A persistent, though likely apocryphal, story claims an ancient law mandates a bale of hay (sometimes straw) be hung from Charing Cross railway bridge. This supposed law is often linked to a public execution or a builder's compensation for lost river access due to the bridge's construction. However, no evidence supports the existence of such a law, and its origins likely lie in humorous speculation and urban legend. The story's longevity is attributed to its amusing and intriguing nature, even without factual basis.
Transport for London (TfL) issued a trademark complaint, forcing the removal of live London Underground and bus maps hosted on traintimes.org.uk. The site owner, frustrated by TfL's own subpar map offerings, had created these real-time maps as a personal project, intending them for personal use and a small group of friends. While acknowledging TfL's right to protect its trademark, the author expressed disappointment, especially given the lack of comparable functionality in TfL's official maps and their stated intention to avoid competing with the official offerings.
Hacker News users discussed TfL's trademark complaint leading to the takedown of the independent live tube map. Several commenters expressed frustration with TfL's perceived heavy-handedness and lack of an official, equally good alternative. Some suggested the creator could have avoided the takedown by simply rebranding or subtly altering the design. Others debated the merits of trademark law and the fairness of TfL's actions, considering whether the map constituted fair use. A few users questioned the project's long-term viability due to the reliance on scraping potentially unstable data sources. The prevalent sentiment was disappointment at the loss of a useful tool due to what many considered an overzealous application of trademark law.
Summary of Comments ( 125 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44060156
HN commenters discuss the curious law requiring a bale of hay to hang from Charing Cross bridge. Several express skepticism about the veracity of the "ancient law," with one pointing out the bridge's relatively young age (1864) and suggesting the story is likely apocryphal, perhaps a humorous anecdote started by a construction worker. Others question the practicality and safety of such a law, wondering about the frequency of replacement and potential fire hazard. The overall sentiment leans towards amusement and disbelief, with some appreciating the quirky nature of the story even if untrue. Some commenters also explore the possibility of it being a "jest" inserted into a contract or planning document, rather than an actual enforceable law.
The Hacker News post titled "Ancient law requires a bale of straw to hang from Charing Cross rail bridge" has generated a moderate number of comments, most of which express skepticism about the veracity of the "ancient law" claim made in the linked article. Several commenters delve into the history of the bridge and surrounding area, offering alternative explanations for the presence of hay bales.
One of the most compelling comments points out the lack of any corroborating evidence for such a law, suggesting the story is likely apocryphal or a misinterpretation of historical practices. This commenter highlights the absence of any mention of this law in historical records or legal texts, arguing that if such a peculiar law existed, it would likely be well-documented. They propose that the story might have originated from a local tradition or a humorous anecdote that has been taken too literally.
Another commenter speculates that the hay bales might have been used for practical purposes, such as erosion control or as a temporary barrier during construction or maintenance work on the bridge. This practical explanation contrasts sharply with the more whimsical notion of an ancient legal requirement.
Several commenters also discuss the challenges of verifying historical information and the prevalence of misinformation online. They emphasize the importance of critical thinking and seeking reliable sources before accepting claims as factual. One commenter even jokingly suggests the "law" might be a clever marketing ploy by local hay farmers.
While some commenters entertain the possibility of the law being real, most express doubt and call for more substantial evidence. The overall tone of the comments is one of healthy skepticism, with users engaging in reasoned discussion and offering alternative explanations for the presence of hay bales on the bridge. No one presents definitive proof disproving the original article's claim, but the lack of supporting evidence and the plausibility of alternative explanations lead most commenters to believe the story is likely untrue.