If you find out anything about the decision-making process, please let us know. As far as I know, the Council is still refusing to share this.
1 Like
The no entry sign I meant on the actual barrier. Though on second thoughts it should probably be the no motor vehicle sign
1 Like
No motor vehicle, or no cars? The difference being are motorcycles allowed?
Reading some of the commonplace comments, I did note that one suggested that these modal filters provide the perfect escape routes for the moped mafia if being pursued by a police car. So maybe a no-bandits sign too? 
Also of note is that the street plans don’t contain measurements or comment on the width of the pavements each side of the ‘filters’. Perhaps that wasn’t in the draftsman’s brief, but given events I think that was a foreseeable an oversight.
1 Like
Yes, if the decisions were somehow explained, and even supported by some data and cost / benefit analysis vs different schemes or options, I think it would be easier to be supportive of the difficult choices.
However, Councillor Gibbons recently tweeted:
Really proud of my colleagues @JamesARathbone and @OctaviaLewisham sticking to their guns in the face of fierce resistance from a noisy minority.#HealthyStreets
While Councillor Rathbone follows up with:
Listening to people and doing what they want aren’t the same thing Lizzie.
I don’t think we will get much explanation any time soon…
1 Like
Motorcycles shouldn’t be allowed if the idea is to create safe ways for pedestrian and cycles
1 Like
James RATHBONE Leyland Road - yup inside the area
Leo GIBBONS Lowther Hill - can’t see anything happening outside his house
A little suspicious that 2 of the people voting for this personally benefit
1 Like
I’ve seen this mentioned a few times - it would appear that it is possible to research this from publicly available council data.
1 Like
Yes he does
While in the public domain I’m not sure we should encourage the exact address of anyone to be published on an open forum. It would be easy to do this if any forum member. We don’t.
2 Likes
@starman I was in two minds about whether I should or not. I decided it was probably appropriate because 1) I was quoting freely available public record 2)these are public servants - by choice 3)any suggestion of impropriety should be immediately clear (pretty much the reason Trump’s tax returns are argued)
@John_Wilson I agree with Starman - whilst it’s ‘public domain’ please could you remove the links and not target people directly. I’ll edit my earlier comment also
@clausy - you asked for it! And it isn’t public domain - it is public record. Literally listed by requirement on the Lewisham council website - removed the second - but you can’t ask a question and then complain I replied
Yes I know - in retrospect I think it would be better to say the information is available as public record. The fact that a couple of them live on streets in question doesn’t mean they voted. You can’t suggest they’re guilty by association of living on the road. There is no evidence to suggest any impropriety: you’re saying they live on the street therefore they must be guilty.
1 Like
I would argue unless they reclused themselves they are guilt by association - of course we don’t know how much because there has been very little information given as to whether they voted or not. In cases where they are directly associated with an issue they need to deliberately extract themselves.
I’m not saying they are guilty - it just looks suspicious.
BTW Your edit is still there
BBTW This is the wrong chain for this - I shouldn’t have posted the mayor one - so (hopefully) removed that one. This is about Lewisham, TfL and Thames Water awful management of the caves (and I’m pretty much decided they are all guilty there!)
Haven’t been down there in a few days - are they fixed?
1 Like
I think you could name the road without giving the number.
3 Likes
Relevant from the site FAQ:
- Respect each other. Don’t harass or grief anyone, impersonate people, or expose their private information.
In this case anyone is literally that, not just forum members.
Also note that while Councillors’ addresses may be held on public records, the public records are where they belong. Reproducing and posting full addresses here is not necessary, especially if the same points can be made with a more general description of their residence e.g. just a street name or area.
I was in the area today and Silverdale is not closed between Dacres Road and Sydenham Road. There are some obstacles in the road, but plenty of space for a car to pass through. As I understand it, the rectangular notices with red background and white text, which state “Road Closed” are advisory. This means it isn’t a road traffic offence to drive past the notices to see for yourself if the road is in fact blocked, and to continue onwards if there is no impediment.
Up at Islington town hall, it seems residents are making their opinions on similar road closure schemes known:
Meanwhile here it seems the bollards at Silverdale and Bishopsthorpe apparently keep going missing…
1 Like
Those darn Islingtonians.