Another cyclist has found themselves on the receiving end of a hefty bill for riding through the town centre, a council continuing to enforce a controversial cycling ban and warning that cyclists will be "rightly punished" and face "repercussions" if they "have not followed the rules".
The long-running saga in Grimsby concerns Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) that North East Lincolnshire Council introduced in 2019, and that have seen more than 1,000 fixed-penalty notices issued since then, the bulk of which have been for cycling on Victoria Street South and walking dogs along the main beach.
Some locals have accused the council's enforcement officers of targeting cyclists "they can get away with", meaning that "old and slow" riders are caught, while youths are still "racing up and down". Last summer, a female cyclist was ordered to pay over £1,100 in fines and costs, while numerous others have also received a hefty bill for their town centre cycling.
The most recent, relating to an incident on 30 August last year, but which has now gone through Grimsby Magistrates' Court, saw a 47-year-old cyclist, Joanne Grey, ordered to pay £534 in fines and costs after she failed to pay the initial £100 fixed-penalty notice.
In court, Ms Grey was proved guilty in absence having failed to attend and was ordered to pay a fine of £220, a victim surcharge of £88 and costs of £226.04.
Councillor Ron Shepherd, who has previously called similar fines a "great result for our enforcement teams", warned that cyclists will continue to be "rightly punished".
"These PSPOs are there for a reason. Not because we want to put them in place or to cause a nuisance, but to ensure the safety of the borough," he said. "These people have not followed the rules and for that they have been rightly punished. Others need to be made aware that we will not simply look the other way, those breaking these PSPOs will face repercussions."
PSPOs can be introduced by local authorities in a bid to crack down anti-social behaviour, through the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, North East Lincolnshire Council saying, "The act gave local authorities the power to deal with nuisances or problems which harm the local community's quality of life."
Cycling bans in urban areas are one of the more commonly seen PSPOs and are often justified as a means of tackling dangerous, anti-social behaviour by youths on bikes in town centre areas.
> "We get a lot of kids wheelie-ing through": Police claim danger of "anti-social behaviour" should be tackled with town centre cycling ban
However, they are controversial because they impact anyone who may wish to cycle to shops or amenities in the area. There are also concerns about their effectiveness considering, as has been claimed in Grimsby, often the people whose anti-social riding the PSPO is brought in to tackle could not care less about the local authority suddenly banning their behaviour.
Active travel charity Cycling UK has long been a prominent critic of PSPOs, which it says have the effect of criminalising cycling, with head of campaigns Duncan Dollimore pointing out that the orders only discourage people from riding bikes into town.
The Grimsby PSPO has not been without controversy. In October 2022, the local council faced a backlash from residents after a 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".
Barrie Enderby, 82, told North East Lincolnshire Council he would "rather go to prison than give them £100" and that they could "stick it up your a*se", after he was fined for breaching the PSPO.
Following Enderby’s fine, unhappy locals launched a scathing critique of how the PSPO is being implemented, and claimed that council officers are not imposing the cycling ban fairly, and rather than cracking down on anti-social behaviour they are seemingly "targeting" people "they can get away with doing so".
> Council officers accused of targeting "old and slow" cyclists after pensioner fined for riding through town
In social media posts shared at the time, one person said they witnessed the incident which saw Mr Enderby fined and claimed that there had been "other young lads riding past" who officers "didn't bother to stop".
Another claimed she had also been "targeted", while someone else reported seeing "three youths doing wheelies and racing up and down" while a council officer "just stood [by]".
In one reply a local woman said: "Catching all the wrong ones... I sat and watched them all last week, only targeting the old and slow cyclists that aren't in anyone's way."
In June of last year four separate cyclists, ranging in age from 31 to 65, were found guilty of breaching the PSPO, with all four being fined £220 and ordered to pay almost £300 in costs, before a month later Lauren Cullum was ordered to pay £1,150.
In contrast, in the same week at Grimsby Magistrates' Court, Paul Berry pleaded guilty to driving at 50mph on a 40mph road. He was disqualified from driving for seven days, fined £60, and ordered to pay a victim services surcharge of £16.
Add new comment
51 comments
At least it's near the local hospital.
It's a lovely tree though. looks strong, Maybe up and over would work. You can't possibly take up some of the road to allow the bicycles to travel safely.
I did a double take at the creepy figure in the bus shelter. Thought it was the Grim Reaper, or maybe a storm trooper
The FPN was £100, the rest is because despite a reminder letter it remained unpaid. This led to her being prosecuted. She then failed to appear in court and so was proved guilty in absence. She was ordered to pay an increased fine of £220, a victim surcharge of £88 and costs of £226.04.
Bottom line, the courts don't like it if you chose to ignore them, they'll both come after you and quite rightly punish you for ignoring them. Whether you agree or not with the FPN in the first place is another matter.
What would be good is a breakdown of all the costs (not including actual injuries/deaths as the "£value" of those is immesearable) involved in damage caused by cyclists/drivers.
This would involve property damage, road maintenance, delays cause by collisions and police investigation and NHS costs for injuries/deaths.
Once the comparison is complete, then maybe the proportions (say 1:1000 for example) could be applied to fines etc for cyclists and drivers.
It would also help to compare what insurance companies payout for driver collisions against what they take in premiums.
Probably an impossible task - due to endless debate on how you slice it and dice it. Never mind how you sum up the "benefits" * and in just what way that compensates for the costs...
... back to the costs - see under "externalities of motoring" (not sure about cycling details):
https://rdrf.org.uk/2012/12/31/the-true-costs-of-automobility-external-c...
(There are lots of studies giving various evaluations. Probably require a chew through some of the links from e.g. the Wiki article in addition)
* To what if any extent is "traffic the lifeblood of the economy"? How should we value being able to get a job an hour or so's drive away? What about having x% of the population driving to the out of town superstore / the gym because they can? (Noting that they now "have to" because smaller local stores have closed / because they're not getting exercise cycling and walking)? What value should we put on being able to get same-day delivery of plastic tat from across the UK / globe to our houses? ...
You could take into account also vehicle value. A Ferrari driver cannot pay the same fine with a decade old Aldi bicycle. The fine could be also linked to declared income, but there is more black money than we think to be reliable.
Aldi bicycle - now there's a budget product to rival Halfords. Does such a thing exist?
GRIMsby
I haven't seen any antisocial behaviour by youths on (legal) bikes recently, but several times I have seen it from youths on foot, when are the PSPO no walking areas coming in?
I suspect that people would complain about this a lot less if the road traffic laws relating to motorists were being equally enforced in Grimsby.
I suspect that people would complain a hell of a lot more because the average mouth breather thinks cyclists are a blight on the earth and poor motorists are the poor victims of the war on motorists. I would wager that this policy is entirely driven by hatred for cyclists and the associated popularity this will have with the usual types.
Sorry, by "people", I meant "people on road.cc"
Well those are two entirely different things.
Note the smug expressions of the GrimFilth and GrimCouncil officials over the Hyper-Junk press-pleasing fines, while they cheerfully forgive all varieties of motorist offences on the grounds of 'everybody does it'
Amazing that you could drive a car through a pedestrianised area or in a bus and cycle lane that had a camera and only recieve a £50 fine, but ride a bike there and its £500
Amazing that you could drive a car through a pedestrianised area or in a bus and cycle lane that had a camera and only recieve a £50 fine, but ride a bike there and its £500
If a motorist ignored the FPN they could end up with a fine in the region of £500, as I found to my cost 30 odd years ago when I forgot to pay a £40 fine for straying into a bus lane on my motorcycle (this was in the days when motorcycles weren't allowed in bus lanes in London) and ended up paying £370.
Seems disproportionately high. Obviously no other crime in Grimsby.
It was initially £100. The disproportionate amount is the result of it going to court. I assume the same applies if a motorist is fined for something and fails to pay.
Perhaps the cyclists-never-get-touched narrative amongst the caged (who, obviously, never get away with anything...) will die down - I doubt it.
[duplicate post]
Pages