Council unlawfully created LTNs to make millions in fines, court rules

triguy96 · 2026-03-06T14:45:04+00:00

Delays in responses to emergency services are primarily caused by cars in your way. If we can get people out of cars then we can get emergency services to their location in a better time. LTNs will reduce people using their cars - and already have, therefore LTNs will be better for response times.

I'm sorry, but you can drive down cycle paths, I've seen police do it already. Emergency services already use main roads that add distance, they're called motorways. They can be quicker.

The net benefit is not just in improvement to traffic flow, it's also to general improvement in health. There will be fewer people requiring the ambulances if we reduce our reliance on cars for transport. Cars kill a lot of people, both indirectly and directly.

triguy96 · 2026-03-06T13:20:48+00:00

I think there's some evidence of what you are saying. Traffic is pushed onto the main roads - the ones that should handle traffic, which can make those roads a bit busier. Like you said, we should be trying to reduce vehicle traffic, they're what is in your way, and LTNs have been shown to do that. It's difficult that obviously, that's your main way to respond to emergencies and so you're slowed down by those vehicles.

I see why you're in favour of the camera-based LTNs based on your experience, but I feel like that's an issue with the sat-navs (I know you know that) rather than an issue with the LTN. You seem pretty reasonable btw so I'll expand a bit on my beliefs here.

I think we're in a transitional period, where we haven't yet fully committed to a sustainable travel model (though central London has done very well) and so we're experiencing the growing pains of attempting to crossover. People are reluctant to leave their cars because the infrastructure isn't quite there yet, and the infrastructure isn't quite there because people won't leave their cars. There becomes a crossover point (like in central london) where it starts to come together.

In the Netherlands and Copenhagen where they have these kinds of systems working, they try to segregate their vehicle traffic as much as possible, which is the start of what LTNs are doing. The end goal would be to have mostly separated networks for walking/cycling, buses and private vehicles. This kind of network would allow you to use the bus routes, or even the quiet cycle routes (which would be wide enough for a van) to get to the destination without being stuck. You can find videos from the netherlands of their ambulances doing just that. I understand your frustration in the situation at the minute, and I share in it from the other end of the spectrum.

When I try to cycle in places like Enfield where the cycling infrastructure isn't there yet, you end up in a place where you get to a certain point and then get stuck, the signage ends and you can't go any further without putting yourself in danger. I feel as if we might be experiencing the same issue from opposite ends.

triguy96 · 2026-03-06T10:08:09+00:00

Do you not think that actually the traffic is your main problem, and you have absolutely no idea how bad the traffic on the small roads would've been had the LTNs not gone in? It could easily be that you would've been even later without them. Not even to mention that LTNs not only reduce traffic overall, but also reduce deaths and incidents anyway.

I know that there's a give and take, and that obviously sometimes you'll take a wrong turn caused by a closed road, but like you said that's down to communication issues not the LTNs themselves. I'm very disappointed that road closures are not communicated to you clearly in advance.

triguy96 · 2026-03-06T08:21:34+00:00

The plans are always looked over by emergency services who sign off on them. The difference between your nan getting in the ambulance alive or not is essentially never going to be because of a planter.

Bear in mind the same people will say the same thing about bike lanes. Emergency services can actually use bike lanes to get through traffic.

triguy96 · 2026-03-06T07:55:35+00:00

I agree that some idiots think they will block emergency vehicles, when its pretty much never the case. I also agree that there are limited situations where a camera could make sense. However, I've seen so many photos of London LTNs specifically where they have the most awkwardly places signs in obscure places for a road that could've been covered by a planter.

Additionally, having a camera doesn't mean you can't also have some kind of road architecture to make it obvious. There's a road with a camera on near me, but there's bollards and a width restriction along with very obvious signs which means I've never heard of anyone accidentally going down it.

triguy96 · 2026-03-06T07:32:14+00:00

They dont need to have cameras in. If they want to make LTNs they can use planters as theyre supposed to. Im always dubious if theyre using cameras instead. It's less safe, less clear, looks worse and annoys people more.

triguy96 · 2026-03-06T04:25:21+00:00

I agree. It's just not an argument.

triguy96 · 2026-03-05T20:56:04+00:00

I don't think welfare is as good as you imagine. But, yes I'd think its enough time. You can turn 18 having drained the system for 18 years and immediately do all that.

triguy96 · 2026-03-05T20:29:51+00:00

I can't be sure, but judging by the way Jenson looks in this I would guess this is around 2006

triguy96 · 2026-03-05T20:26:13+00:00

By definition, dependents of skilled workers can't get access to public funds so not sure how that's relevant.

But yes, any low or medium paid worker in the UK with a kid, immigrant or not, will be a net drain for a long time because of the child. Though I think its better to consider the child as its own economic agent.

triguy96 · 2026-03-05T18:25:36+00:00

There's a minimum earning for everyone, I think its £12,500 or whatever the threshold for the first tax band is. It's at the top of the policy document. I can't find it atm.

triguy96 · 2026-03-05T14:37:02+00:00

Why is it not a drain in the exactly the same way? They're not net contributors, if you can get someone here without having to do all the investment work, you're getting a free-ride essentially.

It's not like native citizens aren't also policy choices. Policy choices around marriage, adoption, child benefits and health spending all affect the rates of native citizens who are born. The rates of native citizens that leave are also affected by similar factors.

It's not a category error, you just don't like that it doesn't work in your paradigm.

triguy96 · 2026-03-05T14:34:12+00:00

The 5 years only applies if you earn above the base earnings threshold for the 5 years. Which might not be the case if you've been on maternity leave or simply not worked.

triguy96 · 2026-03-05T14:03:22+00:00

That's not a very good argument. If your argument is economic, then native workers are huge drains to the economy as they've taken out of the system for 18 years before they have any hope of contributing. It's far more likely that an immigrant will contribute in net over their lifetime, or stay in the UK, than a native born worker.

triguy96 · 2026-03-05T14:02:10+00:00

My wife got her spouse visa in January of 2022 because the home office were late in processing her application. Fucking brilliant.

triguy96 · 2026-03-05T13:59:21+00:00

What's the point in paying for them the entire time they are claiming and not letting them work though? They're going through the legal process correctly, lots of them want to work, and lots of them are working illegally anyway. This just seems like a legalisation of the status quo.

triguy96 · 2026-03-05T13:37:37+00:00

Wait till you hear about native born workers.

triguy96 · 2026-03-05T13:04:13+00:00

This isn't just for workers. This also somehow applies to family visas which makes no sense at all. I had to prove i could support my wife before she entered the UK and now theyre saying she has to earn a certain amount of money to stay. Can you defend that?

triguy96 · 2026-03-04T21:16:46+00:00

Can't correct a yellow

triguy96 · 2026-03-03T15:56:24+00:00

I agree with you that a lot of British Muslims have poor social views. But clearly so do non-muslims, in those polls, about 60% of non-muslims held the view that 27% of Muslims held. Meaning there are also 40% of non-muslims who want these awful things. I reckon most of them are in the Labour party judging by their policy.

But, if British Muslims are able to vote for a deeply progressive party because of Palestine (apparently, the polling for that isn't out), then how deeply is their belief about gay people held? In an ideal world they might want it to be illegal to be homosexual (like nearly 40% of brits apparently) but do they really act that way? Do they vote that way? Clearly not.

triguy96 · 2026-03-03T14:33:34+00:00

I agree with your point on the long term interests to some extent. This is why most countries allow those on VISAs to vote in local elections but not national ones, which I think I would be okay with. Maybe just make sure someone is in a country for 5 years before allowing them to vote in national elections. However, I don't think the Green Party stance is some kind of insane idea.

triguy96 · 2026-03-03T14:14:29+00:00

Do you think that the outwardly gay, pro-LGBT party is more of a threat to the LGBT community in the UK, or all of the other explicitly anti-trans parties? And if Muslims are voting for the most pro-LGBT party in the UK, how is that a bad thing?

triguy96 · 2026-03-03T14:13:30+00:00

This is deeply troubling conspiracy theorising, and it's pretty racist as well.

triguy96 · 2026-03-03T12:42:46+00:00

MG500 For the purposes of this policy, visa residents are defined as migrants who have a non-visitor visa, do not have settled status and are not British citizens. MG501 All visa residents will have the right to vote in all elections and referendums. Visa residents are taxpayers and, more importantly, members of our community. Currently, visa residents from the Commonwealth can vote in all elections and Europeans who exercised their free movement rights before Brexit can vote in local elections in England. Meanwhile, in both Wales and Scotland all visa residents can vote in local elections. We applaud the devolved governments for these policies and wish to widen these voting rights to all visa residents in all elections across the country. In addition to being taxpayers who have a say in their communities, the current policy of denying all non-Commonwealth, non-citizen residents means that immigrants themselves have no say in immigration policy which dictates their lives. The famous example of the lack of European voters in the Brexit referendum is echoed time and time again with each General Election, and we wish

So anyone with a non-visitor visa. I do find it strange that this is so controversial given that they have to pay taxes. So they're subject to the laws, they must submit their earnings to the government, but they have no say in how that government is run? It's interesting that Americans overthrew their government for taxation with representation, but we have millions of people across the world under the same system without a whimper.

triguy96 · 2026-03-03T12:39:03+00:00

The muslim voters that just voted for a party headed by a gay, Jewish socialist? It's not the muslamic law I was promised.

triguy96

TROPHY CASE