO was in place seems a bit … odd.
The person at the time was
The person at the time was looking over his shoulder to spot the goons.
He was estimated by I think the police to be doing … 10mph.
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/speeding-cyclist-trying-evade-wardens-10153687
If Ron Shepherd thinks it is
If Ron Shepherd thinks it is “making Grimsby town centre a safer place”…
Let him show the KSI stats, from users of ALL vehicles, before and after this came in to show the difference it makes…
I won’t hold my breath.
Let me get this right.
Let me get this right.
Close pass in a car to a cyclist / pedestrian in South Wales….Driver gets nothing done to them.
Ride a bike with care through Grisby £1000 fine
Yep, sounds like everything is fine in some world that I do not wish to be part of.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of offence would a car driver have to commit to get a £1000 fine?
Pedal those squares wrote:
As has been stated below, they weren’t actually fined £1,000. They ended up having to pay that because they didn’t pay the actual fine, and didn’t respond properly, and ended up going to court over it (and losing).
Councillor Ron Shepherd said:
Councillor Ron Shepherd said: “Whilst some suggest these measures are too harsh, there are clear examples of why these PSPOs are in place.”
So, given the number of people killed and injured in Grimsby, the measures to prevent drivers being reckless are clearly not harsh enough. The risk posed to pedestrians from motor vehicles is gigantic compared to that posed by a cyclist, so I’m sure we can look forward to a private company being empowered to fine drivers who drive on the pavement, break the speed limit, don’t bother looking etc. They’d make so much money that they wouldn’t bother with cyclists any more.
Also Councillor Ron Shepherd “making Grimsby a safer place”. No. Making it a grimmer, nastier, less friendly place that fewer people will visit, depriving local businesses of much needed trade.
There’s an element of truth
There’s an element of truth to his distorted logic; Grimsby will be a safe place when there are no people left, just autonomous cars crashing into each other.
Judging by the photo, the
[Updated to be politically correct] With the UK facing an obesity crisis: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jul/02/obesity-overweight-cost-estimate-nhs-study, you would think it is the duty of the local council to encourage active travel. Judging by the photo, not that anyone would say he is too fat, the obesity problem should be well known to local councillors and instead of discouraging cycling, the council should be taking steps to promote it. Maybe the councillor in question should contact his GP to see if prescribing some active travel might help his general wellbeing and life expectancy.
In addition, dangerous cycling is already covered by section 28 of the Road Traffic Act. There is no need to create a separate protection order to punish the minority of cyclists whose actions might threaten pedestrians.
JN35000 wrote:
His words, attitudes and actions are stupid enough to allow him to be thoroughly ridiculed without having to resort to fat-shaming.
I think you have
I think you have misunderstood my point. At a local level, councillors tend to base their decisions based on their personal experiences. Most cyclists are aware of the health benefits of active travel and are probably familiar with the studies that show the wider benefits for society and the public purse. They would know that these benefits outweigh the downsides like injuries to the cyclist or to other road users. When you have this information, you would probably make a different decision about banning cycle use in town centres. Someone who is clearly obese, for whatever medical or other reasons, or not a cyclist, is probably not so well informed of the benefits of cycling.
Oh come off it, you were
Oh come off it, you were taking the piss out of him for being fat, don’t try retroactively to intellectualise it.
Wrong ! Read what I wrote:
Wrong ! Read what I wrote: “Maybe prescribing some active travel might help his general wellbeing and life expectancy.” I suggested medical help might be appropriate with physical activity as a possible solution. Don’t know how it works in the UK, but over here in France GP’s can prescribe sports activities, as an alternative or as a complement to other treatments. The cost of the sports activity is then partly paid for by the health service. And yes, the photo does show someone who is clearly overweight or’fat’ as we say in everyday language; that is just a fact.