“Why pick on a lone female cyclist?” Cyclist slapped with £100 fine – for riding on a cycle path

A cyclist in Colchester was left stunned after she was handed a £100 Fixed Penalty Notice by a council warden, ostensibly under a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) designed to prevent anti-social or nuisance behaviour, who claimed that the cyclist was “riding on the footpath” – despite the path in question being designated as a shared-use cycle route since 2011.

Colchester-based Helge Gillmeister was cycling home from work in March, along a path located next to the city’s busy Southway, when she was issued with the fine for breaching the PSPO, an increasingly popular (and controversial) method used by local authorities to clamp down on what they deem to be dangerous cycling, and one active travel charity Cycling UK says has the effect of criminalising the act of riding a bike.

Describing her punishment as “ridiculous”, especially due to the presence of signs indicating the path’s shared-use status 30 yards from where she was stopped, Gillmeister quickly and successfully appealed the FPN, with the council agreeing to waive her fine.

Nevertheless, the debacle has inspired the Colchester Cycling Campaign to adopt a policy of “non-cooperation” with the council, while urging cyclists to refuse to give their names or addresses if stopped by wardens for riding their bikes in what campaigners have described as a “city designed for cars”.

“Hang on a minute, this isn’t a footpath!”

Dr Gillmeister, a reader in Psychology at the University of Essex, was cycling from work to pick up her daughter in March when she was abruptly stopped as she was about to cross Butt Road at its junction with Southway by a warden, an employee of the Waste Investigations Support and Enforcement (WISE) agency, subcontracted by Colchester City Council.

“I was riding along the usual route I take back from work, beside one of the town’s main, busy arteries. But there’s a shared cycle and footpath along it, which I use,” Gillmeister tells road.cc.

“And I was riding along it, like normal, in the speed appropriate to the conditions – which aren’t great – before stopping at a red light as I waited to cross the road.

“Just then, a guy came out of the subway and said, ‘Oh, can I just talk to you about cycling on the footpath?’ I told him, ‘I’m really sorry, I have to pick my daughter up from school’. And he said, ‘It’s not optional, I’m issuing you with a Fixed Penalty Notice for cycling on the footpath’.

“And I thought – hang on a minute, this isn’t a footpath, it’s a shared path! But this was difficult for me to prove to him without going all the way back to where the cycle signs were, and I needed to go.”

The warden then conceded that his colleague – who Helge believes was standing at the other end of the subway – “maybe made a mistake”, but continued to issue the cyclist with a Fixed Penalty Notice, carrying a £100 fine.

“I asked him how I could contest the fine, and said I was going to because it’s ridiculous, but then I just had to go to pick up my daughter, as I was already late,” she continued.

“I really wasn’t happy, I couldn’t believe it. I cycle there all the time. I guess the wardens, who are subcontracted by the council, just didn’t know that it was a cycle path when they booked me.”

Helge then returned to the path to take photos of the route’s bike signs and painted symbols, in order to “build my case and send evidence to the council”.

“It’s clearly a shared path,” she says. “I took photos of all the signage and wrote a letter to the council. I contacted the local cycling campaign, because I thought it might be happening to other people too.”

“We’re not like Grimsby”

However, when Gillmeister studied the Fixed Penalty Notice that evening, she realised that the PSPO that underpinned it did not directly apply to cycling on the footway.

Last autumn, Colchester City Council consulted on renewing its current PSPO, which covers the centre of the city and states that “using a skateboard, bicycle, scooter, skates, or any other self-propelled wheeled vehicle, including electric scooters, in such a manner as to cause or is likely to cause intimidation, harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance, or annoyance to any person”.

At the time of the consultation, activists within the Colchester Cycling Campaign raised concerns that that the term ‘annoyance’ could be used against ‘wrong-way’ cyclists who “merely want to go about their business as quickly and smoothly as possible”.

> "It's more about culture wars than what we want for the city": Council changes controversial cycling ban that campaigners branded "psychological barrier" to people using bicycles

“It could turn a ‘ticking off’ from a PCSO or warden into a criminal matter. Annoyance is subjective,” the group said.

The campaign also pointed out that the PSPO contained vague and “slack” wording concerning pedestrian areas, and called for all pedestrian areas to be individually named for clarity.

“Our overall worry is that similar PSPOs have been used in Grimsby and Southend to effectively ban cycling from some areas,” the group said at the time, referring to towns where the local authorities have implemented stricter, “zero tolerance” rules prohibiting cycling on pedestrian streets, attracting fierce criticism from active travel campaigners in the process.

And it was this “anti-social” element of Gillmeister’s fine that baffled the cyclist and the Colchester Cycling Campaign the most.

“While he told me the fine was for cycling on the footpath, when I looked at the notice later, the phrasing seemed to imply that I was cycling in a manner that was causing annoyance, or harm to people or objects,” she says.

“And that sounded different to me than just, you’re cycling where you shouldn’t be cycling. But on the penalty, it said I was cycling in an anti-social manner. When I wasn’t doing either!”

> “Fining is one of the few options left”: Council proposes charging cyclists £100 for riding on High Street

William Bramhill, Colchester Cycling Campaign’s vice-secretary, also told road.cc that the emphasis on annoying or nuisance behaviour in Gillmeister’s Fixed Penalty Notice sent alarm bells ringing when she contacted the group about her case.

“After Helge came to us and asked us to help with her appeal, we confirmed that the path was all signed and lined, we spoke to the guy who put it in, and we confirmed it was a cycle route. Not that it’s a good cycle route, but it is a cycle path that avoids a busy main road,” Bramhill says.

“But with all the stories about town centre cycling bans, we were on our mettle about it. And when we saw the PSPO in Colchester Council’s consultation pages, we thought ‘what’s going on here?’ And we weren’t happy with what we saw.

“But the council assured us that the PSPO isn’t meant to penalise anything other than anti-social behaviour. They actually spelt out to us, ‘we’re not like Grimsby, we do not ban cycling from certain areas’.”

In a letter to the council supporting Helge’s case, the campaign noted that the path has been a cycle route since 2011, with clearly marked signs that should have been obvious to the wardens. They also argued that the town’s PSPO did not apply in this instance, as Helge’s cycling did not fall under the criteria outlined in the order.

> “They have all the resources in the world to pick on cyclists”: Council slammed for stopping and fining cyclists on pedestrianised city centre street

Bramhill continued: “We told them this situation is not good enough. By all accounts, she was not riding dangerously or in an anti-social way. These were wardens, these weren’t police, so I don’t think they could give her a ticket for riding on a footway without relying on a PSPO. So, it’s all rather confusing at the moment.

“We are pushing the council for answers about the PSPO. We’re happy that the PSPO itself – apart from the fact it doesn’t name pedestrian areas – is clear that you have to be riding inconsiderately or in an anti-social manner.

“And the implication we got from the council is that they won’t go out of their way to deal with cyclists, but if someone rides at somebody or rides over plants, causing damage, they’d view that as anti-social behaviour, which we’d agree with.”

Criminalising cyclists in car city?

With confusion surrounding the reasons behind Gillmeister’s apparent breach of Colchester’s PSPO, the whole matter was wrapped up remarkably quickly after the university lecturer appealed, with the council agreeing to waive the £100 fine.

“It was then all over within a few days, and after my letter the council took the fine back,” she says.

“I also got in touch with WISE, as the warden had a body cam, and I asked them for the footage – because if I was cycling in an anti-social way, it would be visible, right? But they never got back to me.”

> Council “escalates war on cycling menaces” with new town centre ban, saying: “We will not stop until we eradicate this behaviour”

However, despite its rapid settlement, both Helge and the Colchester Cycling Campaign have argued that the case highlights broader and deeper concerns about how the local authority approaches cyclists and cycling in general.

“The big issue here is that the roads have been built for cars since 1960, and that’s the case in Colchester,” Bramhill says.

“They’ve blocked off so many desire lines for cyclists with one-way streets in the city centre, though one of these streets – Head Street – is finally getting a two-way cycle lane, which is what we’ve been pushing for ages.

“What you don’t want to do is punish cyclists who are just trying to go about their business, but they can’t because you’ve got a car-oriented city centre.”

Recently introduced bike markings on Colchester’s Head Street

The campaign has also claimed that the wardens’ actions have undermined public trust, and questioned whether the officials were aware of ‘Boateng defence’, enabling them to waive a penalty notice if a cyclist is riding on the pavement or footway considerately and to avoid using a busy, potentially dangerous road – like the Southway Helge was avoiding.

“You only have to stand next to Southway for a few minutes to see drivers using their cars in an aggressive and/or inappropriate manner. Why aren’t the officers taking issue with these motorists? Why pick on a lone female cyclist?” asked Bramhill.

The campaigner also added that the group is currently pursuing a policy of “non-cooperation” with the wardens, urging local cyclists to avoid giving their name and address if stopped, “until we get some sort of recognition from the powers that be that the city is a car city, that’s been designed for cars, and until we change that, we’re not going to enforce the PSPO unless it is actually for anti-social behaviour.”

> Proposed city centre e-bike ban will “discourage cycling and penalise responsible cyclists,” says cycling and walking commissioner

According to the campaign, the council has told them that motorists – including, Bramhill and Gillmeister both claim, those frequently driving erratically on Southway – are covered by separate district-wide vehicular public space protection order that prohibits anti-social behaviour using a motor vehicle.

“We wonder how many drivers have been stopped,” the campaign asks.

Bramhill continues: “Until we get in place a comprehensive, high-quality network, criminalising cyclists unnecessarily will not help to achieve more cycling, better public health, or boost the fight against climate change.”

“Surely there are more interesting or important things they could be doing,” Helge agrees. “It just seems to me that they needed to somehow show the council that they were busy or something. I was half laughing the whole time because it was such a ridiculous event.

“It doesn’t make a lot of sense to target this sort of ‘crime’ – especially when it’s so difficult to find nice, safe, or even any sort of cycle routes in Colchester.

“It’s not a particularly cycle-friendly place in the first place, and these things occur on top just makes it even harder for people to even consider picking up the bicycle, instead of their cars.

“There are so many things the town could be doing – like clamping down on dangerous driving, I see so many cars skipping red lights, doing all sorts of things. But it’s always the cyclists who get all the flak.”

> "We get a lot of kids wheelie-ing through": Police claim danger of "anti-social behaviour" should be tackled with town centre cycling ban

Responding to road.cc’s request for comment, a spokesperson for Colchester City Council said: “We appreciate the Colchester Cycling Campaign bringing this matter to our attention.

“On this specific occasion, following a review of the circumstances surrounding the FPN, it was determined that a penalty notice was not appropriate.

“We will be reviewing our internal procedures to minimise the chance of similar errors occurring in the future.

“PSPOs are important tools to ensure the safety and enjoyment of public spaces for all users. We are committed to working collaboratively with Colchester Cycling Campaign and other stakeholders to ensure clear signage and consistent enforcement across the city.

“We apologise for any inconvenience caused to the cyclist involved. We are committed to providing safe and accessible cycling routes for everyone in Colchester.”

> Cyclist ordered to pay £500 for riding bicycle through town centre as councillor claims hefty fine is "great result for our enforcement teams"

As noted above, 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 stating that the orders only discourage people from riding bikes into town.

Last month, as alluded to by Colchester’s local authority, we reported that Southend Council, also in Essex, had launched a consultation to impose stricter ‘no cycling’ rules in the town centre that could see cyclists being ordered to pay £100 for riding on the High Street. The consultation is set to be part of a plan to strengthen a PSPO which was first introduced in July 2019 to tackle anti-social behaviour.

Councillor Martin Terry said the council had received “a lot of complaints about cyclists and e-scooter users riding dangerously in the high street” and that “older people are worried about it and there’s been a number of people struck and quite badly injured by dangerous riders”.

Perhaps the most famous PSPO of recent times belongs to North East Lincolnshire Council, with one member of the local authority last month hailing a “great result for our enforcement teams” after a 60-year-old cyclist in Grimsby was fined and ordered to pay £500 after breaching the order by cycling through the town centre.

It was the latest episode in the ongoing “zero-tolerance policy” towards cyclists in Grimsby and follows the council making headlines last summer 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 led to more than 1,000 Fixed Penalty Notices.

In December, the council even said it had “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.

Unsurprisingly, the council and its arguably overzealous enforcement officers have come in for criticism during the five years the PSPO has been in place, with 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.