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."
DocTomoe · 7h ago
Often, these things are utilitarian, not mystical. So my educated guess: Back in the day, the main problem was river mariners getting hurt by bridge arches that were lower than expected, and the bale of straw was a 'soft buffer' - better to get your head hit by a swinging bale of straw than a rock-solid bridge.
radiorental · 6h ago
I was wondering about that but it would only work for the sailor standing in the right place on a boat sailing dead center of the river where there is typically two way traffic.
This doesn't seem like a utilitarian solution, more of a signal with a symbolic intention?
DocTomoe · 6h ago
Hm, I guess arches were lower back then, and a lot of the riverboats were actually the staked kind (think: Venetian gondolieri)? With different arches for different directions?
Honestly, this is all guesswork. But I can imagine something like that to be the case.
bb123 · 7h ago
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.
jgrahamc · 7h ago
Yes! I was disappointed to learn when I graduated with my BA that this oath was no longer required. However, I continue refuse to reconcile with Henry Symeonis. It's only been 800 years, you never know when it might be important. After all, the Anglo-Portuguese is still in force 650 years on!
maratc · 7h ago
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].
"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?
maratc · 7h ago
I think you'd need a couple of "solicitors" -- or maybe even "barristers" -- to decide on that. I'm neither :)
ipsin · 7h ago
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"
The BBC also didn't call it "ancient," which would be questionable considering that the law is from 2012.
alexbilbie · 5h ago
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.
dghf · 7h ago
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 · 6h ago
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.
ianbooker · 8h ago
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".
iainmerrick · 8h ago
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 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.
tlb · 7h ago
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.
bombcar · 6h ago
Why does everyone think it’s something to run into?
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.
woleium · 3h ago
Yes, a bale of hay used to be a warning of something to look out for on the road ahead
raverbashing · 8h ago
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.
tomxor · 7h ago
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.
mnw21cam · 7h ago
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.
potato3732842 · 7h ago
They get ignored because there's a fudge factor built into them.
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.
guerrilla · 8h ago
In case anyone else forgot what that means.
> 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.
theshrike79 · 8h ago
And an additional note: The Van Halen show wasn't a few dudes with guitars and a set of drums going around in a van.
It was a massive display of pyrotechnics and staging - the requirements in the rider weren't there for fun, it was for actual safety.
guerrilla · 5h ago
Are you young? I would think that is common knowledge. No offense, genuinely curious. Sounds like I must be getting old.
gcanyon · 7h ago
There's a further aspect (supposedly): the brown M&Ms was listed in the pre-check conditions, and the contract stated that if any of them were found to not be in compliance then the Van Halen team had the right to force checks on any/all of them for compliance. So if they found the brown M&Ms it gave them the contractual right to demand that other, more impactful, requirements be (re)checked for compliance.
CPLX · 7h ago
You know I’ve seen this explanation a million times for decades and it’s always just a tiny bit wrong.
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
lmm · 6h ago
Roth's own statements in his autobiography ( as quoted on https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-out/ ) contradict that; they were playing in universities and the like that weren't used to hosting big technical band shows and probably didn't have dedicated band promoters in that era.
comrade1234 · 8h ago
I should patent my tennis ball-on-string solution for the same thing.
dismalpedigree · 8h ago
This is why laws should have sunset clauses
philipwhiuk · 7h ago
Giving safety legislation sunset clauses is exceptionally dumb but the level of debate I've come to expect from the 'abolish every regulation because I want more money at the cost of the rest of society crowd' here.
potato3732842 · 5h ago
I think you've unintentionally created a great example of how and why public discourse and lawmaking are so broken.
You invoke "safety" in the same manner that peddlers of all sorts of evil invoke terrorism or think of the children and then you cap it off with a straw man, as if there's serious money to be made with or without this mundane and niche law or comparable ones.
Bridge height postings more or less stand on their own merit and probably don't need laws to continue to exist. The fact that they are legislated at all is mostly a reflection of the fact that the state was the only entity positioned to deal with such an issue when they first became of enough value to be worth doing basically all the time.
os2warpman · 6h ago
Criticizing rationally acting rational actors on hn is discouraged because it is "low value" or "uncivil".
When the rationally acting rational actors are pressed for answers about how their vision of the world would work they tend to reply with either examples from science fiction space fantasy novels or something that is just a simple dictatorship.
In order to add to the conversation you should sprinkle some effusive praise about the AI/Crypto/Fintech/Quantum scam du jour (or criticism of Apple) into your comments to throw them off the scent.
Something like:
"Oh boy I really get what you're saying! Here at my quantum fintech startup we're using LLMs to turboencabulate novertrunnions. By the way did you know that safety regulations are written in blood and after years of working effectively the public may forget why they were implemented in the first place but the underlying issue will just return absent the regulation and a newer generation will just have to rediscover why the regulation was created and that's something we should avoid?"
The initial tease excites the techbro-- they start daydreaming about being a billionaire dictator of a mars colony and that floods their brain with pleasure hormones which lower their defenses.
This leaves a small, but existent, chance that you can hammer some reality into their antisocial brains.
sandworm101 · 7h ago
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.
Ekaros · 7h ago
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.
maratc · 7h ago
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.
johngladtj · 7h ago
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.
potato3732842 · 7h ago
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.
looperhacks · 7h ago
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.
leeoniya · 7h ago
we have a bridge near where i live that can use such a warning crash barrier. you'd think they'd install one after 65 bridge strikes in the last few years. their solution was to build a a stronger bridge, rofl.
i guess at this point it's a cherished tradition :D. there's probably a youtube mashup of all the phone-recorded strikes.
This is a good reminder of how law is actualy created and works, and the what our legal foundations are, including the laws governing our rights and responsibilitys.
The real thing to understand is that all law is arbitrary, and whatever possible balance and measure is included in existing law, and discussions about change and reform are always predicated on some imagined "justice" to be had, but no matter how "just" or logical a law, someone still has to impliment and administer it, and there in lies the trap, so sticking to an ancient precident speaks volumes about the form that those laws will follow, and how to function inside that legal system.
Another recent hint, was an article, here?, about ancient water pumps scattered about greater London, digging there will likely reveal that those pumps have and represent a primary right to water that can not be removed......or ignored...much like the many scattered temples and shrines in Japan where fantastic acomodations in modern building and construction have been made in order to build around, but not over, these structures that have precidence.
If you think religion is bad because it retains useless and even harmful stuff from times long gone, let's see laws in 1000 years.
jajko · 8h ago
Religions are supposed to contain the ultimate immutable absolute truth, passed from creator(s) down to us mere mortals. At least that's what church officially expects from every believer to adhere to.
The fact that most most worshippers make up their tiny little version of their religion (lets call it a sect for a change), where they selectively ignore or minimize those ancient rules and restrictions they don't like is to me hilarious in the worst sense possible. Tells a lot about our human nature since bronze age (and how it didn't change), not much about existence of such deities or some higher meaning to our existence.
But thats me, rationally looking at the world, not indoctrinated since childhood (thank god for such parents!) and simply not understanding the lure of this opium for masses. I could make much better ones on the spot if needed, but why?
andrepd · 7h ago
> and simply not understanding the lure of this opium for masses
I agree with your sentiment, but if you don't understand why religion has the pull it has, then perhaps you're overestimating your capabilities :)
scotty79 · 6h ago
I think the realization what's the pull of religion reveals itself as you experience life.
When I went through grieving after death of a loved one, I've seen so many opportunities for my suffering brain to be highjacked by religious offerings. She still doesn't seem entirely dead to my brain many years after.
krapp · 6h ago
Ironically, reading the context of Marx's quote about religion being an "opium of the masses" would have provided some necessary insight[0]. There's more to it than just being a quippy zing against religion.
"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."
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.
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
"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?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmlrx89jdv2o
(To be precise: where is that accepted practice, rather than aberrant behaviour by some judges?)
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
You invoke "safety" in the same manner that peddlers of all sorts of evil invoke terrorism or think of the children and then you cap it off with a straw man, as if there's serious money to be made with or without this mundane and niche law or comparable ones.
Bridge height postings more or less stand on their own merit and probably don't need laws to continue to exist. The fact that they are legislated at all is mostly a reflection of the fact that the state was the only entity positioned to deal with such an issue when they first became of enough value to be worth doing basically all the time.
When the rationally acting rational actors are pressed for answers about how their vision of the world would work they tend to reply with either examples from science fiction space fantasy novels or something that is just a simple dictatorship.
In order to add to the conversation you should sprinkle some effusive praise about the AI/Crypto/Fintech/Quantum scam du jour (or criticism of Apple) into your comments to throw them off the scent.
Something like:
"Oh boy I really get what you're saying! Here at my quantum fintech startup we're using LLMs to turboencabulate novertrunnions. By the way did you know that safety regulations are written in blood and after years of working effectively the public may forget why they were implemented in the first place but the underlying issue will just return absent the regulation and a newer generation will just have to rediscover why the regulation was created and that's something we should avoid?"
The initial tease excites the techbro-- they start daydreaming about being a billionaire dictator of a mars colony and that floods their brain with pleasure hormones which lower their defenses.
This leaves a small, but existent, chance that you can hammer some reality into their antisocial brains.
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.
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.
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 fact that most most worshippers make up their tiny little version of their religion (lets call it a sect for a change), where they selectively ignore or minimize those ancient rules and restrictions they don't like is to me hilarious in the worst sense possible. Tells a lot about our human nature since bronze age (and how it didn't change), not much about existence of such deities or some higher meaning to our existence.
But thats me, rationally looking at the world, not indoctrinated since childhood (thank god for such parents!) and simply not understanding the lure of this opium for masses. I could make much better ones on the spot if needed, but why?
I agree with your sentiment, but if you don't understand why religion has the pull it has, then perhaps you're overestimating your capabilities :)
When I went through grieving after death of a loved one, I've seen so many opportunities for my suffering brain to be highjacked by religious offerings. She still doesn't seem entirely dead to my brain many years after.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people