A council has once again shared news of joint patrols with a police force to stop and fine cyclists who ride through a town centre.
North East Lincolnshire Council and Humberside Police fined seven people in the latest ‘action day’ enforcing a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) banning cycling in pedestrianised areas of Grimsby town centre to “deter potential rule breakers” and “provide an extra layer of safety for the public”.
In June, a female cyclist was ordered to pay over £1,100 in fines and costs for riding her bike through the town centre, just months after unhappy locals claimed that the council was imposing the cycling ban unfairly and targeting “old and slow” cyclists, instead of cracking down on anti-social behaviour.
Those allegations came last autumn after an 82-year-old was fined £100, prompting the pensioner to tell the council to stick the penalty “up your a*se”. “I’d rather go to prison than give them £100,” Barrie Enderby said at the time.
The latest patrols, carried out alongside officers from Humberside Police, saw seven people fined the £100 fixed penalty notice (FPN). This followed action on 4 July that saw six people fined, not long after an offender was ordered to pay a £1,150 court bill, including a £600 fine, £226 costs and £264 victim surcharge following failure to pay the FPN.
Councillor Ron Shepherd questioned how people were still receiving fines, suggesting it’s “easy to avoid a fine […] just get off your bike and walk”.
“Despite our officers instigating rigorous measures to ensure that people are not breaking the protection orders, it is beneficial for a team to be visible to help deter potential rule-breakers and offer a reassuring presence to those who visit Victoria Street to shop, socialise and enjoy local services,” he said.
“Individuals who participate in anti-social behaviour damage the bustling urban environment so these checks help provide an extra layer of safety for the public as they can see that action is being taken.
> Bedford cyclists protest “discriminatory” town centre bike ban
“It’s easy to avoid a fine for cycling in the town centre. Just get off your bike and walk along the relatively short stretch of pavement. I’m grateful to everyone who does so and I ask that others do the same.”
The PSPO has been in force along Victoria Street since 2019 and was extended in 2022 to run until at least 2025. The PSPO, which North East Lincolnshire Council claims was introduced to deal with nuisance, anti-social and dangerous behaviour in the town centre and along Cleethorpes seafront has seen over 1,000 FPNs issued since 2019, the bulk of which have been for cycling on Victoria Street South and walking dogs along the main beach in Cleethorpes.
Cycling UK has been critical of PSPOs, which it says 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.
> Bedford cycling ban to remain despite consultation showing most people want it scrapped
The Grimsby PSPO has been controversial throughout its enforcement, with a backlash from locals last October leading to accusations that the council officers were targeting “old and slow” riders while ignoring youths “racing up and down”.
In social media posts shared at the time, one person said they witnessed the aforementioned incident which saw 82-year-old Mr Enderby fined and said there had been “other young lads riding past” who officers “didn’t bother to stop”.
Another claimed she had 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.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
40 thoughts on “More cyclists fined for riding bikes through town centre – months on from rider ordered to pay £1,100”
Bet they do not visit the
Council claims was introduced to deal with nuisance, anti-social and dangerous behaviour … you can cycle perfectly safely in a pedestrianised area, take your time be respectful, etc… OR you can be a complete ar$e. The same can be said for people walking….you can just push people out of your way, shout abuse, etc. All anti-social …
Bet they do not visit the closest road and nick everyone speeding there. Or parking in the bike lane or … or …
More than happy if they can prove me wrong!
I’m sure you could ride your
I’m sure you could ride your motorbike perfectly safely through a pedestrianised area too. It’s a pedestrianised area – get off and walk. Why is that so difficult?
Totally agree. It annoys me
Totally agree. It annoys me even when cyclists are riding slowly through pedestrianised areas as some shoppers have been known to change direction at random due to the fact that they’re not expecting vehicles.
I would have no problem if Grimsby were targeting all cyclists (not just “old and slow”)
Also a bit sad that a few posters on here seem to have resorted to typically drivist ‘whataboutery’
F*#k Grimsby council. Grim by
F*#k Grimsby council. Grim by name, grim by nature. I seem to recall Scunthorpe is pretty close.
Having worked and lived in
Having worked and lived in Switzerland, not particularly known for excellent cycling infra, it is a mahoosive step up from the UK. Generally speaking, anywhere that was pedestrianised you can cycle. Nobody batted an eyelid when someone on a bicycle pootled towards them. The UK needs to become educated. The fact that more people are injured on the counties road infrastructure is obviously ignored.
I think the problem is that
I think the problem is that there probably are some cyclists who hare through there – knocking down toddlers* and scaring pensioners and pearl-clutching Tories – but the council has felt that the most appropriate way of dealing with this is to effectively criminalise all cyclists passing through there. Not just the antisocial ones but all of them.
But then – because the antisocial ones are more likely to be travelling faster and are more likely not to stop for a council enforcement officer – it is the cyclists who are travelling slower and more carefully who are actually being caught and fined.
*I don’t imagine any toddlers have actually been knocked down by bl00dy cyclists there, because otherwise that would be HEADLINE NEWS.
It’s a vicious cycle, in
It’s a vicious cycle, in contrast to motonormitivity cycling is unusual. So these reckless cyclists are considered representative of the whole whereas behind the wheel they’d be disregarded as part of the ‘boy racer’ out group and not considered representative of that whole.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Don’t get started on vicious cycles!
Car Delenda Est wrote:
What, this?
I think the issue, as with
I think the issue, as with Mansfield, is that the place is run by a post-lobotomy version of Captain Mainwaring.
But the police cannot seem to
But the police cannot seem to stop the unbelievable increase in using a phone behind the wheel, many are not even hiding the fact now as they know the chances of getting caught here in Lancashire is pretty much zero.
Biker Phil wrote:
They are not interested. I saw media reports of some whizzo camera tech which is supposed to catch people on their phone. I think the real attraction is that forces can claim to be “doing something” simply by waiting for the tech to be installed – kick the can down the road.
Meanwhile, all it took was a short walk into town to see at least 10 drivers on their phones, no tech required.
Interestingly, all the drivers on their phones were driving solo – it’s almost as if when there is another person in the car they feel inhibited.
Yeah, I saw a news report
Yeah, I saw a news report today, AI camera mounted on a van. But it still needs to be checked by a human to make sure that the ones caught are legit.
This report has been
This report has been syndicated around various outlets. Best comment is the one which says that the cameras will distract motorists (what, from their phones – otherwise why would they be on the lookout?) who will be looking out for them!
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/uks-first-free-standing-ai-road-safety-camera/
Seems to be similar to the
Seems to be similar to the 20mph being dangerous argument as I need to keep checking the speedometer. It’s not that difficult to gauge your speed. In the same way it’s not difficult to shove your phone in the glovebox and not worry about AI cameras catch you updating FB or whatever.
There’s always a debate to be
There’s always a debate to be had about what the police should be policing. Nevertheless, if this is something they are policing, walking through a pedestrianised area is hardly onerous. Yes, they should be out catching [insert favourite bogeymen] as well; doesn’t mean they shouldn’t catch you.
PSPOs are a terrible piece of
PSPOs are a terrible piece of legislation. They do nothing constructive that the law couldn’t already do or couldn’t be more specifically achieved by other parts of the same act. Except maybe be a nuisance to people doing what was formerly safe and legal.
Kids being knobheads on bikes, terrorising OAP by doing cutties down a busy high-street; they’re already commiting assault and breach of the peace. Targeted policing and worthwhile.
PSPO slapping a ticket on the same OAP who was terrorised 6 years ago? Lazy and corrupt
If I lived at this area I
If I lived at this area I would search for the telephone of Ussain Bolt and kindly ask him if he could perform a few of his 25mph sprints among people, a little faster of the 8mph most cyclists do in pedestrian areas. Since he would be a pedestrian, nobody would be affected, right?
I drove my 1970s car along
I drove my 1970s car along the 1970s ring road to the 1970s car park and visited the 1970s shopping precinct. Imagine my shock to find someone from the 2020s there.
I rage at idiots in cars who
I rage at idiots in cars who speed, use their phones and have stupidly loud exhausts. I yell at motor bikers who scream past with unrestricted exhausts. And, yes, I rant at cyclists who ride on the pavements, use their phones and generally act smug and entitled. All of them, regardless of age or speed, are breaking the law. It isn’t about what-about-ism, the police are allowed to fine anyone who can’t obey simple rules.
Cyclists have a tough time on the roads, but that doesn’t give them permission to pass on the pain to pedestrians. I have lost count the number of times a cyclist has come up behind me on a narrow pavement. Just because the speed is lower and less likely to kill or injure doesn’t make it any better.
As a civil society we need to stop looking for ways to be upset and offended by others and rather focus on our own civil duties. If I can’t obey the law then why should I expect others?
100% this. This is an
100% this. This is an embarrassment of an article, that simply perpetuates the notion cyclists think they’re above the law.
There is a simple answer here, don’t cycle where you shouldn’t. The high street of my local town is the same, how have I avoided being fined? That’s right I’ve got off and walked my bike for that small section. It’s. Not. Difficult.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I agree 100% if its no cycling i dismount and walk he deserves what he got.
I suppose the main difference
I suppose the main difference is that using a mobile phone while riding, or being “smug and entitled”, are not actually against the law. Stupid? Possibly. Annoying? Maybe. But not illegal.
I’m open to correction, but I don’t think anyone’s been killed as a consequence of a cyclist being smug and entitled…
I think you need to acquaint
I think you need to acquaint yourself with the guidance permitting pavement cycling, and disabled people using cycles as mobility aids, before you jerk your knee quite this flagrantly.
I presume you are referring
I presume you are referring to Paul Boateng?
https://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cyclists-can-ride-pavement
Meanwhile the Highway Code says:
64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
I’m not sure that any Home Secretary has the power to dictate law, whatever guidance they may issue to the police.
The whole thing is a mess since the law refers to the footway, not the pavement.
I found this interesting snippet along the way;
http://www.pedestriansafety.org.uk/footway_parking_legality.html
This is a pedestrianised high
This is a pedestrianised high street, not a pavement along a busy road.
What’s the alternative cycle
What’s the alternative cycle route like? I’m not familiar with the town.
[Snip]
[Snip]
” … disabled people using cycles as mobility aids, …”
[Snip]
Speaking as a disabled rider, current legislation does not recognise cycles as mobility aids, so unfortunately, this is not a valid reason.
If you had a heavily modified bike, such as a wheelchair bike, then you might be able to appeal and hope you get a sympathetic hearing .. but a standard two wheeler, you’ll probably have no chance.
The attitude I regularly encounter is that I can’t be disabled enough if I can ride a bike.
You are right in general of
You are right in general of not breaking the law. The thing is that in other places (a guy mentions Switzerland, I can mention Russia, I am sure they will be others) cycling in pedestrian areas is legal, socially accepted and not creating problems. So what is argued here is that the law may need revising.
It sounds as if (from “smug
It sounds as if (from “smug and entitled”) this should be your headline:
Which is broader than cycling, obviously!
Anyway, I would quite agree that mixing cyclists and pedestrians is a bad idea. And that there are some twonks riding bikes. And if cycling grows (which I hope) our police need to consider how to police cyclists (e.g. the growing number of illegal electric motorcycles). And our road policing and the courts are really deficient. Even those actually doing the killing and injuring are unlikely to face serious sanction.
Returning to the particular, it seems here that there’s a more general “anti-social behaviour” issue in this location which hasn’t been addressed. (I doubt arresting pensioners – however misanthropic – is fixing it).
I don’t know the area but from a look around on streetview it looks like Grimsby’s equipped with plenty of giant urban dual carriageways or other large motor vehicle spaces. I bet the pedestrianised area is very popular because of how unpleasant much of the rest of the place feels.
If this street does constitute a “missing link” for cyclists it doesn’t look like it’d be impossible to run a cycle path (maybe “ersatz” with blocks?) down it? There is permit holder vehicle access evenings and overnight (I can see one in the streetview though). Probably cheaper than taking pensioners in court…
My best rants are reserved
My best rants are reserved for those people who object to active travel changes to the highways. I wouldn’t be sharing a small pa cement with my dog and a bike if the cyclist felt safe to ride on the road in the first place. I’m a big fan of 20mph limits and LTN.
The problem is thst today’s political discourse is always polarised. This means we never organise, and so the people who make all the money and abuse the system continue to do so unapposed
ProudToBeWoke wrote:
Lower speed limits in residential areas and LTNs are important tools for achieving nicer places. That alone won’t change the world – fundamentally that would take less demand for driving / less promotion of it. For the short journeys people want convenient, efficient door-to-door private transport (for all). All places which have managed to make a change have done so via some dedicated infra on the bigger streets / main routes.
I guess we (and our recent ancestors) all share some culpability for the poor provision for everything but the car. Most bought into the dream they were sold – and it did look enticing to start with! Those more in the frame would be the politicians who saw the problems but continued to promote motor transport at the expense of other modes. And those “encouraging active travel*” when it suits. Or the councils who doubled active travel provision (on the already cramped footway) – by sticking up “shared use” signs.
* Encouraging with fractions of pennies in the transport pound – or ideally just by warm words, exhortations and photo ops!
Cyclists and pedestrians
Cyclists and pedestrians exist in the same spaces throughout the Netherlands. It works there, why is it a bad idea here?
bensynnock wrote:
You’re right in one sense, but also this is misunderstood in the UK (where councils can paint half a bike on a narrow footway and claim to be providing cycling facilities without giving way to wild cackling).
In NL because cycling is such a normal unremarkable thing it’s more like you find people on and off bikes than “cyclists and pedestrians”.
Actually one major improvement you see in NL is the opposite of what you say – there is almost always provision of very clearly marked separate spaces for cycling and walking.
So in a truly “pedestrianised” area in NL I’d expect to see most people walking. (Is simply not convenient to cycle through crowds of people walking, never mind impolite. )
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/utrecht-pedestrian-zone-netherlands/
This is no problem because there will be both good places to leave your bike all around the area AND there will be a grid of genuinely safe and convenient routes bypassing it. Because in NL many people cycle to the walk. In the UK the vast majority will drive there.
Are delivery and/or council
Are delivery and/or council vehicles allowed in this area and are there any time limits?
mrb wrote:
4pm to 10.30am access for permit holders
I’m in no way condoning the
I’m in no way condoning the actions of the cyclists as the council have gone to great lengths to ensure people know not to cycle and are enforcing it etc.
But, are they also doing anything about people on electric scooters which are equally if not more of a danger to pedestrians than cyclists? They are whizzed about on, weaving through busy crowded places much more frequently than cyclists. If this is all about ensuring people are safe and not just a targeted campaign against cycling then I would like to know what the council or police are doing to stop these offenders. Because if the police stop them, what are they meant to do? They are not on a bicycle. They are not on a road. They technically are breaking no laws but are just as likely to cause an accident. this is the inequality of these rules.
Privately owned eScooters ARE
Privately owned eScooters ARE illegal, both on the road and the pavement. Only scooters that are part of a council licensed official rental scheme are legal. The government has been pretty lax in continuing to allow their sale, when it should be obvious that very few of them will only get used on private land. The police can stop them if they wish whenever they see them. Personally though, I would much prefer they they started to deal with the much more dangerous problem of cars being driven onto the pavement to park. Also there was an article on here a few months back about a council who introduced a ban on cars driving through a popular shopping street, but completely failed to ensure this was enforced, resulting in local people organising their own blockade, who were then threatened with prosecution by the police for obstructing the highway! Cars should always be the main focus of police action, not cyclists or eScooter riders.
I agree with your last point,
I agree with your last point, but in this case of stopping cyclists. It always looks like cyclists are the only problem and that scooters beinf ridden inconsiderately are ignored – because they are NOT bikes. I am just questioning the equality of this.
Surely the whole purpose of banning bikes from the pedestrianised area is to protect people. When there is an equally hazardous activity should it not be clamped down on just as hard?
Escooters (the legal ones in
Escooters (the legal ones in an approved rental scheme) are only legal on the road anyway. I thought they were geofenced as well, so they ought not to operate in a recognised pedestrianised zone. The police need have no qualms stopping any escooter on the pavement or in a pedestrianised zone.