Best way to identify a cyclist

ThorOdinson

MusicLover1357 said:

Contacting the police is the first thing I'd do too. But there's a real chance you won't see a dime of compensation. 
 I want to know what happened in the end!

I will update if the police do anything.

Herzlos said:

Cyclists should have some basic training - do they still do that in school? - but they don't cause anything like the damage that cars do and aren't as difficult to operate.

That said I don't think there's any mechanism to ban someone from cycling but I also don't think there's ever actually been any need.

The solution to your "cyclist problem" is probably just better cycling infrastructure - giving them clean and safe paths away from cars. It'll be safer and more efficient for them, and means you won't have to see them.

I don't know if they do cycle training in school, but if they do it doesn't seem to be very effective.

I don't think bans are needed. Fines and some way to make claims for damage would be useful. Better infrastructure would be welcome but unfortunately the way a lot of UK towns are there just isn't room to do a decent job of it. The roads and pavements are already narrow, and narrow/short cycle lanes don't get used because they are dangerous anyway.

Riding down the middle of the lane is actually a reasonable way to do it, as long as a decent pace is maintained and the cyclist pays attention. Integrate properly into traffic instead of weaving in and out, undertaking, and the like. That would also prevent a lot of common accidents where cyclists are in blind spots. Riding on the pavement up to say 10 KPH is fine too, it's the ones who zoom along that are the problem.

A small ID plate would help too. The number only needs to be 3-4 digits, enough to identify the cyclist from an image.

Herzlos

I actually saw a cyclist on his phone today. To be fair he was maybe about 12, going at walking speed and on an empty pavement with a barrier between it and the road. 

For perspective; on the same journey however I spotted 2 drivers using phones whilst driving, and 6 cars jumping red lights.

saajan_12

outtatune said:

Forcing burdens onto cyclists like mandatory insurance and so on will simply make driving comparatively more attractive, so any reduction in the already tiny danger posed by cyclists would be more than offset by the increased actual danger posed by drivers.

I'd have thought that was obvious, but apparently not.

If the damage caused by cyclists is that low both in frequency and impact, then the liability insurance premium would be low. Adding a small cost to cycling is nowhere near the £x000s on car insurance, road tax, depreciation, congestion charging in cities, parking, etc, so would make no meaningful difference in would be cycle journeys turning into drivers. I'd have thought that was obvious, but apparently not. 

ThorOdinson

Herzlos said:

I actually saw a cyclist on his phone today. To be fair he was maybe about 12, going at walking speed and on an empty pavement with a barrier between it and the road. 

For perspective; on the same journey however I spotted 2 drivers using phones whilst driving, and 6 cars jumping red lights.

Either you live in the worst town in the country or you made that up.

ThorOdinson

Looks like the government is starting to act: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/apr/24/death-by-dangerous-cycling-crime-policing-bill

"Cyclists who kill pedestrians could be jailed for life under new law in England and Wales"

Herzlos

ThorOdinson said:

Herzlos said:

I actually saw a cyclist on his phone today. To be fair he was maybe about 12, going at walking speed and on an empty pavement with a barrier between it and the road. 

For perspective; on the same journey however I spotted 2 drivers using phones whilst driving, and 6 cars jumping red lights.

Either you live in the worst town in the country or you made that up.

It's definitely not the nicest of towns, and why would I bother making it up?

I'm surprised you live somewhere with such good motorists and bad cyclists. I can only assume it's somewhere that's essentially gridlocked.

Veteransaver

Herzlos said:

I actually saw a cyclist on his phone today. To be fair he was maybe about 12, going at walking speed and on an empty pavement with a barrier between it and the road. 

For perspective; on the same journey however I spotted 2 drivers using phones whilst driving, and 6 cars jumping red lights.

It's heartening to see this anti cyclist thread is now well into its 2nd month all because someone suffered a bit of minor cosmetic damage to their car.
Today I was cycling back from the local shop, a man was attempting to cross at the zebra crossing. I stopped for him to cross, the 2 cars behind me just sailed on through (overtaking me on the zigzags too). Unbelievable and could have ended in utter carnage for both me and the pedestrian.

The same crossing a few years ago I was trying to cross with my kids, the car approaching slowed to stop, I was just about to cross when I noticed a van following that proceeded to ram into the back of the stopped car, shunting him right across the crossing where (had I not been ultra aware) we would have been mown down.

Yes, cyclists are definitely the major problem on our roads. /s

MacPingu1986

saajan_12 said:

outtatune said:

Forcing burdens onto cyclists like mandatory insurance and so on will simply make driving comparatively more attractive, so any reduction in the already tiny danger posed by cyclists would be more than offset by the increased actual danger posed by drivers.

I'd have thought that was obvious, but apparently not.

If the damage caused by cyclists is that low both in frequency and impact, then the liability insurance premium would be low. Adding a small cost to cycling is nowhere near the £x000s on car insurance, road tax, depreciation, congestion charging in cities, parking, etc, so would make no meaningful difference in would be cycle journeys turning into drivers. I'd have thought that was obvious, but apparently not. 

Basic third party cycling insurance *is* low, it's so incredibly low to the point that it's often free as a bundled product with other kinds of insurance. Why is that a barrier to cycling if it was mandatory? Because of the administrative faff it creates that acts as a drag on people taking up cycling.

We don't require mandatory third party cycling insurance for exactly the same reasons you don't require walking insurance to use the the pavement - because the risk of harm is so incredibly low. Motor vehicles have mandatory insurance requirements because of the especially high risks they pose to public safety.

MacPingu1986

ThorOdinson said:

Looks like the government is starting to act: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/apr/24/death-by-dangerous-cycling-crime-policing-bill

"Cyclists who kill pedestrians could be jailed for life under new law in England and Wales"

The proposed legal change doesn't really change anything because cyclists who kill pedestrians can already be prosecuted with a very similar general offense (manslaughter) which carries a maximum sentence of life. The proposed offense is essentially just a cycling specific version of manslaughter.  Creating a new law, that mirrors an existing law, that's unlikely to be used more than once every 5 years in any event is not the great legislative change you're suggesting.

On cycling number plates... various countries used to have these, they all got rid of them because the costs far outweighed any limited benefit and they were basically useless. Exactly the same reasons we don't tackle street crime by requiring pedestrians to wear number plate vests.

Herzlos

MacPingu1986 said:

saajan_12 said:

outtatune said:

Forcing burdens onto cyclists like mandatory insurance and so on will simply make driving comparatively more attractive, so any reduction in the already tiny danger posed by cyclists would be more than offset by the increased actual danger posed by drivers.

I'd have thought that was obvious, but apparently not.

If the damage caused by cyclists is that low both in frequency and impact, then the liability insurance premium would be low. Adding a small cost to cycling is nowhere near the £x000s on car insurance, road tax, depreciation, congestion charging in cities, parking, etc, so would make no meaningful difference in would be cycle journeys turning into drivers. I'd have thought that was obvious, but apparently not. 

Basic third party cycling insurance *is* low, it's so incredibly low to the point that it's often free as a bundled product with other kinds of insurance. Why is that a barrier to cycling if it was mandatory? Because of the administrative faff it creates that acts as a drag on people taking up cycling.

I assume the overhead would be in the mechanism to detatch it from other other thing, and have it registered and identified in such a way it'd be useful.

You'd at least need a national database like MID, that can be checked, and some kind of proof of insurance. Because if you can't check it there's no point mandating it.

In reality it'd probably be much cheaper for everyone involved to just bicycle claims paid out from MIB uninsured drivers fund. It might add a few pence every year to everyons car insurance given the presumably negligable amount paid out.

For reference, the average cost of a claim against a car is £5k. I can't find a figure for a claim against a bicycle because it's so rare.