The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” • Hacker News Board

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#651

Post by denysvitali » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 9:41 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #198

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…

"obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign"

They basically said to ignore local jurisdiction laws. Depending on where the sign is placed, this might not be so obvious.

If you take the sign rule to the letter, an ambulance is a vehicle and thus cannot enter the park as well.

Police can enter the park, but without a vehicle.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#652

Post by noduerme » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 9:42 AM UTC

lolc wrote: post #621

noduerme wrote: post #612

Unfortunately, "You agreed with the majority: 11%" tells me fucking nothing leaves me with far more questions. 11% of what?

I got 11% too and wondered what it means.

I think it means "thanks for the hits HN, go fly a kite"

[edit] maybe I'm just cynical

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#653

Post by ilyt » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 9:42 AM UTC

jeffrallen wrote: post #570

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Now you're assuming the intent. The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle drivi…

> that's the problem No, that's not the problem. That's human nature, and human nature is most definitely not the problem. Humans make the world we live in and we individually get to influence it, but we don't get a veto on how others influence it. To me, the quiz answers depended on common sense, and I was reminded by it that my common sense is not others' common sense, and so what? That's life. We deal, because the…

Human nature is absolutely the problem, just the one that can't be fixed, just worked around.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#654

Post by sethammons » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 9:46 AM UTC

nitwit005 wrote: post #322

daveoc64 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'd note my local park has such a rule, and the sign has pictures of what are and are not allowed, including a picture of a drone. What happens if the sign in your park was made in 1995, when drones, electric scooters, and electric bikes didn't exist or were not commonly used? It's not possible to list every possible vehicle in existence, and to keep such a list updated. There are all sorts of weird things like elec…

What happens is they have to update a sign every couple of decades.

Taxes

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#655

Post by ilyt » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 9:46 AM UTC

tetha wrote: post #606

Qwertious wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. I answered that the police and ambulances were obviously breaking the rules, because they are. The difference is that ambulances/police are allowed to break the rules in an emergency - famously, ambulances have a legal ri…

You just made me look up the rules in germany. The wording is somewhat particular. "An emergency vehicle following a higher cause can invoke special rights ("Sonderrechte") indicated by blue flashing lights. These special rights authorize the driver of the vehicle to divert from the regular traffic laws as long as done safely." Interestingly, this is separate from the "Right of the way", which can be ordered on top u…

> which can be ordered on top using a siren. This is why they need to run the siren for 2ish seconds before running a red light for example.

Pretty sure that's because people need time to notice the siren and take appropriate action, not because of some rule

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#656

Post by nailer » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 9:46 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #198

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…

I may have answered differently from you (I would say the police violated the rule) but I think we actually agree on the point that the rules do not apply to emergency workers. In essence, the data collected isn’t reflective of peoples actual attitudes.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#657

Post by noduerme » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 9:48 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #198

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…

I think it's more intended to be a proof of how people have a difficult time applying clear-cut rules without relying on their prior biases. That (conceptually) is a really good exercise and one that we could all benefit from. The implementation, explanation and result transparency otoh, are garbage.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#658

Post by mnw21cam » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 9:48 AM UTC

denysvitali wrote: post #651

crazygringo wrote: post #198

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…

"obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign" They basically said to ignore local jurisdiction laws. Depending on where the sign is placed, this might not be so obvious. If you take the sign rule to the letter, an ambulance is a vehicle and thus cannot enter the park as well. Police can enter the park, but without a vehicle.

I'll argue that the police can enter the park with their vehicles, but they'll be violating the rule when they do so.

But if we're ignoring local rules and the only question is whether or not they would be violating the rules, then yes they would be, and whether they can anyway is out of scope.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#659

Post by ilyt » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 9:48 AM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #490

carstenhag wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, even there for me it's rather a "firefighters/police have an exemption to the rules". For you it's "firefighters/police are breaking the rule but it's fine".

Except the blurb at the start clearly says there are no exemptions. The only rule is "no vehicles in the park". So all you're judging is 1.) is it a vehicle? and 2.) is it in the park?

Yup, without clarification the rule might be there because any vehicle might just be immediately stuck in the terrain. Or hit a landmine. The assumption of course is that it is just a normal park

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#660

Post by laurentlb » Sat, Jun 24, 2023, 9:51 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #198

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…

To me, a bike is clearly a vehicle. To double-check, I've searched for "list of vehicles" on Google, all the lists I have seen include bikes in them (and I didn't expect anyone to disagree with this).