- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Grimsby PSPO enforcement officers (North East Lincolnshire Council)Hundreds more cyclists fined by "enforcement officers" under town's controversial cycling ban, months on from rider ordered to pay £1,050
A council that has been fining cyclists under a controversial town centre cycling ban in Grimsby has today revealed that hundreds more riders were fined between April and September.
The long-running saga around the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) in Grimsby has seen riders stopped and fined by "enforcement officers" if they ride in pedestrianised sections of the town. North East Lincolnshire Council believes the action necessary to crack down on anti-social behaviour, however others have suggested the PSPO is only discouraging people from making cycled journeys to the area's shops, all while failing to actually deter those whose anti-social behaviour is cited as the reason for the policy.
North East Lincolnshire Council today revealed that 1,472 fixed penalty notices (FPNs) had been issued during the six months between April and September, the fines issued by Waste Investigations Support and Enforcement (WISE) officers. Not all these are for breaching the cycling PSPO, and other offences mentioned include littering, dog fouling, smoking in a smoke-free zone, and parking.
With that said, in April alone 50 people were issued FPNs under the cycling PSPO, while FPN numbers for the following months suggest hundreds more have been stopped and issued FPNs by enforcement officers too.
After April the statistics do not specify the exact PSPO breach that saw an FPN issued, but considering other examples of PSPOs include one to tackle fishing without a permit, it seems likely that the more widely reported cycling ban (which had 50 incidents in April alone) is accounting for the majority.
In May, 117 people were issued FPNs, the number hitting a peak of 152 in August and 150 the previous month in July.
Portfolio Holder for Safer and Stronger Communities, Councillor Ron Shepherd, claimed the stats are "proof that what we're doing is working".
"There is clearly a need for these officers and they are working hard to make the borough a safe and comfortable place," he said.
"Those found to be breaching parking conventions or PSPOs will be dealt with accordingly. As these numbers prove, there are consequences to your actions and I implore people to follow the rules to make North East Lincolnshire a better place for everyone."
Just last month, Cllr Shepherd admitted that the council would be reducing the number of 'no cycling' messages played through a loud speaker in the town centre from four to two an hour, because locals thought it was "too repetitive". He has also claimed the area has been "rejuvenated" with "café and street culture" thanks to the PSPO.
The no cycling policy has made headlines over the past few years, notably because of some of the eye-watering sums those who failed to pay their FPNs were ordered to pay by the courts.
Last summer a cyclist was ordered to pay £1,150 after being caught riding through the town centre and failing to pay the £100 fixed penalty notice. Likewise, the council has reported that a cyclist, Adam Wherrett, has recently failed to pay his FPN and has since been ordered to pay £508 in total having been prosecuted at Grimsby Magistrates' Court.
In October 2022, a pensioner made headlines after telling the council to stick its £100 fine "up your arse", his case also attracting outrage from locals who reported seeing council officers targeting "old and slow" riders while ignoring youths "racing up and down".
That is, in essence, the major criticism that cycling groups have made about such town centre cycling bans — that they discourage people cycling into the town, while also failing to deter the sort of anti-social behaviour it is believed they'll combat.
Active travel charity Cycling UK has long been a prominent critic of PSPOs, which it claims have the effect of criminalising cycling.
"Some councils have used PSPOs as a geographically defined version of an ASBO to restrict the use of public space and criminalise behaviour not normally regarded as illegal," Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK's head of campaigns, has previously said.
In March, we reported that elsewhere in England, Worcester City Council opted against extending its city centre cycling ban PSPO, council figures stating that it was "more about culture wars than what we want for the city" and that they were "never convinced dangerous cyclists were the big issue", with the ban feeling like "political theatre". Campaigners also argued it acted as a "psychological barrier" to more people using bicycles.
Birmingham City Council is considering introducing a PSPO restricting cycling in parts of the city centre, the council yesterday insisting that the policy would not be "a ban on cycling", just "merely a reflection of how cycles are used in the city centre".
However, the plans have been labelled "clumsy and unworkable" by active travel campaigners, many despairing at the proposal which it was suggested "directly contravenes several of the council's own transport policies and will disproportionally impact people who use their cycles as mobility aids".
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 47 min 54 sec ago
They don't make them like they used to
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 43 sec ago
They're clearly lying if they say they only want to target the problematic cyclists as that doesn't require any PSPO. They'll say one thing and...
- ktache 1 hour 23 min ago
Lovely paint job, and the concealed thru axle end is a nice touch, but that frame, and I'm not casting aspersions on anyone who will ride them...
- LongitudeLatitude 1 hour 38 min ago
Thanks for using my picture of chocolate in your opening picture. The original can be found here, chocolate! | LongitudeLatitude | Flickr.
- lesterama 2 hours 5 min ago
Fair comments. I'll put my hands up and say I got the wrong end of the stick with this one. ¡Feliz navidad! Here's a pic for the season of goodwill.
- Mike Holmes 2 hours 9 min ago
A trip down memory lane (or street) for me - Harry Quinn's bike shop was at the top of our Street and I used to spend time staring at the bikes and...
- Bigtwin 2 hours 25 min ago
Because people aren't buying those cars. They are effecively renting them on PCPs or via companies. The bike market doesn't work like that.
Add new comment
32 comments
Look. The bicycles take too much space, it's clear:
This type of councillor needs space - physically and for the ego. (In this case, about the same amount when driving a car or when walking.) It's just not save to share the little space with cyclists...
The police in N Lancashire can't enforce against anti-social cyclists, because there aren't any cyclists except around Lancaster Uni. Their anti-cyclist views can't be vented on cyclists and therefore surface as a refusal to act in cases of offences against cyclists, as I have demonstrated with numerous videos on here. However, they take it further: the police are incredibly tolerant to serious offences BY motorists 'because everybody does it'. Everybody does it for the obvious reason that there are no penalties for driver offending here in the Wild North West.
Portfolio Holder for Safer and Stronger Communities, Councillor Ron Shepherd, claimed the stats are "proof that what we're doing is working".
It clearly isn't working Councillor, and if there are so many people still doing it, your scheme has clearly failed. Also, if so many people are still doing it and there is no evidence of harm, then it isn't necessary and you just hate cyclists.
Surely if it was working the numbers should be falling, rather than going up, as people stop doing the things they don't want them doing, and so reasons to issue fines fall?
If the law says no cars, its no cars, If it says no cycling, Its no cycling. Do as I do dismount and walk or re-route.
If we want people to respect the law you cannot pick or choose which ones you want to obey!
If the law is being applied in an unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory manner, then it should and must be challenged. Blind acceptance of whatever regulation a council or government chooses to put in place "Because it's the law" is an extremely dangerous route to go down and has had extremely undesirable consequences throughout human history.
I wonder whether people would be just as happy if Grimsby announced that since a study had determined that brightly coloured motor vehicles were in less road collisions then henceforth, by PSPO, they were banning all black or grey motor vehicles from driving within the town boundary?
And if the signage is limited to those very small roundels on bollards then it is completely unreasonable to expect compliance.
What a stupid attitude. It's people like you that dictators really like as you'll just blindly follow any made up rule with no thought as to the consequences or whether it's moral.
I'm not entirely sure that moral or not comes in here. Obviously the same could be trotted out by drivers (e.g. ignoring speed limits when "it's clearly safe" - those are somewhat arbitrary / broad brush measures. Or pavement parking "when there's space to get by". Both rules of course are there for reasons..)
I think a better argument here is to ask what the intent of the law/rule is. Then:
- Is that well-thought-out / not discriminatory? Clearly banning cycling may impact children's independent mobility or people who use cycles as their "mobility vehicle" (another rabbit hole there as we don't legally recognise this). Especially as the UK often has "walking areas" surrounded and served by very cycling-unfriendly roads (for all the people to drive in to walk...)
- Will it actually will actually achieve that intent? In the case of "banning cycling to combat anti-social cyclists" I would say almost certainly not. That's not entirely the fault of the law itself but simply that the anti-social will ignore it and there isn't sufficient enforcement. Plus the enforcers mostly ignore or just can't catch the bad lads!
- What are the wider consequences e.g. does this set up perverse incentives? Again that would seem to be the case here (because enforcement issues mean we hit the social cyclists and end up ignoring the anti-social). Plus the bigger picture is that making *more* obstacles to cycling (which is already made less convenient than driving) simply reinforces driving. And that we know is not good for safety, for "pleasant places", for the economics of our "town centres" (because people drive to cheaper places or just bigger stores for their shopping - or now order online).
It boggles my mind that people still give these idiots their details, they mainly go after the old and vulnerable they're just bullies. Often I've seen them waiting at the bus stops and walking out into the road between busses to stop cyclists, be a shame if my brakes don't work next time. You know what they say about those who play stupid games.
I don't disagree that many of them are bullies, some of the worst jobsworths one can come across, and I disagree with nearly all the PSPOs I've seen, but the fact remains that breaching a PSPO is a criminal offence, as is refusing to give your name when asked by a warranted official, so it's not that mind-boggling that people do give their details rather than risk getting a criminal record that could have a severe impact on their employability and in other areas of their life. Nearly all of the "enforcers" have bodycams from which they share images of those who have refused to comply with the police, and quite often the police are operating somewhere within their neighbourhood and you may well find yourself stopped by them as you ride away from the council officials. I personally would be quite happy to take the chance but then I'm 56 and self-employed with no intention of ever applying for a job working for a company or organisation again in my life, I can readily understand why some people unwillingly comply rather than chance getting a criminal record.
I've seen these enforcement officers completely ignore people travelling past them on illegal electric scooters but (literally) the next moment try to ticket someone who dropped a wrapper on the ground. They do seem to go for the low-hanging fruit. (yes, I know that's anecdata and inadmissible in court).
And I suspect a lot of them would never be accepted for the police - they do this rather than being one of the people delivering groceries on an illegal electric motorbike.
Nevertheless, as Rendel says, even a stupid PSPO is still legally binding.
Absolutely, so many of them quite clearly have chosen the job because they get to wear a uniform and a stab vest and carry a walkie-talkie so they can pretend to be police (see the two examples in the photograph at the top of the article). I've met one or two decent ones, but in the main they are blatantly people who have selected that form of employment because they like being able to boss other people about.
Could you make your point without being such a snob about how other people earn an honest living? Assuming that any law enforcement officer (whether it's police, council, EA, HSE, Customs) are motivated by a stab vest and walkie talkie says more about the person making the claim than those who do the job.
Some of the legislation they enforce is national, and some is down to by-laws. The priority for which legislation is enforced will be dictated in part by what the legislation requires, and in part by local priorities. If you are unhappy with either of these then you should take it up with the elected members at the appopriate level, or at least senior staff of the relevant authority - not those on lower pay. The same goes to those who abuse traffic wardens for ticketing people who park dangerously or selfishly or think the police are over-stepping the mark or wasting time by enforcing the law around speeding cars or safe driving.
I accept it might vary across the country, but where I live the police would deal with anti-social cycling, while these sorts of enforcement officers are off-shoots of environmental health department and/or licensing, who also have law enforcement powers in areas where the police do not. Their enforcement obligations include fly-tipping (including littering), smoking in pubs and other indoor spaces. They won't be stopping cyclists regardless of the type of bike, because it's not what they are employed to do.
There might be a local agreement between the police and council on who enforces some bits of legislation, which explains why some officers aren't pursuing the crimes you think are more relevant than others. Around here the council officers will give out FPNs for littering, but not for anti-social cycling, which is for the police. I've been told informally that the police won't do anyone for cycling on the pavement unless they are causing a problem and there is a complaint about it. I think they are still trying ot work out what to do about the illegally modified bikes, but it will almost certainly be down to the police to enforce.
Nothing snobbish about it, it's simply an empirical observation based on my experience of dealing with many people working as council enforcement officers (not traffic wardens, who in my experience are generally decent folk doing a difficult job and not trying to be confrontational with members of the public) that they are often wannabe police officers who act in an overbearing and unnecessarily officious manner and clearly relish the chance to order about their fellow citizens. This is not just my opinion, it's an opinion shared by at least two police officers of my acquaintance (one current, one retired) who have said in the past that they are one of the banes of the job because the police end up being called in to sort out disputes between them and members of the public which a lot of the time turn out to stem from the enforcement officer trying to act as if they are a police officer and making threats of arrest, criminal records et cetera that they do not have the authority to do and that the situation doesn't warrant. You may disagree with my opinion and that's fine but calling me snobbish for saying that is just silly.
Officers from other law enforcement agencies will usually request police back-up if they anticipate an arrest, but warranted officers do not need to go via the police to interview suspects under caution, give formal cautions, issue fines or take people to court etc. Some people would rather not comply with the law and get shirty at those who enforce it. It happens to the police too. I've known several licensing officers who are ex-police, or military and one ex-military police for good measure.
Regardless, it's the politicians that make the laws, including by-laws, and politicians and senior officers that dictate priorities. If you have reason to believe a particular member of staff is over-stepping their authority then you are entitled to take it up with someone more senior or your local elected representative. You'll need something a bit more specific and damning than 'they think they're the police, but they're not'.
In this case it's clearly a policy that's been driven by the elected local politician(s). You should focus your frustrations on them if you want to change things.
Pretty sure you're wrong about that: cps.gov.uk, "Cautioning and Diversion":
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/cautioning-and-diversion
That's being given a caution on your record, not cautioning someone about their right to remain silent. Interviewing under caution is the latter, and it's not just the police who can do it. Only the police can choose to issue a simple caution instead of, for instance, prosecuting someone.
You can be interviewed under caution by council officers with the appropriate authority if summoned for interview, I'm prepared to be corrected but I am pretty certain that a council warden is not entitled to put you under caution on the street when they have stopped you. Even the police only give the caution about the right to remain silent as part of reading you your rights when arrested.
The common law caution is a reminder of your right not to self-implicate, and yes they can if they are authorised officers of a competent authority for the offence they believe someone has committed. If they have the authority to require someone to answer questions as a witness, they must give the common law caution to a suspect to make sure the person doesn't believe they are required to self-implicate. A police caution, which is what your link refers to, is an out of court disposal, which is a legal sanction. I have to know this for my day job (I am not a police officer). Caveat: I am knowledgeable in Scottish law.
The original comment did seem to imply that they could do both, though:
I missed that, thanks for pointing it out. I can't comment, as that's outside my area of expertise. Apologies to Rendel. This is why they should be called different things!
About time someone took Render's down a peg or two...
You're quite entitled to feel that way if you wish but it would be rather more dignified if you attempted it yourself, preferably with some form of substantive point or argument, rather than sneering from the sidelines. Oh and if you do wish to try, please do it grammatically and eschew the use of extraneous apostrophes. Thank you.
I'm not really clear the relevance of plastering tips in this context.
At least they're not harling insults.
I guess they only skimmed the comments and thought they'd dash off a reply.
I'm with @FionaJJ on this one and a bit surprised Rendel came out with this statement.
"I've met one or two decent ones, but in the main they are blatantly people who have selected that form of employment because they like being able to boss other people about."
If we re-wrote it as :-
"I've met one or two decent ones, but in the main they are blatantly people who have selected that form of transport because they like being able to wear Lycra and ignore the highway code."
It could almost be a DM rant.
Rendel, has your account been pwnd ?
So you don't believe that certain types of employment attract certain types of people? Of course they do, people choose their employment (If they are lucky enough to have a choice) according to their personalities, characteristics and talents. I am simply reporting my experience of council wardens which accords with what I said earlier, which is that in general the council wardens responsible for stewarding PSPOs whom I have encountered are unnecessarily officious and appear to derive petty-minded pleasure from being allowed to tell other people what to do. Some people, as you have surely experienced in life, enjoy bossing other people about, is it any surprise that employment that primarily involves bossing other people about attracts that sort of character?
Pages