[maratc]

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_Owens

[breggles]

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 hanging from adjacent bridges, not the "centre of that arch or span" itself?

[red_admiral]

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 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.

[walthamstow]

Your link shows the Dartford Crossing, an M25 bridge miles downstream of the City. The Blackwall Tunnel runs under the Thames at Greenwich and afaik just has the old school hanging metal blocks at height https://maps.app.goo.gl/N5xSF148ggLVTDtS8

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

[peteri]

There are additional traffic lights on the blackwall tunnel further in and a slip road out that can be used for overheight vehicles. I do remember having a 10-15 minute wait once while they sorted things out when a lorry driver got caught.

I'd have a feeling there are automated signs prior to the tunnel (or at least used to be) but I've not been through the tunnel for a year or so and things will have changed with the Silvertown tunnel opening.

I have seen someone not paying attention at the Rotherhithe tunnel and the roof of their van was a mess (and they're going to pick up a fine probably due to restrictions, the 2 tonnes gross weight limit is lower than a lot of van drivers expect)

Edit there were: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MP7fkhS394DJPQaZ9 If you zoom in you can see the overheight vehicle warning.

[red_admiral]

I presume the Blackwall one is that unlit LED sign just at the start of the off-ramp. Then there's another set of height detectors on the same post to catch out anyone who's still not paying attention.

I question who approved that the main lanes ahead of your link have 2.8m/9ft limits but the police warning says vehicles over 4m/13ft will be stopped. Can I take my 10ft truck through or not?

I'm starting to feel a tiny bit of sympathy for drivers that get confused by this.

[red_admiral]

You're right of course.

Blackwall seems also to have two sets of lights and barriers, and an off-ramp in between. That's probably for fire safety too to close and evacuate the tunnel and get the emergency services in, but I imagine it's used for height detection too if a loud CLUNK on your truck cabin isn't enough.

As an aside, the person who signed the original heights as (13ft)(4m)(9ft)(2.8m) needs to learn a bit about UI design. Yes, two lanes, but the gap between the central two signs is far smaller than to the other sign for the same lane. Also 4m is just over 13 ft 1 inch, which there'd be space to include as there's already a 0 on the leftmost sign (and from the rightmost we see that decimals are allowed on signs). Guess we're going to rely on the CLUNK after all.

[pjmlp]

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.

[oniony]

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

[pjmlp]

Interesting, but I guess only works well on tunnel entries.

[ipsin]

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

[maratc]

The BBC also didn't call it "ancient," which would be questionable considering that the law is from 2012.

[alexbilbie]

Its an ancient practise, codified into law in 2012 when the regulatory framework was re-codified from multiple laws like Port of London Act 1908 as well as time immemorial acts like this.

[danans]

According to the article the original practice is medieval, not ancient. It's colloquial usage of "ancient" as in "my car is ancient" is a bit odd.

[gjm11]

Fun fact: in English law "time immemorial" has a very specific meaning: it means "any time before 1189". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_immemorial for more.

[maratc]

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

[mr_toad]

> 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.

[Projectiboga]

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.

[pessimizer]

In the US we only have a remnant of that in the Senate, in what has been popularly marketed as "the Nuclear Option." A Senator just makes a point of order that a Senate rule is the opposite of what it actually, verifiably is. The chair denies it, the Senator appeals the decision, and a majority of the Senate then overrules the chair.

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.

[pessimizer]

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 themselves. The UK Parliament and courts may be terrible, but they invented the thing and we're forks.

[irdc]

The Romans would like to have a word...

[AStonesThrow]

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.

[dghf]

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?)

[maratc]

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.

[userbinator]

In the US, it's usually enforcement that's ignored.

[AngryData]

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.

[ljm]

Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law.

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.

[wisty]

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.

[wirrbel]

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.

[treis]

Your memory is a bit off. The text 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

It's the only amendment that comes with a justification so it's unusual but there's nothing in the text that limits the right to the listed justification.

[bigstrat2003]

> 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.

[wisty]

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.

[Joker_vD]

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-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" — now notice that it's a conditional rule, and its premise in "since..." is no longer true, militias are not necessary for the security of a country; and so the conclusion should lose its power. And arguably it's what the Founders intended: if they meant it as an absolute rule, they would've omitted the first part of it and would have simply stated that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", period.

[davidw]

The Supreme Court in the United States has been playing a looooot of "Calvinball" recently. They've never been completely immune from it, but it has gotten a lot more nakedly political.

[DoingIsLearning]

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.

[bregma]

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.

[aaronbaugher]

That's sad. It's not like when I was watching Holy Grail in the late 80s it was in theaters, and the "effects" weren't good enough when it was made to become dated. We watched it and lots of other stuff on VHS because it was good, regardless of when it was made.

I suppose some of the jokes depend on cultural things that might not be taught as well anymore, like the Trojan Horse. But most of it is about human nature, so it seems like that should hold up.

[eadmund]

> At least it's not dead yet.

It’s pining for the fjords!

[alnwlsn]

Interesting, at least 10 years ago, everyone in my school knew Monty Python. Maybe that's because it was on Youtube at the time. Not really the case anymore; some is still there but a lot has been removed - you're not going to find 'Holy Grail part 1/11' these days.

[dghf]

There was a thread on Reddit about the current British king on which someone commented

> Well I didn't vote for him

to which I naturally replied

> You don't vote for kings!

and the next comment was an antimonarchist slamming me for being a royalist toady.

[sethammons]

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.

[TheOtherHobbes]

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. But you're not going to find many people who are interested in the art, music, literature, design, or architecture of earlier decades - never mind centuries.

It's as a big a break as there was in the 60s. For that generation the 50s were still an influence, but anything earlier pretty much just disappeared.

[card_zero]

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.)

[bmacho]

> And I feel less connected.

Watch whatever today's kids watch.

[card_zero]

The "less uniform media exposure" phrase invokes the (paranoid?) fear that we might lose common cultural reference points. In short, today's kids watch whatever. Though I'm sure we'd just find a new social script to work around the inability to quote Python.

[mionhe]

I like to use the phrase "skibidi" wrong. My kids make the greatest faces.

[mschuster91]

That's common in both European courts (look at e.g. the history of homosexual marriages in the EU) and in the US ("Citizens United").

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.

[teamonkey]

This is also the case in the UK. Where things are not crystal clear they are interpreted by judges and can become precedent (see the recent “definition of a woman” interpretation).

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.

[eadmund]

> 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.

[rustcleaner]

>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.

If that's not religion, I don't know what is...

[4ndrewl]

It's representative democracy.

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.

[makeitdouble]

Religion is notably harder to change than country laws.

[shakna]

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.

[prewett]

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 nothing (since all composable things are impermanent and everything is composed) is the path to nirvana. All the other beliefs and ethics come out of this.

But even "submarine" religions (ones that people do not think of as a religion) follow the pattern. Communists worship the State (or perhaps the Party), because the problem with society is the structure of society, so only the State can bring the salvation of equity. American Progressives worship sexual identity. Progressives are flexible--except if you don't accept a particular identity, think that gender is not malleable, refuse to use pronouns, etc.

However, I think even "most religions" are not very flexible. 50% of the world's population are either Christian or Islam, and both are pretty prescriptive in the ethics.

[shakna]

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.

[1718627440]

Washing of feet is very much part of the easter liturgie, so is performed at least once a year by every bishop.

[ithkuil]

Religions is just one incarnation of a more fundamental trait of human psychology that allows us to build complex society.

Belief in other shared made up things like law and even money works that way, and most of the world -isms too

[zeristor]

There’s a word for that sort of thing, it just happens to be:

antidisestablishmentarianism

That is for the removal of the Church of England as the religion of England, but it’s along those lines.

[TRiG_Ireland]

You have one too many negative prefixes there. The Church of England is already established. Those who want to remove that status are proposing disestablishment. Antidisestablishmentarianism is the desire to maintain the status quo.

[spacedcowboy]

As someone else pointed out, you're over-negating establishmentarianism.

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...)