This is why laws should have sunset clauses
The law does say that the bale of straw is to be replaced or supplemented by a white light at sunset.
Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge
111–120 of 158 posts
Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed similar. I quote lots of movies, usually one liners as appropriate. Between age and less uniform media exposure, my references more often than not fall flat. And I feel less connected.
If you talk to anyone under 30, there's a vague sense of 'the past' with a few landmark events - mostly Star Wars, Pokemon, Miyazaki. Beyond that it's all recent comics, superhero movies, video games, and anime, with a big subculture stanning book trends like romantasy. Most of what happened before 2000 doesn't seem to exist in cultural memory. It's not quite true that nothing that happened before 1950 exists at all.…
I guess the sense of a rubicon at the end of the 40s was due to WW2, but why at the year 2000? Because phones? Or big round number effect, perhaps? The year 2000 was built up in our minds as when the future was expected to begin. (Every new gadget produced around 1990 was the Something2000. CarVacuum2000, Ionizer2000, SuperShoehorn2000, etc.)
Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, the full clause reads: "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 han…
Delays due to trucks striking bridges are a worldwide problem, at least in countries with railroads. Despite yellow black striped reflective panels and height warning signs and sometimes height detectors that trigger flashing red lights. Perhaps we should try a bale of straw next. The London Blackwall tunnel has a more modern take on checking height: https://maps.app.goo.gl/b5P5Td1hsuSjLU3w8 traffic signals, barriers…
In Germany even this wasn't enough, in a couple of bridges they had to constrain the road leading to the bridge in a way that only small cars would still be able to reach the bridge under repairs.
I also imagine it wasn't cheap doing this, but apparently as long as people can get away with something there is always those that will try, regardless of how it impacts others.
Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge
#114That'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…
In what places do courts ignore or modify law to deliver the result they prefer? (To be precise: where is that accepted practice, rather than aberrant behaviour by some judges?)
> In what places do courts ignore or modify law to deliver the result they prefer?
The United States. E.g. ‘the switch in time that saved nine,’ Wickard v. Filburn, Obergefell v. Hodges, Gonzales v. Raich and so forth.
Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off topic but I am now old enough that more than once Calvinball references were lost with my co-workers. I was surprised (and then sad) at the realization that Bill Watterson is fading from the cultural ethos as I age.
Gone are the days when everyone was spammed with Monty Python references. The Gen-Zs in my office haven't even heard of, let alone viewed, the Holy Grail so half the references our boss lays out are lost on them. At least it's not dead yet. On the other hand, I had to ask them what a Kirby was. I'm still not sure but I know it's pink.
> At least it's not dead yet.
It’s pining for the fjords!
Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually the judges do not "ignore or modify" the law, but rather "interpret" it in a creative manner. You might use, as an example, the question of "does the US Constitution guarantee the women a right to abortion." Some judges decided that it does, later some other judges decided that it does not. Considering the opposing outcomes to the same question, it's clear some of these were wrong.
In the US, it's usually enforcement that's ignored.
That is why everything is illegal 3x over. If they don't like you, you get farked. If they like you, they just ignore it.
Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what places do courts ignore or modify law to deliver the result they prefer? (To be precise: where is that accepted practice, rather than aberrant behaviour by some judges?)
The US. There are vague rights in the constitution. It could be a disaster for the courts to interpret them too literally (Is literally any weapon OK in the 2nd? Does free speech include a mob boss ordering a hit?) and constitutions are really hard to amend, so heavy interpretation is a nessessary evil.
That is an interesting example because the second amendment is I think a primary example of a law that is very creatively read by folks that consider themselves literalists.
if the 2nd amendmend was literally interpreted it would be (quoting from memory) “in order to form a well-ordered militia the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”
As in you cannot infringe the right to bear arms in a well ordered militia, but gun ownership might be regulated for example by the militia organization owning the arms. Nothing would speak against codifying in law what constitutes a well-ordered militia, etc.
Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge
#118This is treated as a whimsical absurdity, but it has a practical purpose that’s hardly obviated by the antiquity of the law. I’m a sailor myself - I’d certainly want a warning that a bridge is lower than its charted height. The signal is clearly listed in the relevant Port of London notice to mariners [0]. Moreover, the signal also shows the height of the restriction (and in a neat, safe way - nudge the straw and you…
This also means that this line is also inaccurate:
> For convenience, they’re actually hanging from the Jubilee footbridges, one on either side of the railway.
It's not for simple convenience: you can see in the photos that it's because the footbridges are taller then the rail bridge and come a bit before it, which allows them to install the straw hanging at the correct height to warn of the constriction before someone hits the bridge itself.
Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Had to look this one up. Apparently the answer is he was a rich *hole who murdered a student, got fined £80 (which might have been a lot of money, but he was rich), stayed away from Oxford a few years and then The Powers That Be told everyone to get over it. I can kind of understand the statute, tbqh.
According to the Bank of England's inflation calculator, £80 in 1242 is worth £119,600 today.
The fine was against multiple men. That makes me speculate the death was part of a drunkin bar fight and the victim was comnected but the King was neutral and only banned him until the King returned. Ahew, what a nest of rabbit holes to follow.
Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge
#120That'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…
> 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" The English practically invented the idea of common law. Even today there are still important legal principles based entirely on the decisions of earlier courts.
A formal UK Constitution doesn't exist and is a striking example of this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K...
The constitution of the United Kingdom comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no official attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.