A cyclist who injured a grandmother while riding through Grimsby’s pedestrianised Victoria Street has been sentenced to 240 hours of unpaid work, after a court heard he had been trying to evade two wardens wearing “black military-style combat uniforms” who leapt out and attempted to grab him.
Elijah Daines, 22, of no fixed address, admitted causing bodily harm by wanton or furious riding following the incident on 31 May last year, which left 68-year-old Sue Godfrey with a serious injury to her right arm after she was struck and dragged by his handlebars.
The cyclist, who said he was only in the area for “a matter of moments” and “was not racing”, fled when approached by two enforcement officers from Waste Investigations Support and Enforcement (WISE) who saw him riding through the precinct, which is designated as a pedestrianised zone with cycling deemed “illegal” under the Public Spaces Protection Act (PSPO).
Daines sped off to evade capture, with one warden estimating his speed at around 10mph. As he looked around to check if he had escaped the officers in pursuit, he collided with Mrs Godfrey and an item of clothing was trapped on the handlebars. She was dragged along for a short distance until she broke free.
Grimsby Crown Court heard that Daines rode off after the collision despite an officer shouting that he had hit someone, leaving Godfrey in “horrendous pain” with a serious forearm wound that required urgent hospital treatment.
Mrs Godfrey said: “I remember walking down Victoria Street with Dave [her husband] when I saw a cyclist coming towards me. He was trying to get away from the marshals who had tried to stop him from cycling in the pedestrian area; he was shouting at them when he ran straight into me.”
“I managed to stop myself from falling over, but he didn’t stop to apologise, he just carried on like nothing had happened. It wasn’t until a few moments later though that I felt a pain in my arm. That was when I saw it.”

After being helped by the officers, Mrs Godfrey was rushed to hospital where doctors stitched her arm internally and reattached skin. Although the injury eventually healed, she has been left with permanent nerve damage, scarring, a loss of confidence in visiting Grimsby town centre alone, as well as affecting her ability to garden, drive, and look after her grandchildren.
“I’ve never felt pain like it in all my life,” she told Grimsby Live. “It hurt for weeks and it didn’t matter what I took whether it was specialist oil or painkillers, it made no difference.”
“I will never go back into town on my own because of this. I only ever go with Dave and always walk along the wall, so I know this won’t happen again. The whole incident has scared me to death.”
Mitigating, Tim Savage said Daines reacted out of fear when two men in black “military-style” uniforms leapt at him. “He did not know who they were. He was not racing. It was for a matter of moments,” Savage told the court, adding: “It is an area where people do ride. There are bikes around.”
The defence barrister said that his client was homeless at the time, had a difficult background, and that his age and lack of maturity played a significant role. Daines also added that he is remorseful for the injury caused.
“There is a determination to address his offending behaviour. At 22 years, he is not an idiot and is at a low risk of offending,” Savage said.

Recorder Felicity Davies noted that although Daines may not have understood the full severity of the injury at the time, his decision to continue riding after the collision aggravated the harm caused, describing his actions as “a disregard for danger to others”.
Sentencing him to a 12-month community order with 240 hours of unpaid work, she said: “You were a danger to others by riding your bike on a pedestrian zone.
“She was a vulnerable road user. You were 21 years at the time. It is a significant feature that you have no previous convictions. You were homeless at the time and the bike was not yours. You borrowed it. You have communicated your remorse.”
Daines was also ordered to complete eight Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days and pay £90 towards the cost of Mrs Godfrey’s damaged clothing, although no compensation order was made due to his unemployed status.
PSPOs: doing more harm than good?
The case has once again brought into focus the infamous PSPOs, introduced three years ago which strictly prohibited anyone riding a bike in Grimsby town centre. The cycling ban has seen hundreds fined under enforcement operations, with council-contracted wardens stopping riders and issuing £100 fixed penalty notices (FPNs).
Between April and September last year, North East Lincolnshire Council issued 1,472 FPNs across various PSPO offences, with cycling bans accounting for a significant number.
In April alone, 50 cyclists were fined, with monthly totals reaching up to 152 by August. Portfolio Holder for Safer and Stronger Communities, Councillor Ron Shepherd, insisted the fines were “proof that what we’re doing is working” and credited the PSPO with creating a “safe and comfortable place” and a “rejuvenated” town centre.

However, many have pointed that the PSPOs — intended to address anti-social behaviour — are increasingly being used to target ordinary cyclists, including older residents and commuters, such as the incident from October 2022, when a pensioner made headlines after telling the council to stick its £100 fine “up your arse”.
Active travel charity Cycling UK has long warned that PSPOs can “criminalise cycling” and deter active travel, while failing to address the root causes of poor pedestrian safety.
Concerns about overzealous enforcement are not confined to Grimsby. In Colchester, a major controversy erupted earlier last year after “rogue” wardens from the external agency WISE — the same agency operating in Grimsby — were accused of “running amok”, mistakenly fining cyclists £100 for riding on shared-use paths and roads where cycling was permitted.
In some cases, Colchester’s “cowboy” wardens reportedly threatened cyclists with £1,000 penalties if they challenged fines, “lay in wait” for riders, and told one elderly woman she could not ride because she did not pay “road tax”.
> “Why pick on a lone female cyclist?” Cyclist slapped with £100 fine – for riding on a cycle path
Following public outrage and a campaign led by the Colchester Cycling Campaign, the council halted cycling fines and shifted to an “education first” approach.
Will Bramhill from the campaign said: “The big problem, of course, is that we’ve had a failure of our transport policy since the 1940s… If you’re not a cyclist, if you don’t want cycling on footways, then support 20 miles an hour, support cycling infrastructure, because that’s the way ahead. It has to be.”
Elsewhere, Birmingham City Council’s proposed PSPO to restrict cycling in parts of the city centre was branded “clumsy and unworkable” by campaigners, while in Cardiff, Operation Castor has seen cyclists stopped and fined on Queen Street, sparking criticism that councils are focusing on riders while ignoring more dangerous behaviours such as pavement parking and reckless driving.





















33 thoughts on “Cyclist who hit elderly woman in pedestrian area while trying to evade wardens in “military-style combat uniforms” sentenced to 240 hours of unpaid work”
Do those enforcement officers
Do those enforcement officers have a right of arrest, then? Citizen’s arrest only applies for an offence where the police would be called (which breaching the Grimsby PSPO isn’t).
If you just randomly try and grab someone, without doing it as a citizen’s arrest and without having power of arrest, then isn’t that an assault?
IANAL.
brooksby wrote:
Although you’re correct in saying that one can’t undertake a citizen’s arrest for breach of a PSPO as although it’s a criminal offence it’s not an indictable offence, I would guess that the wardens would claim that they are preventing a breach of the peace which could lead to the injury of members of the public, which is grounds for a citizen’s arrest.
I suppose so.
I suppose so.
However, my reading of it is that their attempt to prevent a breach of the peace actually caused the situation which caused injury to members of the public…
Had these two black-clad paramilitary-styled defenders of the PSPO not attempted to grab this bloke, he (probably) wouldn’t have ridden as fast and (probably) wouldn’t have collided with anyone.
Just to be clear I’m not
Just to be clear I’m not approving of their conduct or their use of that as an excuse (clearly a bloke who by their own admission was doing 10 mph wasn’t really posing a great danger to members of the public before they distracted him), just saying I imagine that’s the excuse that they would use.
brooksby wrote:
Oh come on.
He made the choice to flee.
He made the choice to gob off over his shoulder.
Stop making excuses for lousy behaviour just coz he was riding a bike and you dont like the PSPO.
He got his just desserts.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Not defending him, exactly. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the PSPO enforcers were the ones who escalated this to the point where someone was injured.
Does “gob off” not mean the same as it used to? 😉
The injured lady said he was
The injured lady said he was looking over his shoulder and shouting at the wardens when he collided with her.
Breach of the peace isn’t
Breach of the peace isn’t indictable and knowing exactly what is is a minefield.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/citizens-arrest-a-tool-or-a-trap/5117519.article
The article points out that what might appear to be serious fall into the ‘summary only’ category, meaning they can only be dealt with at the magistrates’ court and in respect of which the citizen is not permitted to arrest.
I’m sure the newly elected
Grimsby your say?
I’m sure the newly elected council and regional mayor will jump on this affront to people’s right to freely travel where they want (mumble magna carta mumble), as opposed to say laying into LTNs or cycle infra or parking restrictions…
brooksby wrote:
RTA 1988 S163 gives the police the power to stop anybody who is cycling, PCSO’s usually also have this power (depends on police force). I’m not aware of any legislation that gives a council employee or sub-contractor this power.
Warranted council employees
Warranted council employees or subcontractors have the power to stop you, to demand identification and to issue FPNs, but absolutely, unlike a police officer and most PCSOs they do you not have the power to detain you by force. They may make a citizen’s arrest just as anyone else can for an indictable offence but not for a PSPO offence.
I don’t detect any attempt to
I don’t detect any attempt to restrain by force before the character made off. He was where he shouldn’t be. All he had to do was stop and say sorry. What would people like them to wear? Pink tutus?
Anyone causing injury in a chase by police who ever should have the book thrown at them . They shouldn’t run.
Who ever? Even if it was a
Who ever? Even if it was a knife-wielding gang trying to nick their bike?
mattsccm wrote:
I can’t see to which comment of mine you’re replying, doesn’t seem relevant to any of them?
Except these are employees of
Except these are employees of a commercial company with a financial interest, allowing people to say sorry and walk off pushing their bicycle is not their game. We need a proper municipal police presence with absolutely no monetary interest in their encouragement of good behaviour.
Makes me think of incidents
Makes me think of incidents where traffic cops engaging in a pursuit end up killing/injuring bystanders.
The cyclist was wrong and
The cyclist was wrong and should have stayed at the scene.
Isn’t that a similar sentence, 240 hours of unpaid work, to what drivers get for killing someone?
the fines are
the fines are
creating
1,472 FPNs (April to September 2024); 50 in April, up to 152 in August.
What “we’re doing” is defining normal activity as criminal behaviour then prosecuting it for no good reason justifiable beyond the ends of our own noses. If it was creating a “safe and comfortable place”, the figures would have gone down.
Creating a
(cut to photo of deserted, board-up town centre with coucnillor in awkward pose standing with his back to his own problem)
I commend that you share the
I commend that you share the obvious irony with him, address via nelincs.gov.uk, and see if you can open an objective discussion.
I would wager that he is neither receptive to your observations nor willing to enter discourse about the limited logic he appears to have been credited with by his local reporters.
Hot Fuzz it is not!
I have experience of elected
I have experience of elected members not listening to their own officers on this and other matters. I’m not entirely sure this one is likely to be open to somebody who ticks all the ‘opposition boxes’, viz:
(* although that does not mean I need to return to first principles every time a hare-brained idea written in green ink or crayon lands on the doormat)
Maybe we should asking “Who
Maybe we should asking “Who the hell is Ronnie Shepherd?”
“Ronnie Pickering”
“Who?”
“Ronnie Pickering!”
“Who?” “RONNIE PICKERING!!!!”
“Who the fucks that!?”
“ITS ME!!”
“Oh… Well… Brilliant! Fuck off then [😄] “
It always surprises me (naive
It always surprises me (naive, I know) that someone gets elected to represent their constituency but interprets it as “I’ll just represent the ones who voted for me”.
Wait – what? Why would you
Wait – what? Why would you represent those who picked the losers? By definition they’re losers and they don’t even like you! They’re trying to ruin the place – get ’em deported!
In a more restrained fashion one might argue that e.g. while in parliament you do represent everyone in a place, you’re mostly calling for the things the majority voted for e.g. whatever you said you were going to do. Or failing that what you want to do because again the majority placed their trust in you!
chrisonabike wrote:
Except that under our FPTP system most of our representatives are voted in by less than (sometimes a lot less than) 50% of the voters which is an even smaller percentage of the electorate as not everyone votes.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Well yes but that always goes until e.g. we compel people to the polls like Australia. Does that improve or change matters in this case? Not sure it does.
Plus ca change: “I’d like to
Plus ca change: “I’d like to help you, son, but you’re too young to vote.”
As opposed to this!
As opposed to this! college-student-who-rode-pavement-9745565
Not sure what you are trying
Not sure what you are trying to link to there.
As seen before:
As seen before:
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/college-student-who-rode-pavement-9745565
Contract enforcement officers
Contract enforcement officers in combat fatigues. No doubt with night vision goggles and attack helicopter support.
Honestly, these arseholes watch far too many Hollywood blockbusters.
Tom Cruise, starting in “Pedestrianised Zone 2”,:at a cinema near you.
PSPOs are undemocratic and
PSPOs are undemocratic and should be binned.
Great, just what cycling
Great. Just what cycling needs in Lincolnshire now they’ve elected a Reform Council.
Don’t think it matters. The
Don’t think it matters. The old local attitudes won’t change. The new council and mayor are likely to turn the clock back as far as they can regardless.
Lincolnshire – the rural county proud that it doesn’t have actual motorways. But certainly has de-facto ones, winding “country roads” passing through villages and towns which carry a lot of heavy freight (because docks), agricultural machinery and some loopy hooners.
And one of the worst road safety records (per person) in the country.