Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge • Hacker News Board

Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge

#141

Post by triclops200 » Fri, May 23, 2025, 4:27 PM UTC

bb123 wrote: post #19

Reminds me of the fact that for 500 years everyone graduating with a BA from Oxford had to swear that they would never agree to the reconciliation of Henry Symeonis, despite no one having any idea who he was for most of that time.

Thanks for that, looked it up and was a interesting rabbit hole: Basically, that oath was Oxford University saying "fuck you" to a request of the King (1200s England) officially after he effectively tried to order them to break their collective line and accept a rich fuck who murdered a scholar in the past. Feels kinda like a proto-union-action to me https://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/archivesandmanuscripts/2023/...

Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge

#142

Post by bigstrat2003 » Fri, May 23, 2025, 4:35 PM UTC

wirrbel wrote: post #117

wisty wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

> 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”

I don't agree at all that this is a case of creative reading. The actual text of the amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Note that the text does not say "in order to" or anything like that, which is why interpretation of this amendment gets controversial. Was the intent that bearing arms is only a right insofar as people are part of a local militia? Was the intent that people must have the right to bear arms and the militia was simply cited as one example of why? It is genuinely unclear from the text, which means that no matter what we do we have to layer our own interpretation on top. That doesn't mean anyone is reading the law creatively, that's just the unfortunate facts of having to deal with an unclear text.

Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge

#143

Post by oniony » Fri, May 23, 2025, 5:33 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #113

red_admiral wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://youtu.be/ImU1mG7QC4I?feature=shared

Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge

#144

Post by irdc » Fri, May 23, 2025, 6:19 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #122

mr_toad wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There are still important legal principles in the US and other places around the world based entirely on the decisions of earlier English courts. The first local decisions will reference English cases, and English legal experts often would have been consulted. Same thing with most of the world's parliaments and congresses having to reference English Parliamentary precedent in order to figure out how to operate themse…

The Romans would like to have a word...

Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge

#145

Post by tass » Fri, May 23, 2025, 6:37 PM UTC

krick wrote: post #136

w0de0 wrote: post #102

This 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…

Maybe when this was invented, the bundle of straw was the best they could do, I don't know, but surely today you can produce a more visible, more robust, reusable and, ironically, cheaper sign than that.

Maybe, but this has a few advantages.

If there were some reusable item (whatever that may be) it would need to be stored somewhere accessible to the construction crews, would eventually need to be repaired or replaced, and depending on how it's made may need to be customized per installation.

Hay and rope are readily available and (depending on the rope) biodegrade so could fall into the river with pretty minimal pollution. I imagine back in the day they were both just borrowed from a local farm or stable.

Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge

#146

Post by fsckboy » Fri, May 23, 2025, 7:45 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #118

w0de0 wrote: post #102

This 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 someo…

i find being warned in advance a most convenient way to avoid hitting the bridge, and if the walkways are already installed in the right place to put the bales, why that's a very convenient place to put them. if the walkways were the same height as the bridge, it would not afford that convenience because then the footbridges would themselves be the obstruction you're in danger of hitting, which would be most inconvenient.

Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge

#147

Post by AStonesThrow » Fri, May 23, 2025, 11:43 PM UTC

irdc wrote: post #144

pessimizer wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are still important legal principles in the US and other places around the world based entirely on the decisions of earlier English courts. The first local decisions will reference English cases, and English legal experts often would have been consulted. Same thing with most of the world's parliaments and congresses having to reference English Parliamentary precedent in order to figure out how to operate themse…

The Romans would like to have a word...

Yes, let's mention Roman Law in relation to British Common Law. The latter derived from the former, but there's a fair distance of about 1,000 years between our three points in time.

For all intents and purposes, every precedent and matter of jurisprudence can be resolved by referring only to Common Law. It would be rather exhausting and absurd to try and reach back past 1066 AD because things have changed, a lot.

Now in terms of forking Roman Law, there are other legal systems which are not directly related or derived from British Common Law. Especially the Napoleonic Code, which influenced Italy, which in turn influenced Catholic Canon Law. So here we have another lineage and a deeper "fork" from Roman Law where British Common Law doesn't really figure.

Also someone commented with a non sequitir about "antidisestablishmentarianism". I'd just like to point out that that word refers to revocation of things like the 1st Amendment and support for the Established Church laws, because it's "anti-dis" double negative.

If you want to talk about the United States' 1st Amendment, "disestablishmentarianism" is the term used to describe how the Founding Fathers set up the States without those meddling bishops.

Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge

#148

Post by shakna » Sat, May 24, 2025, 2:45 AM UTC

prewett wrote: post #134

shakna wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hundreds of Protestant sects all cried out in anguish. The Hindu cults just rolled their eyes. Most religions are relatively flexible around beliefs. It tends to be particular sects that aren't... But they don't speak for the rest.

I think you're conflating religious beliefs with ethics. You can't have a religion that is flexible on beliefs, otherwise it is not a religion, but the actual core religious beliefs are fairly limited. In Christianity, Jesus dying to reconcile the world to God is the whole point; without that it is something else. The whole point of Buddhism is that all emotions are pain, and that realizing that everything really not…

No... I'm afraid you're dividing up a religion in a way that anthropology does not.

You are close to something. You've found the division between worldview, and religion. A worldview is bigger, and is individualistic - but generally founded upon tenants shared by others. "a framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it as a social reality."

I will say: There is no accepted definition of a religion. There are hotly debated definitions, but no concrete and agreed formation of what it constitutes.

However, generally speaking, a religion is a set of socio-cultural systems, generally tied to a set of beliefs, that tend to have supernatural or spiritual elements. However - the systems are essential, the beliefs are not. [0] Many agnostics and atheists follow religious practices, and form their own religions. There are Christians who do not believe in Christ.

Because the core of a religion is social and cultural, it greatly varies in time and place. The Christianity of Early Rome would be unrecognisable to most Christians today. The religion has changed almost every single practice, over time, because of the cultures that have influenced it today. [1]

[0] An example would be "Jewish Atheism". It is a religion, with practices and rites, but it does not carry with it supernatural or spiritual beliefs. Another would be "Mainline Protestant Buddhism", also known as Secular Buddhism.

[1] An example of one of the most important rites in early Christendom that is no longer regularly practiced in Rome, would be the washing of feet. The host welcomed their guests on their knees, caring for them. Society moved on, shoes and roads changed, it no longer became necessary, and the religion changed around it.

Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge

#149

Post by wisty » Sat, May 24, 2025, 4:59 AM UTC

wirrbel wrote: post #117

wisty wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

Or it means that if the government needs to call in levies, it would be good if the volunteers could show up with appropriate weapons. Ironically an automatic rifle (think an AK) could be what they're talking about, while pistols (being arguably useless side-arms in a battlefield) might be far less in the spirit of the law.

Historically, not owning a sword or longbow could get you in legal trouble in some cities and time periods, since it meant you weren't capable of helping defend the city. I'd say that in the spirit of the law, it should mostly allow the ownership of useful infantry weapons, or dual purpose ones (hunting rifles?), rather than self defence pistols.

But the US interprets it differently because the constitution is a bit vague, the constitution is hard to change, and practicalities and politics exist.

Re: Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge

#150

Post by milesrout » Sat, May 24, 2025, 6:57 AM UTC

Joker_vD wrote: post #125

wirrbel wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

That's... how the 2nd amendment used to be treated, actually: state laws against conceit carry have lo-o-ong history, and they've been held to be perfectly constitutionally until recently. Oh, and "well-regulated" used to mean "well trained and supplied" back in those day. And the 2nd actually reads (if you fix its grammar since it's ungrammatical by the standards of the modern English language) "since the well-regul…

[dead]