A cyclist has been ordered to pay over £1,200 in fines and costs for riding his bike on four occasions through Grimsby’s pedestrianised town centre, the latest resident to fall foul of North East Lincolnshire Council’s controversial Public Space Protection Order (PSPO), which saw almost 1,500 fixed penalty notices issued in the space of just six months last year.
However, Grimsby councillor Ron Shepherd, who described the latest hefty fine as “a lesson to those who think they can flaunt the rules”, has insisted that the orders “aren’t simply ways for the council to make money”.
According to North East Lincolnshire Council, cyclist Richard Cameron received four fixed penalty notices (FPNs) for riding his bike on Grimsby’s Victoria Street, where cycling is prohibited under the town’s PSPO.
After failing to pay the fines, the 45-year-old was summoned to Grimsby Magistrates Court on 28 April, and, in his absence after failing to attend, found guilty of breaching the PSPO. Cameron was ordered by the court to pay a total of £1,224, including a £660 fine, £264 victim surcharge, and £300 in legal costs.
On the same day, 28-year-old Viktorija Kosareva was fined £508 after refusing to pay the FPN for walking her dog on Cleethorpes beach.

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.
However, the PSPO’s focus on cycling, and the use of externally contracted “enforcement officers”, has resulted in a long-running saga in the town, with hundreds of cyclists fined, some of them faced with eye-watering sums, and the council 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”.
Most famously, in October 2022, a pensioner made headlines after telling the council to stick its £100 fine “up your arse”, while, in a similar manner to this latest case, a 31-year-old female cyclist was fined over £1,100 for riding her bike on Victoria Street in 2023 and refusing to pay the initial penalty.
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”.
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 had been issued 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.
While not all of these almost 1,500 offences related to cycling, in April alone 50 people were issued FPNs under the cycling PSPO, with FPN numbers for the following months suggesting hundreds more were stopped and issued £100 fines by enforcement officers.
However, in a statement announcing the latest hefty PSPO fine, the local authority claimed that the PSPO is only “used sparingly”.
“The PSPOs are intended to deal with persistent anti-social behaviour in a local area that is detrimental to the community’s quality of life,” a council spokesperson said.
“They do so by imposing conditions on the use of that area to ensure everyone can use and enjoy public spaces without experiencing nuisance and annoyance.
“Given the wide-ranging scope of a PSPO, they are used sparingly and only after every other option has been exhausted. Breach of a PSPO is a criminal offence subject to a fine on conviction of up to £1,000 however, you may be offered a fixed penalty notice (FPN) as an alternative to prosecution.
“Recently, the public were consulted on their support for the renewal of the PSPOs with 85 per cent supporting the renewal of Grimsby town centre PSPOs.”

Meanwhile, Shepherd used this week’s fines to warn cyclists in Grimsby about the consequences of breaching the town centre cycling ban, while praising the WISE wardens, who he claims have made the borough a “better place”.
“It’s great to see action being taken by the courts in relation to PSPO breaches,” Shepherd said.
“These orders aren’t simply ways for the council to make money, they are there to protect the community surrounding them and ensure everyone has a welcoming and enjoyable time when in North East Lincolnshire.
“Let this be a lesson to those who think they can flaunt the rules too. Whether you are in breach of a PSPO once or more than that, you are not above them.
“The WISE colleagues have been instrumental in this since starting in December 2023 and have had a massive impact in making the borough a better place.”
Last year, we reported that third-party WISE wardens were accused of unfairly targeting cyclists in Colchester, including mistakenly fining them £100 for riding their bikes in areas where cycling is permitted and threatening them with a £1,000 penalty if they appealed the fine.
Cyclists also claimed these WISE officers were “lying in wait” for rule-breaking cyclists, and said they even told one elderly female cyclist that she wasn’t allowed to use a city centre road because she doesn’t pay “road tax”.
Following a public outcry and a campaign by local cycling activists in Colchester, the council finally agreed to pause the cycling fines and waive any penalties mistakenly handed out by WISE, before announcing in November that it would pursue an ‘education first’ policy from now on when it comes to its cycling ban, a model campaigners say should be replicated across the country.

























63 thoughts on “Cyclist fined £1,224 for riding bike in town centre – as councillor claims cycling ban isn’t “simply way to make money””
Can you stop printing
Can you stop printing misleading trash please Road.cc. They weren’t fined huge amounts for cycling or dog walking. They were fined huge amounts for ignoring the original fines AND not even bothering to turn up to court.
Quit the clickbait.
What a wally. He was fined a
What a wally. He was fined a moderate amount given he had 4 tickets for breaching the PSPO and didn’t turn up in court. Like bills, tickets for this kind of stuff don’t simply go away if ignored, the fines just steadily accumulate and costs get added on top.
Throngs of people in the
Throngs of people in the ‘town centre’, bustling in fact…
If so many are ignoring the
If so many are ignoring the rules then that tells us a redesign is necessary. People aren’t cycling through there for the hell of it, they’re obviously trying to get somewhere by the safest & most convenient route. Some town centre space perhaps needs to be allocated for cycling, or a side-street made traffic-free so cyclists can safely use it.
These enormous fines need resisting as they’re out of proportion to the offence committed, which shouldn’t be an offence in the first place.
What happens next after non-payment? Prison? Or the bailiffs come round? Seems like the enforcement officers are on commission.
Just like the article is out
Just like the headline is out of proportion to the truth.
or it could be that people
or it could be that people like yourself believe that they are above the law and will only obey the rules that they like.🥴
We’ve had good and bad laws
We’ve had good and bad laws throughout history. The bad ones only change when people protest.
A redesign is not even needed
A redesign is not even needed, all they need is to paint some lines up the pedestrianised area, but they are making big money off it so they won’t kill their cash cow.
Not that I’d ever encourage
Not that I’d ever encourage any one to visit Grimsby but can’t we get that drum and bass guy to organise a mass cycle through the town centre..?
I’d chip in for a permanent
I’d chip in for a permanent residency there… or perhaps a perpetual tour of Lincolnshire until the electorate return to the “looking pretty mundane now” Tories?
Sadly they’d probably not last long…
This is all a pity – as aside from dreadful roads, high volumes of industrial/farm traffic and some wild driving on them Lincolnshire can be great to cycle about in. (Scenery, historic places, flat but with the wolds if you fancy a hill and some rolling terrain to the west, sparse population for us introverts etc.) Indeed I have survived a few samplings in the past.
Be nice to see such energy
Be nice to see such energy diverted towards burglars, rapists, drunken violence etc etc. of course, there’s no money in that. People using bikes absolutely should give way and be courteous to pedestrians when using what amounts to a footpath, but whoever dreamt up this lunacy is a complete eejit, along with anyone else who agreed it was a good idea.
cyclists aren’t above the law
cyclists aren’t above the law, if I’m in a no cycling zone then I get off and walk like everyone else. Why can’t some people not understand that.
I kind of agree but then I
I kind of agree but then I remember that I am able bodied, I am quite able to get off and walk, some of my cycling friends don’t find that so easy as their adapted cycles are mobility aids. Admittedly they are hardly the people this is designed to catch but Cllr Shepherd doesn’t look the most caring of chaps so I doubt he would be taking edge cases like theirs into account. Effectively they would be banned from the town centre for having a disability.
The law in this case is an
The law in this case is an ass. That’s why there are campaigns like the Wheels for Wellbeing one.
So there are people who do bomb around these pedestrian zones. Criminalise the aggressive negligence, not the activity.
So are they going to fine
So are they going to fine idiots who park in cycle lanes? Probably not. I have read the PSPO section 4 and it doesn’t mention cycling. The law was changed with regards to close passing of cyclists and I have loads of footage that I have submitted to the police. Have they been fined……….. Errrr no!
You’ve got a double negative
You’ve got a double negative going on there; “can’t” is a contraction of “cannot,” which already expresses a negative. The addition of “not” before “understand” creates the double negative, which technically cancels out the negative meaning. Like the post above, ‘to prohibit ‘no cycling” it’s confusing and if an enforcement officer used it, it would be challenged.
Edir wrote:
Oh no! Not more double negatives!
Is Edir a version of the
Is Edir a version of the twitter troll Ediz, with added typo?
If you read the PSPO, in
If you read the PSPO, in Section 4 it prohibits (1) Any activity deemed to be a nuisance, (2) “No cycling” and (3) skateboarding, rollerblading on street furniture. It PROHIBITS “NO CYCLING”, but it does not prohibit “cycling”. I think one of those fined should employ a Solicitor to analyse the wording of the PSPO.
That’s really how it’s worded
That’s really how it’s worded?
My reading of the PSPO is
My reading of the PSPO is that it Prohibits “NO CYCLING BY ANY PERSON..”
What they meant to Prohibit is “Cycling by any person..” My view is that this PSPO does NOT prohibit cycling in the current wording.
Section 4 lists the activities/actions that are prohibited. So for each sub para. if you preface it with the word “Prohibit..” it results in the following:
(1) Prohibit..Any activity or behaviour causing or likely to cause nuisance…
(2) Prohibit…No cycling by any person along Victoria Street…
(3) Prohibit…Riding a skateboard, scooter, rollerblades or similar wheeled devices…
(4) Prohibit…Any activity or behaviour that threatens the safety…
(5) Prohibit…Using foul or abusive langauge…
(6) Prohibit…Playing music or creating noise (as to cause a nuisance).
(7) Prohibit…Climbing on to any structure or building….
In summary, Section 4 lists activities that are Prohibited, which includes the prohibition of No Cycling!!!
No no cycling? So all
No no cycling? So all pedestrians should be fined?
Starting with Cllr. Shepherd.
Starting with Cllr. Shepherd. We have the photos!!!
Technically anyone not
Technically anyone not cycling has to be find, correct, because doubke no turns positive. I would definetly fight this in court if they tried to fine me for riding a bike in “no no cyling” zone. 🤣
They’ll need signs for that.
They’ll need signs for that.
Precisely! Under Section 4
Precisely! Under Section 4 “No Cycling” is a prohibited activity. When you read further into the PSPO, this is definitively confirmed.
But should that sign be a blue command for cycling?
FURTHERMORE
FURTHERMORE
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
Section 59, sub section (7) states:
A public spaces protection order must—
(a) identify the activities referred to in subsection (2);
Conclusion: Section 4) of the Grimsby PSPO is a list of the activities that are subject to prohibition under Section 59 of the Act. Therefore “No cycling” is the activity they have prohibited!!!
Or to put it another way, they f**ked up by inserting the word “No”
In the UK I guess it should
Or maybe in the UK it should be something like this?
We wouldn’t want to force people to cycle – just tell them they’re not allowed not to…
chrisonabike wrote:
We’re not forcing people to cycle; just saying if you want to not cycle, you’ll have to do it somewhere else.
I dunno – aren’t cyclists
I dunno – aren’t cyclists enough of a target already?
It’s good that the council
It’s good that the council are trying to turn a profit on that street because, by the look of the photos, no body else is.
Why don’t they treat
Why don’t they treat motorists the same way, and fine them for driving the wrong way up one way streets, parking on the pavement, parking on double yellow lines, parking in pedestrianised zones?
When they actually do, the
When they actually do, the fine is only £50.
“Let this be a lesson to
“Let this be a lesson to those who think they can flaunt the rules.” I think you mean “flout the rules”, Councillor Shepherd. We can, of course, expect to see more of this – both an expansion of anti-cycling policies and rhetoric and the painful misuse of English – now that Reform controls ten English councils.
In fact, the person flaunting
In fact, the person flaunting the rules the most seems to be cllr Shepherd – not sure what lesson he thinks he needs to learn from it.
For the greater good.
For the greater good.
The greater good.
The greater good.
Where is Nicholas Angel when
Where is Nicholas Angel when you need him?
What a stupid rule.
What a stupid rule.
These counsellors should
These counsellors should spend some time in Europe. Pedestrians bikes mopeds mobility scooters e-scooters, anything goes with very few issues. And if somebody is acting the idiot they will be called out on it. By the cops or some local. Except maybe in Germany. They have many rules in Germany.
I live round here although I
I live round here although I don’t usually take my bike up to town partially because of the hostile cycling environment. The road up there used to be an actual road and is never very busy with foot traffic as many of the shops down there are closed. It’s quite an awkward one to bike around because the paved area is literally through the middle of town, bordered by a large indoor mall on one side. Some of the streets you might have to bike to get round it are one way and others are pretty hostile to cyclists, if you’re coming from Pasture street into town you’re not really left with good options. The area you’re not allowed to cycle is not well signposted. Even if it was a danger, there’s no reason they couldn’t have just painted a cycle path (which will be ignored by most pedestrians anyway) like they have in other, busier parts of the urban area (Cleethorpes beach), but as it’s making them a lot of money you can understand why they don’t
This should be law everywhere
This should be law everywhere, I have been hit in my wheelchair so many times by fools on bikes riding fast on the pavement.. last Friday we saw an idiot riding at speed through the shopping mall despite signage . Why is it that when they buy a bike people appear to have their brains removed .
2367 in a series of things
2367 in a series of things that never happened.
You need help.
I don’t really understand why
I don’t really understand why they spend so much time on here posting comments.
it’s almost as if they’re just trolling…
Yeah, along with the claim
Yeah, along with the claim that the cycling ban rejuvenated to businesses.
Not saying they haven’t been rejuvenated but correlation and causation are not the same thing.
What about the many disabled
What about the many disabled people who use a pushbike or e-pushbike as their chosen mobility aid?
With respect, you need to put your thinking cap on and look a bit more widely.
Are any of your stories
Are any of your stories available in longer format?
I doubt it, the short ones
I doubt it, the short ones must take long enough typing with one hand.
I can’t understand why a
I can’t understand why a prosperous town like Kingston-on-Thames has no problem with cyclists in pedestrian zones, indeed, a cycle route goes through the very busy medieval part of the town, but run-down, poor towns like Grimby believe it is a big and very serious problem.
There’s a road that runs
There’s a road that runs parallel to the pedestrian area which starts and joins up at the same places.
So there is no need to cycle through the pedestrian way.
I am a cyclist, and when walking down there have had to take evasive action to avoid fast riding cyclists and bikes.
I think anyone breaking the pspo should be punished
Perhaps a short course, similar to what motorist get when speeding etc should be introduced to first time offenders
WornOutEngine wrote:
So, if as you say there’s a parallel road, why do you think cyclists are instead choosing to avoid it?
Is it because they just enjoy raging against the machine and sticking it to the man? Or do they not feel safe using the road?
I can’t imagine what about
I can’t imagine what about that road might make them feel unsafe.
Nothing at all…
Nothing at all…
And even if they don’t like
And even if they don’t like that route, they’ve got this delightful option instead.
Perfect for cycling! Look at
Perfect for cycling! Look at that wide smooth paved surface! Clearly tailor made for high-speed cycle transport.
Cyclists just need to take the lane / learn to quickly spin up to 20mph+ / I’ve been cycling all my life and never had any problems…
Obviously cyclists being sporty types also delight in sprinting to the next traffic light, waiting, then repeating that. (What’s that I hear? “They never stop at traffic lights” you say? Indeed – in Grimsby it looks like they bypass them altogether and cycle on the (shared use?) “footway”…)
kingleo wrote:
Because it plays well with the knuckle draggers who voted them in
Somebody here should attempt
Somebody here should attempt to contact the victims and start a case to reverse all of the fines that have been imposed. Reading the other comments, the wording is flawed. Hopefully that will teach that very plump councillor, who I cannot imagine even manages to tie his shoe laces on his own without wheezing, that his aggressive policies are draconian, whilst losing him his office for gross incompetence after the council is forced to reimburse all of the fines and it makes mainstream news.
No sympathy for those who
The size of the original FPN is disproprtionate to the offence however, particularly when you consider what motorists get fined for minor offences) however I have no sympathy for those who reapetedly chose to ignore the law (and thus guy’s been caught four times so probably done it many more times), and even less sympathy for those that when caught then chose to ignore the courts.
Capt Sisko wrote:
It’s perfectly reasonable to ignore a law if it’s designed to criminalise careful cycling and isn’t even written correctly.
It’s pathetic by the Council,
It’s pathetic by the Council, but they are locked in to their knuckledragging narrative rather than looking for ideas that work.
We can expect this potentially to get worse, especially in Lincs if Reform win ths Council. Reform UK have been selling industrial quantities of pork to their base, and when they get in and find that their fantasies about cutting “DEI” are them lying to themselves, they will feel they have to go hunting for other targets.
I have a plan Don’t tell them
I have a plan Don’t tell them your name Pike.
And yet the scrotes who ride
And yet the scrotes who ride inconsiderately and dangerously, with their face covered, on their electric scramble bikes just disappear into the distance on the off chance they are ever confronted.
I spent a few days staying in
I spent a few days staying in Grimsby earlier this year. It is a struggling town with many closed shops. I was only there in the evenings and did not hear the famed “No Cycling” announcements but did see quite a few hooded teenagers on mountain bikes riding around the pedestrianised areas.
There did not seem to be much worth visiting – just charity shops, vape shops etc.
Getting headlines for PSPO’s is not doing anything for the town’s image – surely local politicians should be directing their efforts towards something more positive.