I know of a John Allen who is the Vatican correspondent for CNN and National Public Radio and another who has recently taken over from General Petraeus in Afghanistan, but I’m the only John Allen I know of who actively discusses issues of bicycling policy. So I’m quite sure I’m the one you think I am.
But this really burns me:
“The name John Allen is synonymous with a person who advocates against all bicycling facilities.”
Where did you get that idea, please? Did you check out other things I have written, or is your statement hearsay, and if so, from whom, please?
Please check out these URLs. There are others I could point to:
www.masspaths.org/bikeways/facguide/
I was the primary author of that report, which cataloged and described existing and potential bicycle facilities throughout Massachusetts and which was important in preparing the Massachusetts Bicycle Plan..
www.masspaths.net/bikeways/metrowest/
I was the sole author of that report, which strongly advocates for rail trails, shortcut paths and paths on aqueduct corridors..
john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=2086
I defend neighborhood traffic circles.
john-s-allen.com/galleries/NYC/9thAve/
I am analytical, not disparaging, of the 9th Avenue bikeway.
Now, you ask me to have an honest debate. Gee, but isn’t that what I was doing! Just what is dishonest, or for that matter, dogmatic, about anything I have said, please? How do you define “VC dogma”? Please? What do you think I actually believe?
In fact, as the documents I cited, and many others show, I defend and support bicycle facilities which improve bicycling conditions, as I see them. On the other hand, I do not indiscriminately support all bicycle facilities, or claims which are made for them which are in conflict with the laws of physics —
— for example, that a barrier that slows the right side of a car will steer it to the left. Elementary physics says that the car will steer to the right.
— or which make unsupportable assumptions about traffic flow and capacity, such as that a bikeway wide enough for one line of bicycle traffic is going to work smoothly for bicyclists who travel at preferred speeds ranging from 8 to 25 miles per hour.
— or which contradict the results of decades of safety research, both in the USA and in Europe.
I have indeed ridden a bicycle in NYC, and you may be surprised to know that I think that the 9th Avenue bikeway works pretty well though I don’t think nearly so much of the one on Grand Street, and even less of the one on Broadway, which was totally overrun by pedestrians when I rode it. The Brooklyn Bridge promenade, while far from perfect, is about as good as could be achieved given the limitations of the 125 year old bridge design; the Manhattan Bridge, much better once the City corrected the bumps at expansion joints, and the Williamsburg Bridge, better yet.
You make the point that safety improves with the numbers of bicyclists. I think that is generally true, though it is due to many factors, not only increased motorist awareness but also, importantly, greater cyclist experience. I don’t think that it excuses inferior design and construction. I have written about safety in numbers too:
john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=1621
I agree with you about the poor conduct of New York motorists. I have a Grand Street video in which I point out issues with the bikeway, and also with riding on the part of Grand Street which does not have a bikeway. I don’t think that this particular bikeway is very satisfactory, with the average travel speed around 5.5 mph, and repeated blockages by cross traffic, pedestrians and a construction project. Neither do I think that the part of Grand Street without a bikeway is very satisfactory, with some disturbing examples of motorist intimidation. Is this “VC dogma”?
vimeo.com/26520930
At the end of the video, I ask what might work to make cycling in New York better. Clearly, more is needed than either the bikeway scheme or the shared-lane scheme shown in that video achieves.
I must ask: are you willing to engage in a discussion of how such improvements might be achieved, or do you want to dismiss me as a dogmatist, while making blanket statements in support of facilities which are of such widely varying quality that some of them don’t serve bicyclists well at all?
If it’s the former, I’m more than willing to continue the discussion.
