The coach firm involved in the death of a London cyclist following a collision on CS2 in Whitechapel on Monday has been the subject of a number of complaints in recent years. Clarkes Coaches’ managing director has previously suggested that cyclists “must be accountable for their actions and take some form of responsibility” regarding collisions, but campaigners have asked whether there is a pattern of poor driver behaviour at the firm.
Karla Roman was knocked down by a coach at 9am on Monday. She was taken to nearby Royal London hospital but passed away yesterday. The incident took place less than eight hours after another cyclist, Anita Szucs, was killed in a suspected hit and run near her home in Enfield.
Linking to a Storify page gathering together complaints about Clarkes Coaches’ drivers, cycling campaigner Bez tweeted: “Will be interesting to see if this stuff is the tip of an iceberg that could justify corporate manslaughter charges.”
The complaints – many of which are documented in videos such as the one at the top of the page – range from mobile phone use to red light jumping and close passes.
Twitter user cyclistsinthecity also linked to a May 2016 Route One article in which Clarkes of London’s Managing Director Debbie Newman outlined the firm’s attitude to London’s cycle superhighways and cyclists in general.
“We are sympathetic to the cyclists’ plight, but it seems that at the moment the cyclists have won the battle and it is to the detriment of all other road users.
“Cyclists are often responsible for accidents, for instance when they jump red lights. We have CCTV on all of our vehicles – it’s a necessity. We have footage of cyclists hanging on to our vehicles and letting the coach pull them along.
“But when an accident occurs, they have no insurance, just as they have no MoT or vehicle tax. They are not even obliged to register their contact details, or to wear helmets or hi-vis.
“In these days of health and safety, surely they must be accountable for their actions and take some form of responsibility.
“Bus and coach operators, taxis and the general car-driving public are paying the price for the Cycle Superhighway, and once it is implemented there is nothing to compel cyclists to use it. Where’s the sense in that?”
41 thoughts on “Coach firm involved in London cyclist’s death has been subject of slew of complaints on social media from cyclists, pedestrians and motorists”
As always, well done Bez.
As always, well done Bez. Such blatent red light jumping, so long as you use the horn, yes.
Interesting when compared to the comments of Debbie Newman.
“Bus and coach operators,
“Bus and coach operators, taxis and the general car-driving public are paying the price for the Cycle Superhighway”. Off you fuck.
Cyclists pay taxes too, I’d wager a more significant proportion than fatties who earn a living by driving badly all day.
Debbie Newman is quite a
Debbie Newman is quite a piece of work!
They have “CCTV in all our
They have “CCTV in all our vehicles” – so the Police should collect this as a matter of course in this case. Assuming of course they bother to check…
Just need to search for
Just need to search for Clarkes on youtube to find a wealth of clips of poor driving. From what I understand if anyone complains via Twitter, they block the complainant . . . Hmm, Twitter user staming on the downtrodden masses (or run down cyclists) . . Who does that remind you of ?
Of course they will say “Al allegations of bad driving are ‘fake news’ and not at all true”
“At the moment the cyclists
“At the moment the cyclists have won the battle”. I’m not engaged in a battle. I’m just going to work.
leaway2 wrote:
I’m not engaged in a battle. I’m just going to work.
Is there any way of adding ten stars at once to this comment?
brooksby wrote:
I’m not engaged in a battle. I’m just going to work.— leaway2
Is there any way of adding ten stars at once to this comment?
+1
And yes, I’m one of many who have been close passed by one of these on my commute. Timetables are more important than the highway code, #fact
Everyday at monument both
Everyday at monument both Clarkes Coaches and The Kings Ferry drivers either blast through the red lights or stop just after them blocking the Pedestrian crossing. They bully their way into the lane they want, often using speed to scare cyclists and even cars out of their way.
Just a bunch of scumbags.
This playlist would verify
This playlist would verify that Clarkes Coaches are driven quite badly, 9 recent incidents!
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRD6DpnTD6cGzHYZqntNibgileRpSdLDB
I always enjoy the MOT
I always enjoy the MOT/licence/tax comments when related to accidents. Especially from motorists who all pay these and still cause accidents & fatalities.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
They should all have identifying plates on them so you know who has broken the law and can prosecute them.
Oh, you mean they do. Coaches I mean. A white one on the front and a yellow one on the rear…
I worked away from home
I worked away from home during my apprenticeship and every 6 weeks we had the same dangerous coach driver, we complained, provided video evidence and asked our company to stop using them. That driver is still driving dangerously and has caused many near misses, but has never been stopped from driving.
I imagine driving a coach or lorry is hard and frustrating, but it doesn’t excuse the horrendous driving I see.
WillRod wrote:
This is a case in point – they’re responsible for up to 60 or more lives inside the coach as well as countless lives on the outside, so what gives with these idiots?
About time someone took these
About time someone took these contemptible corporate types to the cleaners.
The old saying: “the fish rots from the head” is entirely accurate for them
There is no battle. There is
There is no battle. There is no war between motorists and cyclists. It’s slaughter.
But why are so many female
But why are so many female cyclists being killed in London? This should be properly addressed once and for all because it is surely disproportionate to the total number of cycling fatalaties for both genders in the capital. If, as I believe, this points to a lack of road sense or awareness on the part of some female cyclists in knowing how to ‘survive’ cycling in big cities then some realistic ‘on the road’ training should be offered, using a greater slice of the cycling budget than is available presently, and with priority given to females.
Grumpy17 wrote:
I think (I may be wrong) that the problem is more to do with slower moving cyclists (including those who move away from the lights slower) and the incredible levels of impatience shown by drivers towards them – some cyclists/drivers may benefit from training…but thats not gonna work in the real world tbh…the current driving test etc doesnt work for instance. More segregated lanes (decent ones) are the only real solution if we’re talking about main roads especially.
If you’re not happy with your 8 year old kid or 80 year old grandma using it then it’s not fit for purpose as they say.
Grumpy17 wrote:
Nope it’s rubbish infrastructure that practically ensures minor mistakes (such as a coming together in the cycle ‘lane’ means some one dies or suffers life changing injuries because they fell into the lane filled with fast moving squishing machinery…
the Dutch have got the solution… separation of vulnerable road users in both time AND space from heavy squishing machines… minor mistakes are thus NOT fatal or life changing
google ‘sustainable safety’ it does not require high-viz, helmets or fast riding…
‘Duurzaam veilig’…
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/sustainable-safety/
@Grumpy17
@Grumpy17
what is the percentage of male cyclists that are killed per mile ridden compared to women? I haven’t seen any figure, so no idea if women are actually mnore vulnerable on the roads.
unconstituted wrote:
If we are talking about London(which we are) there is evidence that they ARE more vulnerable than men.
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/why-women-seem-to-be-more-vulnerable-around-traffic-blackspots-in-london-10341420.html
I have complained about
I have complained about Clarkes Coaches to the police before – one of their drivers aimed his coach at me and floored it, running me off the road. Seems like the problem with this firm is systemic.
Is there a lawyer there who
Is there a lawyer there who could comment on whether, assuming that there is evidence that the coach driver was to blame for the death of Karla Roman, that the other anecdotes and patterns of behavior of this company could be used to bring a case of corporate homicide or corporate negligence?
clayfit wrote:
the quotation from debbie newman does seem to imply that these deaths are simply nature’s way of redressing the balance and that the individuals killed simply got in the way of the otherwise smooth running of the industry
The comments from Managing
The comments from Managing Director Debbie Newman could have come straight from the pages of the Daily Mail, and if that is the attitude of their most senior manager, it is hardly surprising that the employees feel justified in ignoring the rights of cyclists.
It might be good to note that
It might be good to note that Clarke’s is now owned by National Express. So they aren’t some small family owned firm, they are part of a huge company with shareholders (of which I am one). This does also mean that Debbie Newman is no longer a director though.
As a shareholder, I don’t like the thought that I’m profiting from dangerous drivers who are endangering lives and think that the company should come down hard on bad driving
Jogle wrote:
If you are a shareholder you can turn up at the AGM and ask questions about their (lack of) safety procedures. It’s hard work but it has been tried before, with Cynthia Barlow of RoadPeace buying Cemex shares and questioning themt his way. Cemex have since become more safety conscious – I don’t know if that would happen with these people.
But it is a tactic which you could employ. Hard work and time consuming though.
Maybe it is because guys who
Maybe it is because guys who cycle are more into cycling, by which I mean female cyclists may be more likely to see a bike only as transport, whereas a bloke is more likely to wrap some of his ego into the whole cycling thing, more likely to compete or partake in cycling activities events outside of just commuting. More likely to hang around forums like this and as a result I would propose that on average a higher proportion of male cyclists understand that finding yourself on the inside of a large HGV near a junction is an incredibly dangerous place to be.
If women are
If women are disproportionately affected by road deaths it is far more likely to be caused by misogyny than any other factor. Trying to find any intrinsic fault with women smacks of victim blaming.
Bill H wrote:
Is that sarcasm? False-flag provocation? I can’t tell.
It misses the point, either way.
There might be some minor academic interest in speculating why women at least _appear_ to get whacked by drivers more often than men do, but I don’t see that it’s relevant to the main issue – which is why drivers keep killing people (note a – male – pedestrian was killed the same day).
Heck, you could just as well ask why its men who seem to kill cyclists more often (almost all those left-hooking HGV and tipper-truck drivers seem to be male), if you want to ask divisive questions that divert attention from the real issue.
One crucial point is that both male and female cyclists are a self-selected, entirely unrepresentative, sample of their respective populations. Both groups are not typical of the wider population, and its possible they might be unrepresentative in different ways in each case.
Males who cycle might be, even by general male standards, disproportionately confident risk-takers, and, say, more likely to jump red-lights and ride on pavements, both of which seem to improve surivival chances, even if not to be approved of for other reasons. The same might not be true of women who cycle, who might differ fom non-cycling women in different ways.
The important point is that as long as drivers of either sex continue to kill people in significant numbers, you are never going to get more than that small self-selected group to ride a bike on the roads.
So its not ‘why do female poeple get killed’ its ‘why do people in motorised vehicles kill’.
(People can waste time on the first question if they like, but it just suggests to me they have the wrong priorities).
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
If women are disproportionately affected by road deaths it is far more likely to be caused by misogyny than any other factor. Trying to find any intrinsic fault with women smacks of victim blaming.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Is that sarcasm? False-flag provocation? I can’t tell.— Bill H
No, me neither, it has to be the most obtuse, self-defeating, and unintentionally hilarious set of propositions I’ve ever seen. I will definitely be borrowing that!
[/quote] So its not ‘why do female poeple get killed’ its ‘why do people in motorised vehicles kill’. (People can waste time on the first question if they like, but it just suggests to me they have the wrong priorities).[/quote]
The priority should be about saving lives -hardly a waste of time,surely?. If the urban tactics of some male riders-by your own suggestion- is instrumental in improving their survival chances , then this is a model that should be encouraged and followed by all ,women included.
If they fall victim because of their ignorance about the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles then other potential victims with the same mindset need better training. Blaming the killers alone won’t prevent them claiming more victims.The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride or should we just keep collecting depressing obituaries to female cyclists while dishing out 100% of the blame to the drivers? A modicum of common sense provides the answer.
Grumpy17 wrote:
I didn’t say ‘the urban tactics’ I said the psychology and mentality. Which, assuming it’s real, isn’t something that could be, or should be, taught. It’s just coincidental.
I don’t think it would be a sensible solution to try and teach more people to have more of a ‘fuck you’ attitude to drivers, which, it seems to me, is what you need to ride on roads as they are – e.g. taking the lane when you know some drivers will be enraged by it, or breaking the rules by nipping onto pavements or jumping the lights at tricky junctions. I think the emphasis should be on changing the roads so as not to demand that attitude, because many people will never have it (and it would be better all-round if they didn’t).
And, in fact, if those factors slightly increase survival-chances in conditions as they are that’s a condemnation of conditions as they are and another reason why they need to be changed.
Also you went and mentioned the dread ‘common sense’! Pet hate of mine, that term!
The difference between the numbers of male and female riders killled is small, so the effect of any alleged different behviour (even assuming it could or should be ‘taught’) is small compared to the huge effect of crap road design (and lack of enforcement of good driving).
And that’s not getting started on the point that the main health effect from current conditions is not RTAs but increased morbidity due to the inactivity and pollution that is caused by most people not cycling at all (and not walking that much either).
Looking at the death rate among existing cyclists is thus only a small part of the story. So you are focussing on a very small issue within a small issue, and one that I suspect can’t be changed anyway.
But I accept that its fine to wonder, in an abstract kind of way, about what the gender difference might mean…it’s just I don’t think it will lead to anything useful.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
The priority should be about saving lives -hardly a waste of time,surely?. If the urban tactics of some male riders-by your own suggestion- is instrumental in improving their survival chances , then this is a model that should be encouraged and followed by all ,women included.
If they fall victim because of their ignorance about the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles then other potential victims with the same mindset need better training. Blaming the killers alone won’t prevent them claiming more victims.The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride or should we just keep collecting depressing obituaries to female cyclists while dishing out 100% of the blame to the drivers? A modicum of common sense provides the answer.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos I didn’t say ‘the urban tactics’ I said the psychology and mentality. Which, assuming it’s real, isn’t something that could be, or should be, taught. It’s just coincidental. I don’t think it would be a sensible solution to try and teach more people to have more of a ‘fuck you’ attitude to drivers, which, it seems to me, is what you need to ride on roads as they are – e.g. taking the lane when you know some drivers will be enraged by it, or breaking the rules by nipping onto pavements or jumping the lights at tricky junctions. I think the emphasis should be on changing the roads so as not to demand that attitude, because many people will never have it (and it would be better all-round if they didn’t). And, in fact, if those factors slightly increase survival-chances in conditions as they are that’s a condemnation of conditions as they are and another reason why they need to be changed. Also you went and mentioned the dread ‘common sense’! Pet hate of mine, that term! The difference between the numbers of male and female riders killled is small, so the effect of any alleged different behviour (even assuming it could or should be ‘taught’) is small compared to the huge effect of crap road design (and lack of enforcement of good driving). And that’s not getting started on the point that the main health effect from current conditions is not RTAs but increased morbidity due to the inactivity and pollution that is caused by most people not cycling at all (and not walking that much either). Looking at the death rate among existing cyclists is thus only a small part of the story. So you are focussing on a very small issue within a small issue, and one that I suspect can’t be changed anyway. But I accept that its fine to wonder, in an abstract kind of way, about what the gender difference might mean…it’s just I don’t think it will lead to anything useful.— Grumpy17
Very noble aspirations I’m sure in wanting to ‘change the roads’ -what a lovely idealised vision of the world! Think it will ever be achieved?
In the meantime, before that cycling utopia of yours becomes a reality, survival tactics are the order of the day,even if that means ‘breaking the rules’ as you put it.
But ,hey, each to their own. In a world of danger you ,the individual ,must feel free to die by your principles of saintly adherence to the Highway code.
Grumpy17 wrote:
So its not ‘why do female poeple get killed’ its ‘why do people in motorised vehicles kill’. (People can waste time on the first question if they like, but it just suggests to me they have the wrong priorities).[/quote]
The priority should be about saving lives -hardly a waste of time,surely?. If the urban tactics of some male riders-by your own suggestion- is instrumental in improving their survival chances , then this is a model that should be encouraged and followed by all ,women included.
If they fall victim because of their ignorance about the dangers of passing up the inside of large vehicles then other potential victims with the same mindset need better training. Blaming the killers alone won’t prevent them claiming more victims.The whole point is that something about the way some of these female cyclists are riding is getting them killed more often than men. So the question is should we try to do something about changing the way they ride or should we just keep collecting depressing obituaries to female cyclists while dishing out 100% of the blame to the drivers? A modicum of common sense provides the answer.
[/quote]
Generalise as much as you like, but doesn’t multiple repeat offending point the finger at the operator and their drivers in this particular case? To re-iterate the atricle:
https://storify.com/NotInventedHere/clarks-coaches-complaints
Grumpy17 wrote:
As a female cyclist (18 years of daily commuting, 3 years in Central London) – yes, the two major differences I see on my commutes is that women (i) almost never filter on the outside and (ii) usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them. (i) can probably be taught, as for (ii) – the paradox is that optimizing your cycling style for safety (in London) often means bending the Highway Code :). Tactically it works, but the strategic solution would be adequate infrastructure.
JustCyclist wrote:
I agree with this, and it’s not only women doing this…
one point though is that when you say, “usually obey rules even when it actually endangers them” – this is only a partial interpretation of the rules – iirc there is some “rule” in the highway code that overrides the “rules” – for example, if the traffic is moving at 35mph in a 30 zone, and you insist on doing 29mph, then you are the anal retentive – I can’t remember the exact phrasing and cba to look it up
beezus fufoon wrote:
Or maybe you’re the hero who saves someone’s life. On my road near the traffic lights there’s a lamp post with a dozen bunches of flowers + cards etc attached to it due to someone being killed, it’s a 30mph road but of course the cars are regularly speeding on it. Speed limits are there for good reason.
kie7077 wrote:
the point is – if you think there’s an rule in the highway code that will put you into danger – you’ve misunderstood – even the most clear and well defined rules such as as speed limits are not absolute by the rules of the code itself, so there is no way that you could endanger yourself by following those rules.
Just to be clear, this is
Just to be clear, this is nothing to do with who is at fault for a cyclist ending up on the inside of a HGV. Just an observation that however that configuration of road users comes about it is a very dangerous place (given current vehicle design and patterns of drivers failing to observe cycles in that zone) to find yourself but that male riders might be more aware of the danger of that situation.
I travelled to Amsterdam by
I travelled to Amsterdam by coach a couple of years back – it was noticeable that the London end had the coach coming all the way into the city, whereas on the Amsterdam side the terminus was a sensible distance out of town at the end of one of the main road arteries.
It would seem that there is some demand on drivers to be on time, and also the drivers urge to finish up, but there is also the factor that one is cruising at 60 for most of the journey and then has to negotiate a considerable distance in more densely populated areas with lower speed limits and many junctions.