11–20 of 158 posts
This is why laws should have sunset clauses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a bit bemused at that "lost to time", as immediately before that it says: The law requires a bale of straw to be hung from a bridge as a warning to mariners whenever the height between the river and the bridge’s arches is reduced, as it is at Charing Cross at the moment. That seems clear enough! OK, the reason why it specifically has to be a bale of straw isn't obvious, but apart from that it seems very reasonabl…
Yeah it's amazing (in a bad sense) how those bridge too low warnings are ignored most of the time Well of course when you get stuck then it's too late.
Some states (IL in particular) have absurd fudge factors, so you have 14ft spaces signed as 12.xx and 13'6" trucks drive under them all day every day like it's nothing which basically trains them to ignore the signs.
And that's before you consider all the drivers who can't read english at road speeds so anything that isn't the standardized yellow sign right on/beside the object is going to go unnoticed to them a large amount of the time.
Even the British courts, in sharp contrast to many other places, "deliver the law as it is, and not as we wish it to be" -- see for example [0] or [1].
This is why laws should have sunset clauses
Sunset? So that after a few years people can do work on bridges without having to put up warnings? In a modern context, we wouldn't sunset a law saying that traffic lights be green and red, even though maybe in a few years we might want orange and pink. You dont mess around with safety warning standards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a bit bemused at that "lost to time", as immediately before that it says: The law requires a bale of straw to be hung from a bridge as a warning to mariners whenever the height between the river and the bridge’s arches is reduced, as it is at Charing Cross at the moment. That seems clear enough! OK, the reason why it specifically has to be a bale of straw isn't obvious, but apart from that it seems very reasonabl…
Yeah it's amazing (in a bad sense) how those bridge too low warnings are ignored most of the time Well of course when you get stuck then it's too late.
If something has changed, using something out of place or temporary in appearance seems to be the most effective way of getting human attention... A bale of straw feels like it fits the bill.
This is why laws should have sunset clauses
Sunset? So that after a few years people can do work on bridges without having to put up warnings? In a modern context, we wouldn't sunset a law saying that traffic lights be green and red, even though maybe in a few years we might want orange and pink. You dont mess around with safety warning standards.
That's the British system working as designed. If there's a law, no matter how ancient, the British should comply. If a law needs to be changed, that's the Parliament's job. Even the British courts, in sharp contrast to many other places, "deliver the law as it is, and not as we wish it to be" -- see for example [0] or [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owens_v…
"When the headroom of an arch or span of a bridge is reduced from its usual limits but that arch or span is not closed to navigation, the person in control of the bridge must suspend from the centre of that arch or span by day a bundle of straw large enough to be conspicuous and by night a white light."
Does that mean the law is not being complied with, in this case, since the bales are hanging from adjacent bridges, not the "centre of that arch or span" itself?