The metropolitan elitists of the Westminter anti driver bubble.

Dr Rachel Aldred

Followers of this Blog will already know of the compelling evidence of the links that Drivers' Union has made with ideological anti driver groups and Westminster Officials. See the DfT and the honours system and  DfT Minister & charity experts  We are calling it the Westminster Anti Driver Elite. (W.A.D.E)

Now we have come across Dr Rachel Aldred who is Senior Lecturer in Transport at Westminster University. A regular writer in the Guardian. She is an MSc In Transport Planning & Management. And is very much within W.A.D.E.

Rachel Aldred

But surely an eminent lecturer at Westminster should be totally objective in her subject. But take a look at her web site here She is totally committed to cycling and non driving. How on earth can someone so in a thrall of one type of transport lecture people and be objective about it? Well she clearly isn't. She has just recently had published in Local Transport Today This item here  

I wrote a response which was subsequently published which queried Dr Aldred's CV in road accidents, prosecution, speed limiting and driving- what university degree teaches top driving expertise?- and I pointed out the dangerous concept of road cycling and that society must have only drivers and walkers on the road to sustain itself.

I have long been concerned about the very large number of people running and commenting on the life and death issue of road safety, accidents, driving and the prosecution of many thousands of our citizens with no background in the subject whatsoever. If it were bungee jumping or free fall parachuting, we would defer to experts wouldn't we? Yet the charities thriving from road safety, many with a green anti driver ideology or a vested interest, are far too many. I can cite spokesmen; one of them pretended to speak for drivers on a Select Committee, who has vested interests in driver prosecution. Rod King of 20s Plenty is just one example of these with no CV and an agenda other than road safety. He falsely tells the readers of LTT  'Finally we have Keith Peat of the Driver’s Union, saying that cyclists should be banned from the roads'  Why is it these ideologists are so dishonest? King is an advocate of road safety policy by parochial Nimbyism and polls of people just like him with no CV but personal aspiration. 

 I was accused of making a slur on the character of Dr Aldred, by yet another academic, who is also being too precious about the fact that his degrees, like hers, actually count for nothing in this life and death issue.  It therefor wasn't at all unwarranted, to point out that Rachel Aldred is just an academic, who has no actual CV in the subject. It is a worry that, from the cycling lobby she doesn't seem to be objective as a transport expert. But she is obviously not the best person to be advising Westminster on any road safety issue is she! I will take this matter up with her employers.

Here is some of Rachel's CV 'One of my research projects (Near Miss Project) was awarded Cycling Initiative of the Year 2015 by Total Women’s Cycling. I’m also, according to BikeBiz, one of the 100 Women of the Year 2015. Since November 2012 I’ve twice been elected as a Trustee of the London Cycling Campaign and I’m Chair of its Policy Forum.'  

Note: Near Miss Project is another blame the driver crusade which would mean cyclists getting even more drivers in trouble and again is being promoted by The Guardian See it here.  

Now having had a right of reply to her article published in LTT, the cyclist lobby is outraged, in the person of CTC, and  accusing me of fostering 'Tribalism' and having a 'simplistic' view of road safety. Well it is a very simple subject and it is only the false statements and stats of the anti driver lobby and the profiteers, that deliberately make it complex and confusing.   CTC is just one of many anti driver charities that want drivers jailed for long periods after an accident, and is a classic example of the cycle lobby who just want a one way debate about road cycling.

It's the cycle lobby who actually thrives from 'tribalism' since it's an equalising device which, until I point out that The Emperor is naked, the debate raises cyclists, unopposed, to the false level of essential infrastructure and they're not that at all..

I see it as a duty to road safety and major infrastructure to wrest the attention and priority of ministers from the anti driver lobbyists of no CV. At the moment, they are only responding to the anti driver amateurs or vested interests and by any standards that really cannot be healthy for essential infrastructure, drivers and road safety.

I wonder if the good Doctor will agree? 

I wont give up the day job.

Now see this massive,Costly Westminster report , led totally, by the pro cycling faction in Parliament paid for by charity money. 

Now see another London doctor's RAC Foundation report, clearly addressing the notion of: 'too much car ownership.' 

24/3/15 Westminster University
Dear Sir/Madam

I am an ex police road safety volunteer and I am very concerned that road safety is now totally based on the views and aspirations of those with no CV in the matter of accident investigation, top road driving, driver prosecution and speed limiting. I am sure you will agree that, when left open to all and sundry, it would allow profiteering and ideologists an open door. 

We have a massive web site that shows that road safety is now entirely based on either vested interests or anti driver ideology. 

I have just posted the following blog page on Dr Rachel Aldred and her activities and I think you will find that she cannot possibly be objective in transport modes or road safety. This is a life and death issue with the added dimension of driver prosecution and jail, as well as major infrastructure. 

I cannot see any alternative than that she is removed from her post.

I note that you are a charity who depends on the community who in turn depends on its drivers.

Wishes

 

​​29/5/15 Dear Mr Peat

​Thank you for your recent email.

​The University of Westminster is committed to freedom of academic e_xpression, across many disciplines, encompassing various and diverse academic views.

We encourage the sharing of the development and outcomes of the research and work undertaken by our research students and staff, to better inform and stimulate public awareness and debate. Please see our public website for more information and news:

​http://www.westminster.ac.uk/research

http://www.westminster.ac.uk/news-and-events

We are also strong advocates of freedom of speech

​http://www.westminster.ac.uk/about-us/our-university/information-compliance/freedom-of-speech

​

In this instance, whilst we appreciate you do not share Dr Aldred’s academic views, we can see no reason for the University to take any further action.

 Kind Regards

Kate Hayes

Director
Recruitment, Admissions and Marketing

Hi, Kate,

Pretty much as I anticipated. So using her role and position to support, promote a biased and partial personal preference on matters for which her CV isn't appropriate is 'freedom of speech' is it?

So I take it she will continue in the same vein. 

I will add your response to our public comments on the subject.

Wishes