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’ll know you’re too tall):
“Where the headroom is reduced this will be signalled in accordance with the Port of London Authority Thames Byelaw 36.1 namely:
“By Day – A bundle of straw large enough to be easily visible and displayed at the height of restricted headroom”
> 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.
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.
The question as to whether this constitutes swearing an oath or making a simple promise was an interesting one for me as Quakers traditionally refuse to do the former.
I can kind of understand the statute, tbqh.
The origins of the Cagots remain uncertain . . . . Despite the varied and
often mythical explanations for their origins, the only consistent aspect of
the Cagots was their societal exclusion and the lack of any distinct physical
or cultural traits differentiating them from the general population.
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].
"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?
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 like at a railroad crossing, giant panels across the road at height, and a police car on standby to pull out and fine anyone that doesn't read the signs - I presume this happens often enough that they can justify the cost.
But then the bale of straw applied to ships not vehicles and bridges not tunnels.
It doesn't surprise me too much that police are on standby, a closure of either tunnel or bridge has a major effect on traffic all over London
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.
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.
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.
After this has happened, the rule just changes and whatever was not in order in the past is in order in the future (or vice versa.) In the Senate as in Parliament; the majority of Parliament is the law, it can't break the law.
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 themselves. The UK Parliament and courts may be terrible, but they invented the thing and we're forks.
(To be precise: where is that accepted practice, rather than aberrant behaviour by some judges?)
One could argue that 'a corporation has personhood' is a technical contrivance that tries to manipulate the letter of the law into achieving a particular outcome. Going with the spirit of the law instead, that argument would never hold water.
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.
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.
I was surprised (and then sad) at the realization that Bill Watterson is fading from the cultural ethos as I age.
The core issue is that no Constitution, in fact no law or decree at all can account for all possibilities that real life offers, and so all the bodies of law are up for interpretation all the time.
The issue highlighted by, say, the Owens vs Owens example, is that the law as it stood was clear and not open to interpretation, though obviously unfair. The law needed to be changed, which required parliament.
The United States. E.g. ‘the switch in time that saved nine,’ Wickard v. Filburn, Obergefell v. Hodges, Gonzales v. Raich and so forth.
If that's not religion, I don't know what is...
Religion is what it replaced. Where one person, with a clique of courtiers who personally relied on him for power, enacted whatever took their fancy. Their word was power, whether it was starting wars or forging alliances with unsavoury countries - and woebetide you if you challenged it.
Most religions are relatively flexible around beliefs. It tends to be particular sects that aren't... But they don't speak for the rest.
Belief in other shared made up things like law and even money works that way, and most of the world -isms too
antidisestablishmentarianism
That is for the removal of the Church of England as the religion of England, but it’s along those lines.
But it doesn't matter anyway - the UK is a pretty atheist society and getting more so... Those who self-describe as "atheist" in the census:
2001: 15.9%
2011: 25.7%
2021: 37.8%
In Scotland, figures are higher with a majority of the population now describing themselves as atheist (51.1%)
And these figures are only for people who describe themselves as atheists, not just agnostic. The number of people saying they believe "in god" was only 16%, and expanding that to "any god" bumped it to 27%, according to a YouGov poll in 2020.
Also, the most irreligious government ever is the most-recent one, with 40% of MPs opting to make a secular affirmation of service rather than swear a religious oath.
Basically the god-squad is done in the UK, it's just a matter of time - which is odd for a place with an official state religion, as opposed to somewhere like the USA which is officially non-affiliated with any religion, but has "christians" who wouldn't recognise Jesus unless he was white, toting an uzi, and telling them to give him money now to get a great afterlife - "prosperity gospel" my arse.
(Figures from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_Kingd...)
But, in the picture it seems to be a) hung higher than the scaffolding and b) too close to it to actually give vessels a chance to turn around.
"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."
Aside: Although the article makes the same mistake, hay and straw are not the same thing. Hay is dead green grass-like plants. Straw is dead brown grass-like plant matter that has finished it's lifecycle and used up all the sugars and things in it. Hay gets moldy more easily but has nutrients for animals while straw does not decompose as quickly.
This doesn't seem like a utilitarian solution, more of a signal with a symbolic intention?
Honestly, this is all guesswork. But I can imagine something like that to be the case.
the practice of "topping out" a new building can be traced to the ancient Scandinavian religious rite of placing a tree atop a new building to appease the tree-dwelling spirits displaced in its construction... The practice remains common in the United Kingdom and assorted Commonwealth countries such as Australia[7] and Canada,[8] as well as Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Iceland, Chile, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States. In the United States the last beam of a skyscraper is often painted white and signed by all the workers involved.[7] In New Zealand, completion of the roof to a water-proof state is celebrated through a "roof shout", where workers are treated to cake and beer.[9]
It seems not:
> A Scandinavian tradition of hoisting a pine tree to the top of framed out buildings had a more functional purpose: when the pine needles fell off, the builders knew the wood frame below had cured/dried out so they could enclose the building.[2]
i guess at this point it's a cherished tradition :D. there's probably a youtube mashup of all the phone-recorded strikes.
https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2025/05/20/box-truck-hits...
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 reasonable, just outdated.
Edit to add: straw does make sense as a makeshift crash barrier -- you'll notice if you hit it, but hopefully won't actually damage your ship. It seems like you would always just plough through and hit the actual bridge, though.
At night it’s a light. It’s obviously a notification system. You visibly see the bale of straw before you get to the bridge and you know to slow down and stop and investigate what the clearance issue is.
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.
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.
> The "brown M&M clause" was a specific contract requirement by Van Halen that demanded all brown M&Ms be removed from a bowl of M&Ms provided backstage before their performances. This clause was not a frivolous demand but a way to test if the concert promoters had read the entire contract carefully. If brown M&Ms were found, it indicated that other important technical details might have been overlooked, which could pose safety risks for the band and the audience.
It was a massive display of pyrotechnics and staging - the requirements in the rider weren't there for fun, it was for actual safety.
It’s a small distinction, but actually if the band showed up and found all the brown M&Ms still there the plan would have already been a failure.
The reason it was in the contract was to make sure the promoter had read the contract before signing it and understood what they were getting into.
Band riders are almost invariably redlined. Bands ask for all sorts of crazy shit and you cross out stuff you can’t provide or give a substitute brand name (like if the venue has an exclusive vendor relationship with Coke instead of Pepsi stuff like that) and then you work out any kinks and finalize it.
The reason to put the M&M clause in there is to get the promoter to strike the clause during the contracting process because any competent promoter will read every line carefully and strike something like that.
So when they do you know they read it and know what they are doing are comfortable signing a deal with them.
You would never want to be arriving at the venue with the clause still in force, that’s a sign you have a larger problem.
Source: I was a concert promoter in the 90’s
I doubt the band would say "you didn't redline this weird but inconsequential request, we can't work together.
If they wanted to be sure the redlining process worked, they should have put in something like "remove all fire extinguishers from backstage".
Source: I am a systems engineer.
That would be the extra lights that have to be turned on at night.
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.
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.