A North East Lincolnshire councillor has hailed a “great result for our enforcement teams” after a 60-year-old cyclist in Grimsby was fined and ordered to pay £500 after breaching a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) by cycling through the town centre.
It is the latest episode in the ongoing “zero-tolerance policy” for cyclists riding bicycles in pedestrian areas in Grimsby, last summer the council making headlines after a female cyclist was ordered to pay £1,150 in fines and costs after being caught breaching the PSPO, which was introduced in 2019 and has seen more than 1,000 fixed-penalty notices, the majority of which have been for cycling on Victoria Street South and walking dogs along the main beach.
In December, the council said it has “escalated” and “intensified” its “war on cycling menaces” by implementing a complete ban on riding a bike in pedestrianised zones, as part of a wider crackdown on anti-social behaviour.
This latest incident, happened on Victoria Street, one of the main shopping streets in the town, North East Lincolnshire Council stating that a cyclist, Andrew Billingham, was found guilty of breaching the PSPO by cycling in a pedestrian area on 24 March 2023.
The local authority said its enforcement officers had spotted the 60-year-old man cycling in the street, when he was stopped and issued with a fixed-penalty notice. Mr Billingham refused to pay the fine and appealed the decision, claiming he had dismounted before entering Victoria Street.
However, a district judge at Grimsby Magistrates’ Court found him guilty on 6 February 2024 and ordered him to pay £530, in the form of a £200 fine, costs of £250, and an £80 victim surcharge.
The council said it had fined 85 people last year for cycling in “prohibited areas”, councillor Ron Shepherd calling the latest fine a “great result for our enforcement teams”.
“The PSPOs are invaluable for helping to reduce anti-social behaviour across North East Lincolnshire and those that breach them need to know that it’s not acceptable,” he said.
“It’s important that people understand the rules across North East Lincolnshire and adhere to them. Our council plan advocates a zero-tolerance policy and we constantly review how we deliver our enforcement to make sure we can effectively tackle any issues.”
The council and its enforcement officers have come in for criticism during the five years the PSPO has been in place, locals accusing council officers of targeting “old and slow” cyclists after a pensioner was fined for riding through the town in 2022.
Barrie Enderby, who was 82 at the time, told the council to “stick it up your arse” after being fined £100 for breaching the order.
“I’ve been riding my bike around here for 40 years and have never once been fined,” he said. “I’m more annoyed about it because my biking is what keeps me going. I’ve never had a problem when out on my bike before. I’ve seen all sorts going on around town in the past and they chose to give me a ticket. If he had just asked me not to ride my bike I would have understood and stopped out of respect, but I never got the chance.”
That case provoked a backlash from residents, some accusing the council officers of targeting “old and slow” riders while ignoring youths “racing up and down”.
July 2023 saw the aforementioned incident resulting in 31-year-old Lauren Cullum ordered to pay more than £1,100. Some questioned the fairness of the punishment, 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.
North East Lincolnshire Council introduced the PSPO in 2019 and last year announced it had been extended until 2025. Local authorities are able to introduce such measure under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act of 2014 in order to tackle issues of a particular nuisance or problem in an area that is detrimental to the local community’s quality of life.
61 thoughts on “Cyclist ordered to pay £500 for riding bicycle through town centre as councillor claims hefty fine is “great result for our enforcement teams””
If I had the money to burn, I
If I had the money to burn, I’d register my bike as a mobility aid, ride it through Grimsby town centre slower than walking pace, challenge the fine, and hire Mr Loophole as my legal council.
Either way, it’s two fingers up in the face of Grimsby, or finish off Nick Freeman with an aneurysm for defending a cyclist.
Can’t lose.
You could just pay some
You could just pay some millions to Usain Bolt and convince him to sprint at 40 km/h among passers by.
Meanwhile, all day everywhere
Meanwhile, all day everywhere in UK, and unpunished …
£500? Did he kill someone?
£500? Did he kill someone?
Dnnnnnn wrote:
No, the fine for that is 35 quid.
WTAF?? I hadn’t seen that
WTAF?? I hadn’t seen that before. Incredible. Awful.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
Steady – I’ve just checked and the Bank of England’s calculator puts that at £46.71 in today’s money.
I mean – you turn up and there’s a dead cyclist and a car crashed into a tree. The driver says he’s really sorry and will hand in his licence. There’s obviously no way of getting any further truth there.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
SomeONE? Must have been a bus queue.
There is aniti social
There is aniti social behaviour and there are people going from a to b with consideration for others.
My guess is if they enforced “anti social behaviour” correctly, everywhere would be nicer for all…..it is very few people who do not give a dam about others, but sorting that out is more difficult that fining a 60+ man just plodding along.
I do cycle though town centres (in “Full on road gear and road bike”) but do so expecting to have to avoid, stop or say “bring, bring” at sub waling pace! Doing so is good, helps me and I do not cause others any issues.
That fine is more than the
That fine is more than the price of a new decent commuter bicycle, so should we expect 12K fines for cars drivers when they commit road offences?
What a country!
What a country!
What a time to be alive!
Look on the bright side. It
Look on the bright side. It isn’t Russia, and we’re not at war–yet.
Good point, there are
Good point, there are possibly infinite bad (or worse) places we are not!
john_smith wrote:
Are you talking about england or UK?
Both, I suppose. Which were
Both, I suppose. Which were you talking about?
I was talking about england,
I was talking about england, Russia would be interested in how they have been able to keep a hold of the power over 3 other countries.
Only over part of one of them
Only over part of one of them.
I know, embarrassing, isn’t
I know, embarrassing, isn’t it?
don simon fbpe wrote:
Because the people of those three countries want (albeit only by a narrow and shrinking margin in two cases) to be part of a larger union?
I was also struggling there
I was also struggling there to recall the third country … and then I realised – it’s Canada of course.
I presumed it was the other
I presumed it was the other home nations.
Charles is sovereign in a lot more than three nations. Weird, really.
It’s grim up north – Grims by
It’s grim up north – Grims by name and grim by deed. ?
Guys, it’s the law. Like it
Guys, it’s the law. Like it or lump it, you’ve got to obey it. Whingeing is not becoming. It makes you look like car drivers who are always going on about the “war on drivers.”
In the same way as someone sat in a car park with their engine running but otherwise parked up is breaking the law by touching their phone, these people are breaking the law. The risks are similarly low and we can argue the merits til the cows come home but in both cases the driver and cyclist deserve their punishment for breaking the law.
What if he’s telling the
What if he’s telling the truth and he did dismount? Not unheard of for people with a vested interest to lie, especially if there’s no video evidence to back it up.
hairyairey wrote:
Indeed, that was my first thought, the law’s default position that officials must be telling the truth is weighted against those who have been wrongly accused. More than once in the last couple of years I have been accused by a police officer of doing something I hadn’t (running a red light, riding through pedestrians on a zebra crossing and swearing at a pedestrian (I said “that’s ridiculous” to someone allowing their dog to run on the roadway, the policeman heard it as “you dickhead”) and they have then backed down when I have said I had the alleged incident on video. I have no doubt that in each case if I didn’t have a video and ended up in court with my word against an officer’s their word would be believed over mine. A very good reason for always having a camera!
Be that as it may, £500 seems
Be that as it may, £500 seems pretty steep, all things considered.
john_smith wrote:
My instinctive sympathy is with the cyclist but it has to be said he wasn’t fined £500 for cycling where he shouldn’t, he was fined £200 for that and the rest was court charges. The general principle that someone should pay court charges if they challenge a sanction and are found to be guilty of the offence is not a bad one, if one could challenge speeding tickets etc and face no greater cost for doing so than the original fine then I’d guess most people would have a punt and think “nothing to lose”, and the cost of all the appeals would have to be picked up by the taxpayer.
“The general principle that
“The general principle that someone should pay court charges if they challenge a sanction and are found to be guilty of the offence is not a bad one,”
Except thatgive one law for the rich who can afford laywers to try and get you off and one for the rest of us who can’t. If the offence is the same then the fine should be the same.
Capt Sisko wrote:
Young millionaire in £130k Mercedes slammed for using bus lanes as ‘VIP road’ claiming he ‘doesn’t care about fines’
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/26387871/young-millionaire-slammed-bus-lanes-vip-road/
He should try Finland https:/
He should try Finland https://www.onlygoodnewsdaily.com/post/world-s-most-expensive-speeding-ticket
brooksby wrote:
Young millionaire in £130k Mercedes slammed for using bus lanes as ‘VIP road’ claiming he ‘doesn’t care about fines’
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/26387871/young-millionaire-slammed-bus-lanes-vip-road/
I know, in theory, it’s not good for one’s own wellbeing to hope for other people’s downfalls, but I really hope this guy makes some terrible investments and loses all his money
Only though someone sat in
Only though someone sat in their car in a car park using their phone isn’t breaking the law.
The fine is out of all proportion to the supposed crime
hutchdaddy wrote:
Actually they are, the RTA applies to any private space (e.g. supermarket car park) that has public access for motor vehicles.
Don’t think I’ve ever come
Don’t think I’ve ever come across that being enforced. Can you imagine – it’d be all over the local news, jobsworthy petty officials taxing motorists for non-offences.
That said – if you cycle through a clearly marked no-cycling pedestrianised space, no sympathy.
Sriracha wrote:
Me neither. Should be maybe, not the use while parked so much but my local Sainsbury’s carpark is a place one has to ride very carefully as loads of people using their phones while driving, presumably making calls of the “I’m here, what do you want/on my way home now” variety, I think most people believe the law stops at the entrance to the carpark and they’re OK as long as they put the phone down before rejoining the highway.
Parked up with the engine
Parked up with the engine running is breaking the law on its own, regardless of touching a phone 😉
BigDoodyBoy wrote:
That’s true, but wasn’t there a story on here previously about a driver who almost killed a cyclists, was found guilty in court and received a shortish ban and a fine significantly smaller than this? And that is based on actual legislation, not one of this, mostly misused, anti-social behaviour orders.
Completely banning cycling in a pedestrianised area in a town with very limited cycling facilities is frustrating, but, yes the rules should be followed.
However, even if you believe that the risk posed by a cyclist riding recklessly through a pedestrian zone is the same as a driver driving recklessly around more vulnerable road users (which it isn’t) the penalties applied to each are clearly disproportionately punitive when applied to cyclists.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
If a law is immoral, then it’s our civic duty to disobey it.
There’s plenty of examples where laws have been used to persecute ethnic minorities and out-groups and people look back on them and consider how wrong they were (e.g. Alan Turing’s treatment due to laws against homosexuality). Rather than blindly following laws (c.f. Nazi soldiers “just following orders”) we need to consider who the law is protecting and whether it is justified.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Who’s making that moral judgement?
What’s the uniform in your profile pic, btw?
Obviously the Red (squirrel)
Obviously the Red (squirrel) Army. It’s grey to confuse the enemy.
Dnnnnnn wrote:
It’s up to individuals to make their own moral judgement. If you allow your morals to be dictated by others, then you are highly susceptible to propaganda and being manipulated (c.f. catholic church).
To a certain extent, the idea of trial by a jury of your peers enshrines the idea that the law isn’t absolute and juries have the power to acquit if they believe that the accused is morally innocent despite being factually guilty.
However, I think it would be a tough sell to convince a jury that you had a moral right to cycle through a pedestrianised zone.
(I think my avatar is wearing a communist military uniform from the Russian civil war – certainly the hat is a budenovka)
hawkinspeter wrote:
Of course we all make our own moral judgements – and never free of the influence of others. And surely many of those judgements will be in conflict, so the idea that – in a democracy where laws can be changed through peaceful persuasion – you ignore laws you find immoral would surely lead to chaos? Some people find restrictions and charges on their driving immoral – are they justified in destroying ULEZ cameras or evading taxes – or is it just that they have the wrong morals?
I agree there are some cases where tyranny (or indifference to tyranny) by the majority justifies the disobedience you suggest – but such cases are very much the exception.
You might be thinking of a recent JSO case – but that seems a stretch from making every law effectively a personal choice. I think law as applied is more flexible than many realise and can accommodate ‘crimes of conscience’ – but it can also set aside jury verdicts if it chooses. I doubt it would be so accommodating should you decide you choose to disobey a whole range of laws just because you find them morally objectionable.
I suppose that stage in the revolutionary process was marked by some higher ideals and justified disobedience – a bit akin to what we’re discussing. You don’t think what the USSR went on to become makes it a questionable choice though?
It’s generally a balance
It’s generally a balance between the strength of your moral convictions and willingness to bear the consequences of breaking a law. As most laws are designed to protect people and property, there’s not as much conflict between the ideas of legality and morality as you might think and thus we don’t have total chaos.
The JSO cases are quite noteworthy as the defendants were barred from mentioning the climate crisis and there was the incident where an Insulate Britain activist got jail time for doing so (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/07/insulate-britain-activist-david-nixon-jailed-for-eight-weeks-for-contempt-of-court). To me, that smells like tyranny – the tyranny of big oil and profits over what’s best for humanity, other species and ecosystems.
There was undoubtedly problems with the USSR – power corrupts and the bureacracy encouraged bad decision making, but I think that’s a general symptom of centralised systems. It’s important to not immediately point at problems to throw out ideals and philosophies – Capitalism is great at managing resources efficiently, but has serious issues with concentration of power and encourages abusive practices unless kept in check. (see the climate crisis for a case in point)
I’m from Grimsby and the
I’m from Grimsby and the councillor that initiated all this is a complete tool. There is a lack of suitable bike paths around the area and instead of addressing that they get some dodgy private company in to issue fines. Over the last few years they have put in a bus station, took out a bus station, turning it into a ‘reflection’ area, spent £5m (so far) on repairing an old bridge that really needed condemning. They’ve wasted millions of tax payers money when the town centre could’ve been turned into a cycling & pedestrian area with segregated lanes like the Dutch do it. The guy should lose his job…there’s a circus short of a clown somewhere.
Would that be the smug side
This is pure speculation on my part, but would that be the smug side of gammon wearing the van Gogh tie? Posing along side the thug of a Civil Enforcement officer who was probably the most hated in his unit in his army days (and won’t shut up about it), the lad who still regrets his GCSE results, and the shopping centre H&S manager?
The young lad with the “hands
The young lad with the “hands inside the stab vest like I’ve seen real coppers do” pose reminds me irresistibly of Gareth Keenan in The Office and his role in the TA.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I wonder if there’s an “Invetigation in process”
I’ve no problem with a zero
I’ve no problem with a zero tolerance approach to fines for cyclists riding on pedestrian areas but I feel the level of fine is very high. You can drive a car at excess speeds and receive a lower fine, you can park a car on pavements with no issues. The fine is even higher than going through a red light! Maybe a bit of common sense should be used in both sides.
I love the idea (reinforced
I love the idea (reinforced by some of the commentators) that a 60 year old man is a doddery old fool incapable of going at speed on a bicycle. As a 61 year old man who got stopped recently by a copper for going “unnecessarily quickly” through some road works, I don’t think that is always the case.
Agree – at 55 I can still
Agree – at 55 I can still touch 50kph (briefly!) on the (flat) Chelsea Embankment on a still Sunday morning when there’s no traffic about. Doesn’t have to be all pipe and slippers just because you’re past the half century!
As a 62 yeard old male still
As a 62 yeard old male still racing at National level I don’t think I’m that doddery yet.
At 72, it’s still my ambition
At 72, it’s still my ambition to be prosecuted for Furious Riding.
If this guy is guilty of
If this guy is guilty of anything. It would be guilty of getting caught. Should have popped a wheelie and flipped them the bird. They wouldnt have touched him otherwise. Should he have fallen while popping said wheelies and birds he could have sued them for distracting him, taking his concentration off what he was doing and probably won. It sounds rediculous but common sense isnt always present in court judging by some of the past results from unduely lenient sentences.
Knobheads these “officers”.
Knobheads these “officers”. They often wait at the bus stops to catch people then walk out into the road between busses causing you to nearly run them over, gonna have to go do a wheelie through town at mach 10 in memory of this poor bloke!
PSPOs are undemocratic.
PSPOs are undemocratic.
I suspect the way to
I suspect the way to challenge these fines is to show the council is being unreasonable.
Unlike private companies, there is an underlying requirement for a council to prove it is acting reasonably and with comparisons with parking fines and so on, I would have thought the unreasonable charge could be made to stick.
People who have dealt with TfL will know about the loopholes like de minimis infractions.
So, I suspect the problem here is not the complaint but knowing how to challenge a council.
Out of curiosity, are you
Out of curiosity, are you under any legal obligation to provde your details to one of these council officers? Or even stop for them? Can they use force to detain you?
Fursty Ferret wrote:
Yes, it is an offence to refuse to give them your details when asked if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you have committed something that would incur an FPN (it’s worth noting that you have no obligation to provide your details simply on demand without reason, either to them or a police officer). They certainly don’t have the authority to use force to detain you and they would themselves be committing an offence if they did so. However they can take photographs of you and record any pertinent details such as bike make etc and share these with the police and/or publish them on the council website in order to track you down.
Why the fuss he was breaking
Why the fuss he was breaking the law. Cyclist like him give the rest of us cyclist a bad name.
Codfather123 wrote:
Why? I didn’t vote for him.
In my experience the older
In my experience the older and slower cyclists generally are less of an issue that some of the people on mobility scooters – some of then just keep going and assume you will get out of the way
Which I can do if I am alone – but if I have 3 grand-kids with me – one autistic – then it can be a problem and I get huffed at my someone!
And teh cyclist that are cuasing the problems are never caught because they just laugh and ride off