Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

ianvisits.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 158 posts

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

#21

Post by maratc »

breggles wrote: post #20
maratc wrote: post #14

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…

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…

I think you'd need a couple of "solicitors" -- or maybe even "barristers" -- to decide on that. I'm neither :)

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

#22

Post by looperhacks »

potato3732842 wrote: post #15
sandworm101 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the law is actually valuable and there is political capital for its continuation then surely the legislative body can vote to extend it with minimal fuss.

If the law is useless and there is political capital then surely the legislative body can vote to abolish it with minimal fuss.

A bit tongue in cheek, of course - but I can't image the amount of unnecessary work regular continuation of _every_ law would cause. Time limits on laws are already a thing, but it shouldn't be a default.

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

#23

Post by johngladtj »

sandworm101 wrote: post #11
dismalpedigree wrote: post #10

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.

We absolutely should sunset those laws.

If they are needed they can be voted upon again by parliament, and will no doubt pass.

In fact I would say not only should all laws have built in expiration dates, such expiration dates should be shorter the lower the percentage of votes in parliament it too to pass them!

If you can only get a 51% majority in parliament to pass a law, that law should not exist beyond that election.

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

#24

Post by radiorental »

Why a bail of straw? Reminds me of the forgotten reason why the onion was thrown into the varnish

"Primo Levi was working in a varnish factory. He was a chemist, and he was fascinated by the fact that the varnish recipe included a raw onion. What could it be for? No one knew; it was just part of the recipe. So he investigated, and eventually discovered that they had started throwing the onion in years ago to test the temperature of the varnish: if it was hot enough, the onion would fry."

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

#25

Post by mnw21cam »

tomxor wrote: post #16
raverbashing wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Similar to how people will read a temporary hand written sign on a door, but filter out a (newly placed) professionally made sign, because the latter looks too permanent. 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.

Absolutely. A straw bale hanging from a bridge over a river is an anachronism. It doesn't normally belong there, and it's more likely to be noticed than a literal notice.

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

#26

Post by maratc »

Ekaros wrote: post #17
sandworm101 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You do not remove them. But you should change them when environment changes. Straw bale was decent indicator back in the day. But I think there should be some more modern and even global standard that law could be changed to. And this should be done with reasonable planning, schedule and communication.

Decent indicator of what?

It could be, to the contrary, that the legislators have come up with "straw bale" as something that simply does not belong under the bridge, in order to raise the brows of the people navigating the river, and make them wonder what's going on, all that in order to draw their attention. If so, it serves its purpose even more as straw bales are getting less common.

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

#27

Post by tlb »

iainmerrick wrote: post #3
ianbooker wrote: post #2

The article states that the purpose of this is "lost to time". I can image that by now its function is equivalent to a "brown M&M clause".

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…

Bales of straw are a cheap, large, soft object you could always find nearby in the pre-motor car days. I can't think of a better object to require.

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

#29

Post by ipsin »

breggles wrote: post #20
maratc wrote: post #14

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…

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…

Thanks, I was annoyed that the article didn't cite the actual law in question, but the BBC comes in with "Port of London Thames Byelaws, clause 36.2"

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmlrx89jdv2o

Post reply on HN