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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.