- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Victoria_Street_West,_Grimsby_-_DSC07296.JPGCyclist ordered to pay £500 for riding bicycle through town centre as councillor claims hefty fine is "great result for our enforcement teams"
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.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. 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 joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- john_smith 15 min 43 sec ago
Concerned or resentful?
- john_smith 33 min 41 sec ago
Interesting reasoning. We could extend it to show that Formula 1 drivers should also ditch their helmets, since far fewer than 1,000 die from head...
- JOHN5880 1 hour 9 min ago
And I find smaller sized bikes to look silly with 700c wheels and not enough frame to go with them... It must all be in what we are used to looking...
- kingleo 1 hour 32 min ago
The worst offenders for going through traffic red lights are pedestrians - watch them outside any train /underground station in London, they have...
- ktache 1 hour 38 min ago
He introduced me to the JIS, which I have recently discovered is perfect for the bolt on my bells. Who would have thought on the Crane Ritan, a...
- IanGlasgow 1 hour 41 min ago
Police Scotland can beat that - they have no online reporting system. You can either wait 2 hours in a police station to make a statement, or wait...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 34 min ago
Seems crazy, but this is fairly common (certainly in the UK). Might be:...
- Muddy Ford 3 hours 2 min ago
"After seven years of campaigning alongside other families who have lost loved ones" ...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 58 min ago
It's happened in Le Tour also (I don't think that was Mr. Hembrow though).
Add new comment
60 comments
Parked up with the engine running is breaking the law on its own, regardless of touching a phone
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.
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.
Who's making that moral judgement?
What's the uniform in your profile pic, btw?
Obviously the Red (squirrel) Army. It's grey to confuse the enemy.
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)
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 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)
It's grim up north - Grims by name and grim by deed. 😏
What a country!
What a time to be alive!
Look on the bright side. It isn't Russia, and we're not at war--yet.
Good point, there are possibly infinite bad (or worse) places we are not!
Are you talking about england or UK?
Both, I suppose. Which were you talking about?
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.
I know, embarrassing, isn't it?
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 to recall the third country ... and then I realised - it's Canada of course.
I presumed it was the other home nations.
Charles is sovereign in a lot more than three nations. Weird, really.
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?
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.
£500? Did he kill someone?
No, the fine for that is 35 quid.
WTAF?? I hadn't seen that before. Incredible. Awful.
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.
SomeONE? Must have been a bus queue.
Meanwhile, all day everywhere in UK, and unpunished ...
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 millions to Usain Bolt and convince him to sprint at 40 km/h among passers by.
Pages